|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 30 2016 05:22 Evotroid wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2016 04:48 xDaunt wrote:On September 30 2016 04:31 Evotroid wrote:On September 30 2016 04:21 xDaunt wrote:On September 30 2016 03:55 Dan HH wrote:On September 30 2016 03:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Wonder what the people that were arguing here that the alt-right isn't racist think about what those speakers Again, it depends upon your definition of "alt right." Interestingly enough, there appears to be quite a battle going on between the racist and non-racist elements of the alt right over control of the "alt right brand" and "alt right movement." Long story short, the alt right is quite fluid right now. Where/how can one observe this battle? I am serious, I only see the alt-right through what comes through this topic, but I would be interested to see the "battlegrounds" so to say (It was also interesting seeing world war bernie on the dem side until the great saltening) If you want to see the perspective of the racist elements (as in true Nazis), go look at this article at The Daily Stormer. If you want to see the perspective of the more moderate elements, look at this post (and the comments) in Vox Day's blog. First of all, thanks for the reply, It is eye opening. I started with the Vox article as I believed it was the underrepresented side in the topic. It was let's say very interesting, though not that very informative on what exactly the author think is the true alt right.
You should look through some of the rest of his posts if you want to get a good bead on his actual perspective. I mostly linked that particular post because it illustrates the rift. Hell, he's calling the opposition #alt retard (not that I disagree with his assessment).
But then the daily-stormer (and here my attention quickly slipped to the sidebar "a normies guide to the alt-right") got me suspecting, did you link that site in jest? as in, because you know I am pretty liberal, and just to troll me?
Half the article reads like the encyclopedia dramatica with bits of onion in it. If not, then that site paints a pretty bad picture of the alt-right? Like, trump bad.
No, it's not in jest. The alt right has its own lexicon, and many alt right posters are provocative by design.
|
On September 30 2016 05:13 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2016 04:53 xDaunt wrote:On September 30 2016 04:44 Dan HH wrote:On September 30 2016 04:21 xDaunt wrote:On September 30 2016 03:55 Dan HH wrote:Wonder what the people that were arguing here that the alt-right isn't racist think about what those speakers Again, it depends upon your definition of "alt right." Interestingly enough, there appears to be quite a battle going on between the racist and non-racist elements of the alt right over control of the "alt right brand" and "alt right movement." Long story short, the alt right is quite fluid right now. While it's not a homogeneous movement by any means, I'm not aware of a single alt-right community that rejects racism. In fact, racism (the self professed kind, not the kind where you argue whether it really is racism or not) is the one element that is persistent between all the places that call themselves 'alt-right', from /r/the_donald to /pol/ to Breitbart comments to The Right Stuff to Daily Stormer and the likes. I guess it depends upon how you define "racism." If you go by Vox Day's dichotomy of the alt right, there's the "alt west" and the "alt white." Alt west cares about culture. Alt white cares about (white) race. In my opinion, the alt west movement isn't racist (it's race neutral), but anyone who adopts one of those over-expansive definitions of racism that I railed against a week or so ago may disagree on that point. Yeah... except racism has precisely long been revamped around culture, if only to be more acceptable. Biological racialism and antisemitism have been completely shunned by the contemporary standards, so racist ideologies had to evolve and “reinvente themselves”. In France this is partly how the Front National rose; its new leader put under the carpet the most crude/obvious stuff that the former one was still saying (“I believe in unequal races” etc.), and now uses the language of “culture”: our culture and values are radically, fundamentally incompatible with such people (who can't be assimilated, etc.) and such religion, follow my eyes... Targets the same people, but avoids all drawbacks associated with racism 1.0, especially historical links to nazis or fascists. Racialism is actually an obsolete language, it's a ghost from the XIXth century; clever racists moved on the new, much more profitable battleground: culture/civilization.
I get your point, but (and to the extent that you're doing this) labeling critiques and defenses of culture (including criticisms of multiculturalism) as racist is reductive, boring, and -- quite frankly -- dangerous.
|
“They are provocative with their ironic racism, which looks almost exactly like the real racism that exists within the alt-right. Only the most experiences members can tell the real racists from those just attempting to provoke.”
The master plan for racist to hide in plain sight, what if we took shitposting and made it a national platform.
|
On September 30 2016 05:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2016 05:13 TheDwf wrote:On September 30 2016 04:53 xDaunt wrote:On September 30 2016 04:44 Dan HH wrote:On September 30 2016 04:21 xDaunt wrote:On September 30 2016 03:55 Dan HH wrote:Wonder what the people that were arguing here that the alt-right isn't racist think about what those speakers Again, it depends upon your definition of "alt right." Interestingly enough, there appears to be quite a battle going on between the racist and non-racist elements of the alt right over control of the "alt right brand" and "alt right movement." Long story short, the alt right is quite fluid right now. While it's not a homogeneous movement by any means, I'm not aware of a single alt-right community that rejects racism. In fact, racism (the self professed kind, not the kind where you argue whether it really is racism or not) is the one element that is persistent between all the places that call themselves 'alt-right', from /r/the_donald to /pol/ to Breitbart comments to The Right Stuff to Daily Stormer and the likes. I guess it depends upon how you define "racism." If you go by Vox Day's dichotomy of the alt right, there's the "alt west" and the "alt white." Alt west cares about culture. Alt white cares about (white) race. In my opinion, the alt west movement isn't racist (it's race neutral), but anyone who adopts one of those over-expansive definitions of racism that I railed against a week or so ago may disagree on that point. Yeah... except racism has precisely long been revamped around culture, if only to be more acceptable. Biological racialism and antisemitism have been completely shunned by the contemporary standards, so racist ideologies had to evolve and “reinvente themselves”. In France this is partly how the Front National rose; its new leader put under the carpet the most crude/obvious stuff that the former one was still saying (“I believe in unequal races” etc.), and now uses the language of “culture”: our culture and values are radically, fundamentally incompatible with such people (who can't be assimilated, etc.) and such religion, follow my eyes... Targets the same people, but avoids all drawbacks associated with racism 1.0, especially historical links to nazis or fascists. Racialism is actually an obsolete language, it's a ghost from the XIXth century; clever racists moved on the new, much more profitable battleground: culture/civilization. I get your point, but (and to the extent that you're doing this) labeling critiques and defenses of culture (including criticisms of multiculturalism) as racist is reductive, boring, and -- quite frankly -- dangerous.
It is not so reductive as you might think, because crude racism underpins virtually all these alt-right arguments about culture.
|
On September 30 2016 06:00 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2016 05:54 xDaunt wrote:On September 30 2016 05:13 TheDwf wrote:On September 30 2016 04:53 xDaunt wrote:On September 30 2016 04:44 Dan HH wrote:On September 30 2016 04:21 xDaunt wrote:On September 30 2016 03:55 Dan HH wrote:Wonder what the people that were arguing here that the alt-right isn't racist think about what those speakers Again, it depends upon your definition of "alt right." Interestingly enough, there appears to be quite a battle going on between the racist and non-racist elements of the alt right over control of the "alt right brand" and "alt right movement." Long story short, the alt right is quite fluid right now. While it's not a homogeneous movement by any means, I'm not aware of a single alt-right community that rejects racism. In fact, racism (the self professed kind, not the kind where you argue whether it really is racism or not) is the one element that is persistent between all the places that call themselves 'alt-right', from /r/the_donald to /pol/ to Breitbart comments to The Right Stuff to Daily Stormer and the likes. I guess it depends upon how you define "racism." If you go by Vox Day's dichotomy of the alt right, there's the "alt west" and the "alt white." Alt west cares about culture. Alt white cares about (white) race. In my opinion, the alt west movement isn't racist (it's race neutral), but anyone who adopts one of those over-expansive definitions of racism that I railed against a week or so ago may disagree on that point. Yeah... except racism has precisely long been revamped around culture, if only to be more acceptable. Biological racialism and antisemitism have been completely shunned by the contemporary standards, so racist ideologies had to evolve and “reinvente themselves”. In France this is partly how the Front National rose; its new leader put under the carpet the most crude/obvious stuff that the former one was still saying (“I believe in unequal races” etc.), and now uses the language of “culture”: our culture and values are radically, fundamentally incompatible with such people (who can't be assimilated, etc.) and such religion, follow my eyes... Targets the same people, but avoids all drawbacks associated with racism 1.0, especially historical links to nazis or fascists. Racialism is actually an obsolete language, it's a ghost from the XIXth century; clever racists moved on the new, much more profitable battleground: culture/civilization. I get your point, but (and to the extent that you're doing this) labeling critiques and defenses of culture (including criticisms of multiculturalism) as racist is reductive, boring, and -- quite frankly -- dangerous. It is not so reductive as you might think, because crude racism underpins virtually all these alt-right arguments about culture.
While true, it's also true that an expansive definition of racism is used to dismiss more genuine arguments about culture by implying that they are all just closet racists.
|
On September 30 2016 05:13 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2016 04:53 xDaunt wrote:On September 30 2016 04:44 Dan HH wrote:On September 30 2016 04:21 xDaunt wrote:On September 30 2016 03:55 Dan HH wrote:Wonder what the people that were arguing here that the alt-right isn't racist think about what those speakers Again, it depends upon your definition of "alt right." Interestingly enough, there appears to be quite a battle going on between the racist and non-racist elements of the alt right over control of the "alt right brand" and "alt right movement." Long story short, the alt right is quite fluid right now. While it's not a homogeneous movement by any means, I'm not aware of a single alt-right community that rejects racism. In fact, racism (the self professed kind, not the kind where you argue whether it really is racism or not) is the one element that is persistent between all the places that call themselves 'alt-right', from /r/the_donald to /pol/ to Breitbart comments to The Right Stuff to Daily Stormer and the likes. I guess it depends upon how you define "racism." If you go by Vox Day's dichotomy of the alt right, there's the "alt west" and the "alt white." Alt west cares about culture. Alt white cares about (white) race. In my opinion, the alt west movement isn't racist (it's race neutral), but anyone who adopts one of those over-expansive definitions of racism that I railed against a week or so ago may disagree on that point. Yeah... except racism has precisely long been revamped around culture, if only to be more acceptable. Biological racialism and antisemitism have been completely shunned by the contemporary standards, so racist ideologies had to evolve and “reinvente themselves”. In France this is partly how the Front National rose; its new leader put under the carpet the most crude/obvious stuff that the former one was still saying (“I believe in unequal races” etc.), and now uses the language of “culture”: our culture and values are radically, fundamentally incompatible with such people (who can't be assimilated, etc.) and such religion, follow my eyes... Targets the same people, but avoids all drawbacks associated with racism 1.0, especially historical links to nazis or fascists. Racialism is actually an obsolete language, it's a ghost from the XIXth century; clever racists moved on the new, much more profitable battleground: culture/civilization.
Or maybe a growing segment of the population realized years spent neglecting cultural assimilation yielded a very broken and divided society. The current parties were appealed to and rejected incorporating policy to redress the issue. So smart parties lying at the fringe brought them into the fold for electoral progress.
It doesn't have to be a sinister racist conspiracy. I find the idea laughable. Society has enough cultural collapse seen in a myriad of social issues. Citizens now attuned to those issues and agitating for change (Trump being a poor leader and speaker in that regard) absolutely dwarf any unrepentant skinhead types from the twentieth century. But that won't stop politicians like Hillary who want the votes of both cops and BLM to racialize the issue. She needs a very despised "them" for "us versus them" as a wedge.
|
On September 30 2016 06:02 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2016 06:00 Grumbels wrote:On September 30 2016 05:54 xDaunt wrote:On September 30 2016 05:13 TheDwf wrote:On September 30 2016 04:53 xDaunt wrote:On September 30 2016 04:44 Dan HH wrote:On September 30 2016 04:21 xDaunt wrote:On September 30 2016 03:55 Dan HH wrote:Wonder what the people that were arguing here that the alt-right isn't racist think about what those speakers Again, it depends upon your definition of "alt right." Interestingly enough, there appears to be quite a battle going on between the racist and non-racist elements of the alt right over control of the "alt right brand" and "alt right movement." Long story short, the alt right is quite fluid right now. While it's not a homogeneous movement by any means, I'm not aware of a single alt-right community that rejects racism. In fact, racism (the self professed kind, not the kind where you argue whether it really is racism or not) is the one element that is persistent between all the places that call themselves 'alt-right', from /r/the_donald to /pol/ to Breitbart comments to The Right Stuff to Daily Stormer and the likes. I guess it depends upon how you define "racism." If you go by Vox Day's dichotomy of the alt right, there's the "alt west" and the "alt white." Alt west cares about culture. Alt white cares about (white) race. In my opinion, the alt west movement isn't racist (it's race neutral), but anyone who adopts one of those over-expansive definitions of racism that I railed against a week or so ago may disagree on that point. Yeah... except racism has precisely long been revamped around culture, if only to be more acceptable. Biological racialism and antisemitism have been completely shunned by the contemporary standards, so racist ideologies had to evolve and “reinvente themselves”. In France this is partly how the Front National rose; its new leader put under the carpet the most crude/obvious stuff that the former one was still saying (“I believe in unequal races” etc.), and now uses the language of “culture”: our culture and values are radically, fundamentally incompatible with such people (who can't be assimilated, etc.) and such religion, follow my eyes... Targets the same people, but avoids all drawbacks associated with racism 1.0, especially historical links to nazis or fascists. Racialism is actually an obsolete language, it's a ghost from the XIXth century; clever racists moved on the new, much more profitable battleground: culture/civilization. I get your point, but (and to the extent that you're doing this) labeling critiques and defenses of culture (including criticisms of multiculturalism) as racist is reductive, boring, and -- quite frankly -- dangerous. It is not so reductive as you might think, because crude racism underpins virtually all these alt-right arguments about culture. While true, it's also true that an expansive definition of racism is used to dismiss more genuine arguments about culture by implying that they are all just closet racists.
The pearl clutching about “white culture” does not seem worth the baggage that comes with the alt-right. If have deep concerns of the “America white culture” being destroyed somehow, they can discuss that outside of the context of the alt-right.
And being white part of that culture, I’m not really seeing the risk to our culture being wiped out. Or why we should care.
|
"I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy...He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life."
- D. Trump, 2002
Allegedly, Trump and Epstein raped a 13 year old while telling her they'd make her disappear if she told anyone.
|
United States43821 Posts
I somewhat disagree. I'm a shameless cultural objectivist and maybe even imperialist. However I think our society and institutions are more than strong enough to challenge and defeat inferior aspects of other cultures when they collide. If someone comes to England and wants to chop the clitoris off of their 9 year old daughter we'll take the daughter away and put the father/mother in prison. And if they want to change that they need to win the public debate, and we play that by our rules. Meanwhile the daughter grows up going to our schools and not being mutilated and decides which bit of her heritage she wants to keep. We don't need to quarantine our culture from outsiders, they're not wrong that it's better but they do underestimate the strength of it. It can defend itself.
|
On September 30 2016 06:08 KwarK wrote:
I somewhat disagree. I'm a shameless cultural objectivist and maybe even imperialist. However I think our society and institutions are more than strong enough to challenge and defeat inferior aspects of other cultures when they collide. If someone comes to England and wants to chop the clitoris off of their 9 year old daughter we'll take the daughter away and put the father/mother in prison. And if they want to change that they need to win the public debate, and we play that by our rules. Meanwhile the daughter grows up going to our schools and not being mutilated and decides which bit of her heritage she wants to keep. We don't need to quarantine our culture from outsiders, they're not wrong that it's better but they do underestimate the strength of it. It can defend itself.
Nooo, our precious white culture must be quarantined against brown people because The Jews have used cultural marxism to weaken our vigor and made us impotent and sexually weak with their plots of feminism and gay rights to lower our defenses. And our women are attracted to strong barbarians and the western weak effeminate man that is destroyed by feminism can no longer attract them because women are like children and can't think rationally like superior men, so we must fight to keep our women in their place, and prevent them from voting to bring in more brown people.
|
On September 30 2016 06:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2016 06:02 LegalLord wrote:On September 30 2016 06:00 Grumbels wrote:On September 30 2016 05:54 xDaunt wrote:On September 30 2016 05:13 TheDwf wrote:On September 30 2016 04:53 xDaunt wrote:On September 30 2016 04:44 Dan HH wrote:On September 30 2016 04:21 xDaunt wrote:On September 30 2016 03:55 Dan HH wrote:Wonder what the people that were arguing here that the alt-right isn't racist think about what those speakers Again, it depends upon your definition of "alt right." Interestingly enough, there appears to be quite a battle going on between the racist and non-racist elements of the alt right over control of the "alt right brand" and "alt right movement." Long story short, the alt right is quite fluid right now. While it's not a homogeneous movement by any means, I'm not aware of a single alt-right community that rejects racism. In fact, racism (the self professed kind, not the kind where you argue whether it really is racism or not) is the one element that is persistent between all the places that call themselves 'alt-right', from /r/the_donald to /pol/ to Breitbart comments to The Right Stuff to Daily Stormer and the likes. I guess it depends upon how you define "racism." If you go by Vox Day's dichotomy of the alt right, there's the "alt west" and the "alt white." Alt west cares about culture. Alt white cares about (white) race. In my opinion, the alt west movement isn't racist (it's race neutral), but anyone who adopts one of those over-expansive definitions of racism that I railed against a week or so ago may disagree on that point. Yeah... except racism has precisely long been revamped around culture, if only to be more acceptable. Biological racialism and antisemitism have been completely shunned by the contemporary standards, so racist ideologies had to evolve and “reinvente themselves”. In France this is partly how the Front National rose; its new leader put under the carpet the most crude/obvious stuff that the former one was still saying (“I believe in unequal races” etc.), and now uses the language of “culture”: our culture and values are radically, fundamentally incompatible with such people (who can't be assimilated, etc.) and such religion, follow my eyes... Targets the same people, but avoids all drawbacks associated with racism 1.0, especially historical links to nazis or fascists. Racialism is actually an obsolete language, it's a ghost from the XIXth century; clever racists moved on the new, much more profitable battleground: culture/civilization. I get your point, but (and to the extent that you're doing this) labeling critiques and defenses of culture (including criticisms of multiculturalism) as racist is reductive, boring, and -- quite frankly -- dangerous. It is not so reductive as you might think, because crude racism underpins virtually all these alt-right arguments about culture. While true, it's also true that an expansive definition of racism is used to dismiss more genuine arguments about culture by implying that they are all just closet racists. The pearl clutching about “white culture” does not seem worth the baggage that comes with the alt-right. If have deep concerns of the “America white culture” being destroyed somehow, they can discuss that outside of the context of the alt-right. And being white part of that culture, I’m not really seeing the risk to our culture being wiped out. Or why we should care.
The problem is that that discussion gets dismissed as just racism. And if it really is an issue, and the racists are the only ones fighting for it (even for shitty reasons) then you might simply have to work with them, for all their faults. Being forced to rely upon shitty allies is not a new problem in the world.
|
Discussing "white culture" is pretty problematic, especially in the US. What are people talking about when they use this term?
|
On September 30 2016 06:15 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2016 06:06 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2016 06:02 LegalLord wrote:On September 30 2016 06:00 Grumbels wrote:On September 30 2016 05:54 xDaunt wrote:On September 30 2016 05:13 TheDwf wrote:On September 30 2016 04:53 xDaunt wrote:On September 30 2016 04:44 Dan HH wrote:On September 30 2016 04:21 xDaunt wrote:On September 30 2016 03:55 Dan HH wrote:
[quote]
Wonder what the people that were arguing here that the alt-right isn't racist think about what those speakers Again, it depends upon your definition of "alt right." Interestingly enough, there appears to be quite a battle going on between the racist and non-racist elements of the alt right over control of the "alt right brand" and "alt right movement." Long story short, the alt right is quite fluid right now. While it's not a homogeneous movement by any means, I'm not aware of a single alt-right community that rejects racism. In fact, racism (the self professed kind, not the kind where you argue whether it really is racism or not) is the one element that is persistent between all the places that call themselves 'alt-right', from /r/the_donald to /pol/ to Breitbart comments to The Right Stuff to Daily Stormer and the likes. I guess it depends upon how you define "racism." If you go by Vox Day's dichotomy of the alt right, there's the "alt west" and the "alt white." Alt west cares about culture. Alt white cares about (white) race. In my opinion, the alt west movement isn't racist (it's race neutral), but anyone who adopts one of those over-expansive definitions of racism that I railed against a week or so ago may disagree on that point. Yeah... except racism has precisely long been revamped around culture, if only to be more acceptable. Biological racialism and antisemitism have been completely shunned by the contemporary standards, so racist ideologies had to evolve and “reinvente themselves”. In France this is partly how the Front National rose; its new leader put under the carpet the most crude/obvious stuff that the former one was still saying (“I believe in unequal races” etc.), and now uses the language of “culture”: our culture and values are radically, fundamentally incompatible with such people (who can't be assimilated, etc.) and such religion, follow my eyes... Targets the same people, but avoids all drawbacks associated with racism 1.0, especially historical links to nazis or fascists. Racialism is actually an obsolete language, it's a ghost from the XIXth century; clever racists moved on the new, much more profitable battleground: culture/civilization. I get your point, but (and to the extent that you're doing this) labeling critiques and defenses of culture (including criticisms of multiculturalism) as racist is reductive, boring, and -- quite frankly -- dangerous. It is not so reductive as you might think, because crude racism underpins virtually all these alt-right arguments about culture. While true, it's also true that an expansive definition of racism is used to dismiss more genuine arguments about culture by implying that they are all just closet racists. The pearl clutching about “white culture” does not seem worth the baggage that comes with the alt-right. If have deep concerns of the “America white culture” being destroyed somehow, they can discuss that outside of the context of the alt-right. And being white part of that culture, I’m not really seeing the risk to our culture being wiped out. Or why we should care. The problem is that that discussion gets dismissed as just racism. And if it really is an issue, and the racists are the only ones fighting for it (even for shitty reasons) then you might simply have to work with them, for all their faults. Being forced to rely upon shitty allies is not a new problem in the world.
Then make better arguments. If you arguments are mistaken for racism, then maybe look at them to A: Make sure they are not super racist and B: Can the argument be presented differently so not to make it look just like racism?
On September 30 2016 06:17 Slaughter wrote:
Discussing "white culture" is pretty problematic, especially in the US. What are people talking about when they use this term?
You have come to the root of the problem. My culture is not white. I'm 3rd generation Swedish America. My fiancee is second generation American Italian Catholic. People who talk about “white culture” are not talking about anything I’m interested in defending or think has merit.
|
Apparently the Daily Stormer declared war on Milo Yiannopolous. Not going to link to it, but here's the quote from their founder Andrew Aglin
I am hereby declaring a Holy Crusade against Milo Yiannopoulos, who is the single greatest threat our movement has at this time. He is our arch-nemesis. We need to stop this kike … His plan is working. He is taking our brand, our symbols, and turning them against us for a neocon-Jew conservative agenda. He is rewriting our narrative, while taking everything that we have created to use for his own KIKE purposes. This is the Plan. We are going to be at every single event Milo holds, publicly confront him and put it on YouTube. We are going to show his people that the real Alt-Right exists and that we despise him, that the hoax Alt-Right he’s created doesn’t exist.
|
On September 30 2016 06:17 Slaughter wrote:
Discussing "white culture" is pretty problematic, especially in the US. What are people talking about when they use this term?
Is that considered to be the same as "western culture"
|
On September 30 2016 06:21 CorsairHero wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2016 06:17 Slaughter wrote:
Discussing "white culture" is pretty problematic, especially in the US. What are people talking about when they use this term? Is that considered to be the same as "western culture"
No, not really. That is like claiming France, England and all of the US have the same culture. It is a throw away term that means very little.
|
On September 30 2016 06:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2016 06:15 LegalLord wrote:On September 30 2016 06:06 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2016 06:02 LegalLord wrote:On September 30 2016 06:00 Grumbels wrote:On September 30 2016 05:54 xDaunt wrote:On September 30 2016 05:13 TheDwf wrote:On September 30 2016 04:53 xDaunt wrote:On September 30 2016 04:44 Dan HH wrote:On September 30 2016 04:21 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Again, it depends upon your definition of "alt right." Interestingly enough, there appears to be quite a battle going on between the racist and non-racist elements of the alt right over control of the "alt right brand" and "alt right movement." Long story short, the alt right is quite fluid right now. While it's not a homogeneous movement by any means, I'm not aware of a single alt-right community that rejects racism. In fact, racism (the self professed kind, not the kind where you argue whether it really is racism or not) is the one element that is persistent between all the places that call themselves 'alt-right', from /r/the_donald to /pol/ to Breitbart comments to The Right Stuff to Daily Stormer and the likes. I guess it depends upon how you define "racism." If you go by Vox Day's dichotomy of the alt right, there's the "alt west" and the "alt white." Alt west cares about culture. Alt white cares about (white) race. In my opinion, the alt west movement isn't racist (it's race neutral), but anyone who adopts one of those over-expansive definitions of racism that I railed against a week or so ago may disagree on that point. Yeah... except racism has precisely long been revamped around culture, if only to be more acceptable. Biological racialism and antisemitism have been completely shunned by the contemporary standards, so racist ideologies had to evolve and “reinvente themselves”. In France this is partly how the Front National rose; its new leader put under the carpet the most crude/obvious stuff that the former one was still saying (“I believe in unequal races” etc.), and now uses the language of “culture”: our culture and values are radically, fundamentally incompatible with such people (who can't be assimilated, etc.) and such religion, follow my eyes... Targets the same people, but avoids all drawbacks associated with racism 1.0, especially historical links to nazis or fascists. Racialism is actually an obsolete language, it's a ghost from the XIXth century; clever racists moved on the new, much more profitable battleground: culture/civilization. I get your point, but (and to the extent that you're doing this) labeling critiques and defenses of culture (including criticisms of multiculturalism) as racist is reductive, boring, and -- quite frankly -- dangerous. It is not so reductive as you might think, because crude racism underpins virtually all these alt-right arguments about culture. While true, it's also true that an expansive definition of racism is used to dismiss more genuine arguments about culture by implying that they are all just closet racists. The pearl clutching about “white culture” does not seem worth the baggage that comes with the alt-right. If have deep concerns of the “America white culture” being destroyed somehow, they can discuss that outside of the context of the alt-right. And being white part of that culture, I’m not really seeing the risk to our culture being wiped out. Or why we should care. The problem is that that discussion gets dismissed as just racism. And if it really is an issue, and the racists are the only ones fighting for it (even for shitty reasons) then you might simply have to work with them, for all their faults. Being forced to rely upon shitty allies is not a new problem in the world. Then make better arguments. If you arguments are mistaken for racism, then maybe look at them to A: Make sure they are not super racist and B: Can the argument be presented differently so not to make it look just like racism?
I think one reason that these sort "enlightened" arguments about white culture that reject outright racism never work out is that they are still based on boilerplate stormfront rhetoric, except with all the clear racist implications edited out and replaced with torturous logic and nonsensical premises, all to hide the source of these statements about culture.
|
On September 30 2016 06:17 Slaughter wrote:
Discussing "white culture" is pretty problematic, especially in the US. What are people talking about when they use this term?
Probably some fantasy image about settling in the mid west nicked from westerns starring John Wayne. That, or rock 'n roll music.
|
On September 30 2016 06:17 Slaughter wrote:
Discussing "white culture" is pretty problematic, especially in the US. What are people talking about when they use this term?
Presumably, it means the culture of white people.
|
On September 30 2016 06:25 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2016 06:19 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2016 06:15 LegalLord wrote:On September 30 2016 06:06 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2016 06:02 LegalLord wrote:On September 30 2016 06:00 Grumbels wrote:On September 30 2016 05:54 xDaunt wrote:On September 30 2016 05:13 TheDwf wrote:On September 30 2016 04:53 xDaunt wrote:On September 30 2016 04:44 Dan HH wrote:
[quote]
While it's not a homogeneous movement by any means, I'm not aware of a single alt-right community that rejects racism. In fact, racism (the self professed kind, not the kind where you argue whether it really is racism or not) is the one element that is persistent between all the places that call themselves 'alt-right', from /r/the_donald to /pol/ to Breitbart comments to The Right Stuff to Daily Stormer and the likes. I guess it depends upon how you define "racism." If you go by Vox Day's dichotomy of the alt right, there's the "alt west" and the "alt white." Alt west cares about culture. Alt white cares about (white) race. In my opinion, the alt west movement isn't racist (it's race neutral), but anyone who adopts one of those over-expansive definitions of racism that I railed against a week or so ago may disagree on that point. Yeah... except racism has precisely long been revamped around culture, if only to be more acceptable. Biological racialism and antisemitism have been completely shunned by the contemporary standards, so racist ideologies had to evolve and “reinvente themselves”. In France this is partly how the Front National rose; its new leader put under the carpet the most crude/obvious stuff that the former one was still saying (“I believe in unequal races” etc.), and now uses the language of “culture”: our culture and values are radically, fundamentally incompatible with such people (who can't be assimilated, etc.) and such religion, follow my eyes... Targets the same people, but avoids all drawbacks associated with racism 1.0, especially historical links to nazis or fascists. Racialism is actually an obsolete language, it's a ghost from the XIXth century; clever racists moved on the new, much more profitable battleground: culture/civilization. I get your point, but (and to the extent that you're doing this) labeling critiques and defenses of culture (including criticisms of multiculturalism) as racist is reductive, boring, and -- quite frankly -- dangerous. It is not so reductive as you might think, because crude racism underpins virtually all these alt-right arguments about culture. While true, it's also true that an expansive definition of racism is used to dismiss more genuine arguments about culture by implying that they are all just closet racists. The pearl clutching about “white culture” does not seem worth the baggage that comes with the alt-right. If have deep concerns of the “America white culture” being destroyed somehow, they can discuss that outside of the context of the alt-right. And being white part of that culture, I’m not really seeing the risk to our culture being wiped out. Or why we should care. The problem is that that discussion gets dismissed as just racism. And if it really is an issue, and the racists are the only ones fighting for it (even for shitty reasons) then you might simply have to work with them, for all their faults. Being forced to rely upon shitty allies is not a new problem in the world. Then make better arguments. If you arguments are mistaken for racism, then maybe look at them to A: Make sure they are not super racist and B: Can the argument be presented differently so not to make it look just like racism? I think one reason that these sort "enlightened" arguments about white culture that reject outright racism never work out is that they are still based on boilerplate stormfront rhetoric, except with all the clear racist implications edited out and replaced with torturous logic and nonsensical premises, all to hide the source of these statements about culture.
One of the court problems with the entire argument is that "white culture" only exists in the minds of people to believe its whites vs brown culture. They lay claim to all similarities between any culture created by whites, Swedish, Italian, English and then make the sweeping assumption that all these are under assault by "brown people culture".
The entire argument cannot escape its racist roots that tries to create the myth of a race war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
