The alt right - Mod Warning in OP

midnight city

oscarBravo wrote: »

Really.

Not that it would matter if I had; individuals can say all sorts of stupid things. The fact that someone may have claimed that black people can't be racist against white people doesn't negate the message of BLM, no matter how utterly desperate some people are to negate that message at all costs.

Because, let's face it, there doesn't seem to be a shortage of people who only too eager to reject out of hand the idea that black lives matter. Framing that rejection in empty truisms like "all lives matter" is just a way of saying "no, black lives don't matter" while still managing superficially not to look blatantly racist.

Who kills the most blacks in America, hint it's not the cops and it's not aul whitey. Yet who do BLM target their anger at.

marienbad

Yourself isit wrote: »

Really?

I remember reading a few books and articles years ago along those lines . Please don't ask me to link to them as I wouldn't have clue how to find them now .

But they were all part of the expending and exploring theology of the black experience in not just the USA but the western world in general .You could actually find a similar arc in jewish literature on the Holocaust - going from initial shame through acceptance to resistance . I am sure you could find the same on the Irish Famine or the Armenian Genocide

It is interesting that at every stage the 'perpetrators ' for want of a better word resisted this enquiry and always at the end said ok ok we recognise your pain etc etc , apologies - is that not enough for you blah blah blah .

But to your point -it was out of these inquiries that ideas like compensation for slave descendants/ rejection of slave names and religion / and the notion that all white people were inherently racist and that black people were not .

But these were discussions papers and have to be taken in the totality . The notion was the if the prevailing power was White then it was impossible being brought up in that world not to be racist and that those at the bottom of the pile being racist in return was just a meaningless idea given the balance of power.

The imbalance is so vast that the notion is laughable or so the argument went ( if I remember correctly ) Made a big impression on me anyway

The same of course would have applied to Irish Catholics in the 19th century , or Christians in China today .

marienbad

midnight city wrote: »

We are talking about the west. The subject is the alt right. They are not in the countries you mention.

So where are these left wing authoritarians in the west then ? Una Mulally ?

midnight city

marienbad wrote: »

So where are these left wing authoritarians in the west then ? Una Mulally ?

They are to be found in campuses all over America for a start.

marienbad

midnight city wrote: »

They are to be found in campuses all over America for a start.

Your argument is dead in the water right there !

Of the following who do you think has the most power ?

Yourself isit

marienbad wrote: »

I remember reading a few books and articles years ago along those lines . Please don't ask me to link to them as I wouldn't have clue how to find them now .

But they were all part of the expending and exploring theology of the black experience in not just the USA but the western world in general .You could actually find a similar arc in jewish literature on the Holocaust - going from initial shame through acceptance to resistance . I am sure you could find the same on the Irish Famine or the Armenian Genocide

It is interesting that at every stage the 'perpetrators ' for want of a better word resisted this enquiry and always at the end said ok ok we recognise your pain etc etc , apologies - is that not enough for you blah blah blah .

But to your point -it was out of these inquiries that ideas like compensation for slave descendants/ rejection of slave names and religion / and the notion that all white people were inherently racist and that black people were not .

But these were discussions papers and have to be taken in the totality . The notion was the if the prevailing power was White then it was impossible being brought up in that world not to be racist and that those at the bottom of the pile being racist in return was just a meaningless idea given the balance of power.

The imbalance is so vast that the notion is laughable or so the argument went ( if I remember correctly ) Made a big impression on me anyway

The same of course would have applied to Irish Catholics in the 19th century , or Christians in China today .

I've no idea what any of that means.

JoeyPeeps

Does anyone know who Eire Calling is? He seems to be the leading member of the Irish Alt Right.

Yourself isit

The ideology of white privilege or supremacism as promoted by American universities insists that racism is both prejudice and power. So blacks can't in fact be racist.

marienbad

Yourself isit wrote: »

I've no idea what any of that means.

It was supportive ( partially ) of your answer to Oscar Bravo .

marienbad

Yourself isit wrote: »

The ideology of white privilege or supremacism as promoted by American universities insists that racism is both prejudice and power. So blacks can't in fact be racist.

SO you did understand me after all !:)

hatrickpatrick

20Cent wrote: »

Did she say it shouldn't have been published at all or in the Irish Times?
Difference there.
People expect a high degree of truthfulness from that paper.

Explain which part of the article was factually incorrect?

Should an opinion piece advising parents not to vaccinate their children be published?
Old people shouldn't bother with flu shots?

If they are clearly marked as opinion pieces rather than factual stories, sure.

How about advertisements disguised as stories.

Again, if they are clearly marked as sponsored or promoted content, sure. I'm pretty sure the IT already has these, btw.

Not as straightforward as "shutting down" or censorship.
More about quality.

So the opinions of an unpopular group are automatically low quality? Got it.

hatrickpatrick

Brian? wrote: »

You seem to see any type of editorial bias as censorship. I disagree. Publishing an article means that the editor of a newspaper has given tacit approval or at a bare minimum agreed that it's contents are intellectually robust.

Absolutely disagree. Publishing something does not indicate approval or agreement. As for intellectually robust, how are you defining this?

In your vision of a world free of editorial bias, all ideas will hold equal validity and worth. This simply isn't the case though. An article praising Hitler's dealings with the Jews doesn't deserve to be published by the Irish Times and I'm happy for the editor to dismiss it as not worth publishing.

While I disagree, it's irrelevant in this case - this article wasn't praising or criticising anything, it was an objective glossary. Una Mullally and her ilk literally object to any acknowledgement of this growing political movement by "polite society" at all, and that's what I object to.

There is no right to free speech in Ireland, unlike the US. There are hate speech laws that already prohibit publishing some types of opinion. I wouldn't like to see it changed.

That's your view. Personally I'd much prefer to see an absolute right to freedom of opinion, and freedom to oppress those opinions. In my view, anything less means we do not live in a properly free society.

Yourself isit

marienbad wrote: »

SO you did understand me after all !:)

I'm not agreeing with that though. I don't think that power is entirely structural. And monolithic. It's multifaceted and largely class, not identity, based.

So a black boss can discriminate against a white employee and can be racist. In the case under discussion the white guy is clearly powerless as he is tied up.

On the other hand a black man calling his boss honky isn't much to worry about. What identity politics misses it that class and nationality trump race in most cases (see Oj). That said even rich black Americans have to worry about the police.

hatrickpatrick

20Cent wrote: »

Folks freedom of speech refers to freedom from government interference.

It doesn't have to. Especially not in todays world where large, private content platforms are the gatekeepers of access to information.

It doesn't mean everyone has to listen to your speech and not criticise or reply to it.

Nobody is suggesting that, this is a disingenuous comeback - criticising and advocating for censoring are two entirely different concepts, and the difference is in no way difficult to understand. "I disagree with this" and "this should not be published" are two entirely different statements, and every time I see this "freedom from criticism" rebuttal I'm afraid I tend to assume deliberate obfuscation.

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

I won't deny that it's blowback, but the idea that black people should have just shut up and accepted that they were disproportionately victims of police violence is abhorrent. If you're fighting for equality in the context of gross inequality, it's not "idiotic" to point out that you are disproportionately disadvantaged. I probably should have read this far before replying.

Sorry but what? I'm not sure if you understood my post, I'm objecting to double standards and nothing more. Of course fighting racism is right and proper, and indeed something I and I'd hope most people here would applaud. It's fighting racism while also saying "by the way, my demographic means I can be racist towards you and get away with it, because privilege blah blah blah" that's obnoxious, and deliberate baiting.

I have never - not once, ever, in my entire life - seen the claim that a black person can't be racist against a white person. Maybe you have, but I very much doubt that you can substantiate the bizarre and egregious claim that the "regressive left" (a loaded and meaningless term if there ever was one) has collectively made such a claim.

Most recent example (and this came from an EQUALITY OFFICER in the college for f*ck's sake):

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/university-equality-officer-who-allegedly-6584648

Ms Mustafa claimed that she could not be guilty of sexism or racism against white men "because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender and therefore women of colour and minority genders cannot be racist or sexist, since we do not stand to benefit from such a system."

Look at feminist forums all over the internet and you will find similar idiot re-definitions of "isms" to only include "non privileged" demographics (and by extension, make it fair game to spew hatred against whites, males etc) has been endemic over the last few years. Spend any amount of time on a college campus and you'll be bombarded by it. All of Reddit's feminist-aligned forums make this claim openly, and they are arguably the largest and most influential such communities on the entire internet.

The idea that BLM was responsible for this abhorrent hate crime is a bare-faced lie - and it's only made worse by self-styled "reasonable" people arguing that if black people would only shut up about their very real problems, they wouldn't have to worry about backlash from racists.

When did I ever claim any of this? BLM has nothing to do with the crime. I'm simply saying that the above sentiment (white people cannot be victims of hate crime, because privilege) is why some on the alt-right seem to be happy that a white person has been a demonstrable victim of hate crime. It gives them ammunition against the regressive left. Personally I find it vile that anybody would celebrate an act of violence like this because it helps them to score political points, but I can still understand why it's happening.

Palmach

marienbad wrote: »

So where are these left wing authoritarians in the west then ? Una Mulally ?

She is an authoritarian leftist.

marienbad

Yourself isit wrote: »

I'm not agreeing with that though. I don't think that power is entirely structural. And monolithic. It's multifaceted and largely class, not identity, based.

So a black boss can discriminate against a white employee and can be racist. In the case under discussion the white guy is clearly powerless as he is tied up.

On the other hand a black man calling his boss honky isn't much to worry about. What identity politics misses it that class and nationality trump race in most cases (see Oj). That said even rich black Americans have to worry about the police.

I wouldn't disagree with too much of that . I think that over time it becomes identity based as well though .

So you end up with catholic working class and protestant working class at odds with each other in Northern Ireland for example .

marienbad

Palmach wrote: »

She is an authoritarian leftist.

Be afraid , be very afraid !

20Cent

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Explain which part of the article was factually incorrect?

It doesn't mention white supremacy anywhere. Bit like talking about Neil Armstrong and not mentioning the moon.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If they are clearly marked as opinion pieces rather than factual stories, sure.

Well I wouldn't, expect higher quality information in the Irish Times.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Again, if they are clearly marked as sponsored or promoted content, sure. I'm pretty sure the IT already has these, btw.

Think they are as well. Yes it is important to distinguish news from advertising.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So the opinions of an unpopular group are automatically low quality? Got it.

Not at all. If you went into a posh restaurant and they served you a microwaved lasagna you'd complain also. Would expect anything in the Irish times to be of a higher quality. If I want to read trash I'd buy the daily mail or one of them.

hatrickpatrick

20Cent wrote: »

It doesn't mention white supremacy anywhere. Bit like talking about Neil Armstrong and not mentioning the moon.

Well I wouldn't, expect higher quality information in the Irish Times.

That's fair enough - if you simply believe that the article omitted certain important facts, that's an entirely fair criticism. Had the article included an explainer on white supremacy within the alt right, would you then have dropped your objection to its publication? If so, your argument is entirely different to that of Mullally and the regressive left, who simply believe that certain ideologies should be silenced.

Think they are as well. Yes it is important to distinguish news from advertising.

Absolutely. Just as it's important to distinguish opinion from fact.

Not at all. If you went into a posh restaurant and they served you a microwaved lasagna you'd complain also. Would expect anything in the Irish times to be of a higher quality. If I want to read trash I'd buy the daily mail or one of them.

Again, how exactly is the article trash? Nobody so far has succeeded in justifying this. "It doesn't openly condemn an ideology I do not agree with as opposed to remaining impartial as a newspaper should" is not a valid criticism of the article's quality. Factual errors, or omissions as you have outlined above, are valid criticisms.

RDM_83 again

marienbad wrote: »

How can you seriously post this ??? Virtually every country in the democratic western world has moved to the right in the last 20 years , some of them seriously so .

Thats not really true for the discussion we are having here though. Economically there has been a movement to the right but socially there has been a movement to the left.
Whats considered hard socially right now would have been a centrist/center right position 2 or 3 decades ago.
A really good example is Chancellor Kohl, hailed as one of the great centerist european politicians sought to deport half the Turkish population, thats a position that would be labelled as far right populism today yet people on the social left think that the voting public has moved socially right when in reality its that the polite dialogue has moved to a social left.

marienbad

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Thats not really true for the discussion we are having here though. Economically there has been a movement to the right but socially there has been a movement to the left.
Whats considered hard socially right now would have been a centrist/center right position 2 or 3 decades ago.
A really good example is Chancellor Kohl, hailed as one of the great centerist european politicians sought to deport half the Turkish population, thats a position that would be labelled as far right populism today yet people on the social left think that the voting public has moved socially right when in reality its that the polite dialogue has moved to a social left.

dialogue might have moved left but power has moved right .

RDM_83 again

marienbad wrote: »

dialogue might have moved left but power has moved right .

Not at all, power has moved to free market globalism morally justified by left wing internationalist thinking, the backlash against this is has far less power, Le Pen's campaign is in serious financial difficulty a similar movement on the social left would be hitting up sources of funding like George Soros and other mega wealthy globalist social liberals rather than having to beg to Putin.

marienbad

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Not at all, power has moved to free market globalism morally justified by left wing internationalist thinking, the backlash against this is has far less power, Le Pen's campaign is in serious financial difficulty a similar movement on the social left would be hitting up sources of funding like George Soros and other mega wealthy globalist social liberals rather than having to beg to Putin.

social liberalism is a different kettle of fish to financial liberalism .

it reality social liberalism is just a vast talking shop amidst a shift in real power to the right .

RDM_83 again

marienbad wrote: »

social liberalism is a different kettle of fish to financial liberalism .

it reality social liberalism is just a vast talking shop amidst a shift in real power to the right .

But social liberalism is used to give a philosophical justification for globalist financial liberalism e.g financial liberalism benefits from increased migration of lower skilled workers as it reduces labor costs and workers rights due to increased competition which hits the bottom 5-10% of society, social liberalism justifies this with the idea of open borders/internationalism/one world type thinking and the labeling of criticism as racism.

marienbad

RDM_83 again wrote: »

But social liberalism is used to give a philosophical justification for globalist financial liberalism e.g financial liberalism benefits from increased migration of lower skilled workers as it reduces labor costs and workers rights due to increased competition which hits the bottom 5-10% of society, social liberalism justifies this with the idea of open borders/internationalism/one world type thinking and the labeling of criticism as racism.

Really I don't know about this . Liberalism can see to mean anything one wants it to mean these days .

Jan_de_Bakker

oscarBravo wrote: »

Really.

Not that it would matter if I had; individuals can say all sorts of stupid things. The fact that someone may have claimed that black people can't be racist against white people doesn't negate the message of BLM, no matter how utterly desperate some people are to negate that message at all costs.

Because, let's face it, there doesn't seem to be a shortage of people who only too eager to reject out of hand the idea that black lives matter. Framing that rejection in empty truisms like "all lives matter" is just a way of saying "no, black lives don't matter" while still managing superficially not to look blatantly racist.

Come on now , you can't say someone who says all lives matter is racist !
All lives matter literally means "all lives matter" black lives included.

What people don't like about BLM is the thuggery it attracts, look at the dallas cops that were murdered, look at one of the relatives of someone killed (by a black cop incidentally) saying "All white people are the devil" - imagine that were reversed the outrage by the main stream media ?
The founder of BLM is on the FBI's most wanted list, is a cop killer ...
...


The problem is one of police brutality, white people get shot too, just the MSM won't cover it.

And yes I am aware of the disproportionate amount of black men getting shot by police, but unfortunately this is due to the disproportionate amount involved in crime - also a result of social inequality in the US.

marienbad

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

?
The founder of BLM is on the FBI's most wanted list, is a cop killer ... ...


.

Is this correct ? no mention here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter

NP33

From what I can gather the average alt-right follower seems to be projecting massively. They are obsessed with beta males and cucks yet a large portion of their base come from the PUA community. I don't think its a stretch to contend that the average male that has to sign up to an internet forum to learn how to talk to a woman is probably not an alpha male and is much more likely to be cucked. Something tells me that their obsession with not being a beta male and their inherent misogyny is largely a result of knowing this uncomfortable truth deep down.

They contend that the straight, white male is under attack but in reality they just seem to be weak individuals. They obsess about guns because they can't stand up for themselves, they hate latinos and blacks because they can't compete with them, they despise women because they can't talk to them. They are angry and want someone to blame for their own failings because they can't accept the truth. The reality is that being a white male is inherently easier than being black, being a woman or being gay. They have no excuse for their shortcomings on the basis of their race and gender and they definitely have no justification for blaming their shortcomings on other races and genders.

The whole movement is just pathetic. Weak individuals who are scared of their own shadows trying desperately to appear tough and edgy convincing themselves that they face prejudice and that everyone but themselves is to blame for their lives.

In reality all they want is a bottle of a milk and a hug and to be told everything is going to be ok. Donald Trump couldn't have been a better fit for them, not only does he make empty promises that he will fix literally everything and make everything great again he also shares the belief that immigrants, minorities, 'liberals' are to blame for every woe in American society.


FYI: 'Hillbilly Elegy' by JD Vance is an incredible book on this topic. It doesn't mention Trump or the alt-right but it explains why these sort of movements are becoming so popular in white working class America. I would recommend to anyone.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

BLM has nothing to do with the crime.

Duh. Maybe if you had opened with that, instead of with what was in effect a justification for the egregious conflation of BLM with the crime, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I'm simply saying that the above sentiment (white people cannot be victims of hate crime, because privilege) is why some on the alt-right seem to be happy that a white person has been a demonstrable victim of hate crime.

That sentiment is almost totally fictional. True, you've been able to find examples of people who believe it - but I can find all sorts of examples of all sorts of idiots believing all sorts of nonsense, none of which gives anyone an excuse for being a hateful idiot in response.

It gives them ammunition against the regressive left.

They don't need ammunition. And if you will insist on using a stupid phrase like "regressive left", would you at least have the courtesy to define it?

Personally I find it vile that anybody would celebrate an act of violence like this because it helps them to score political points, but I can still understand why it's happening.

I can understand why it's happening too: there are people vile enough to celebrate an act of violence because it helps them to score political points. That's all you need to know. When you start finding extreme examples of silliness and using them as justification for vile behaviour (all the while claiming you're not justifying it), you're becoming part of the problem.

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

Come on now , you can't say someone who says all lives matter is racist !
All lives matter literally means "all lives matter" black lives included.

Yeah, that's the rationalisation. It's built on a categorical refusal to understand what the phrase "black lives matter" means.

I'll explain it to you, not because I think you're open-minded, but because I don't want to give you the cover of pretending not to understand: the phrase "black lives matter" is itself a response to the belief that black lives don't matter, or that black lives matter less. It's shorthand for "black lives matter too", or "black lives matter as much as everyone else's".

When someone counters "black lives matter" with "all lives matter", it's a contradiction. It's not intended to be inclusive: witness the many situations where Trump supporters were asked to agree that black lives matter, and refused to say it: they alway countered with "all lives matter".

So, while on the face of it it's designed with the clever pretence of inclusiveness, when it's used as a retort to "black lives matter", in fact it's a rebuttal: "all lives matter, to the extent that that's apparently the case today".

What people don't like about BLM is the thuggery it attracts...

When you start rejecting Trump and his ilk out of hand because of the thuggery he attracts, come back to me.

What people don't like about BLM is that it confronts them with the idea that black lives matter less, and that's not something they're either not prepared to admit to, or not prepared to admitting to being comfortable with.

The founder of BLM is on the FBI's most wanted list, is a cop killer ...

That's not true. I wonder if you believe it, or if it's a lie that you're repeating uncritically because it suits your argument?

The problem is one of police brutality, white people get shot too, just the MSM won't cover it.

Yes, the problem is one of police brutality. The problem is also that black people are disproportionately victims of police brutality, which gives rise to the idea that black lives don't matter as much as white - a belief that you're doing your damnedest to promote.

And yes I am aware of the disproportionate amount of black men getting shot by police, but unfortunately this is due to the disproportionate amount involved in crime...

No, it's not - and even if it was, why aren't you asking why a disproportionate number of black people are involved in crime?

The alt-right white supremacist explanation is that black people are inherently criminal. The "regressive left" view, I guess, is that black people are stuck in a poverty trap that's the result of a systemically racist society.