|
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. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 10 2016 05:45 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:43 Danglars wrote:On November 10 2016 05:21 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2016 05:03 oneofthem wrote:
btw for the straight economic determinists out there, trump had good turnout in rural areas with good economic performance too.
it's not as simple as desperate people, but also a culture of anxiety and resistance against perceived injustice. a variety of data to support this, some from before the election. Like I have been saying, there's a tremendous cultural element to this election. Just look at the media coverage regarding the election today. The basic story that they're reporting is that Trump won thanks to a bunch of uneducated, racist, white male idiots. And this negative attitude towards Trump and the types of people that voted for Trump has been pervasive from the top down on the left for years. Hell, you need look no further than this thread to see the rampancy of this unfounded and ridiculous narrative. Will they fix the politics of electorate disparagement in time for 2018, will Trump/congressional leadership mess up so massively they walk back into the Senate, or will it take 1-3 more elections to tone down the divisive rhetoric? Wait for them to calm down and stop blaming Bernie Sanders supporters for their loss, then we will see where things go.
it's past the point of blame. i already presume a kind of behavior from this group.
the project is rather to communicate policy and goals better, lessen this regular vs guerrilla divide in terms of media sphere.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 10 2016 05:49 Archeon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:24 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 05:21 Buckyman wrote:On November 10 2016 05:12 Grumbels wrote:
Or the FBI or the media that created a ridiculous email scandal based on almost nothing.
I saw some analyses that the DNC was to blame for supporting a 'scandal-ridden, unpopular candidate' in Clinton, but I find that weird. Pretty much all her scandals are based on GOP slander or social media whisper campaigns, and much of what makes her unpopular is sexist prejudice against the first female candidate.
Funny, some of my other circles have been criticizing the media for not covering the important aspects of the (multiple) email scandals. Like, say, testifying to the FBI that she never bothered to learn what the rules for handling classified information were. Or the Huma Abedin state department emails that apparently got purged from her private server when they should have been turned over. Or the leaked messages coordinating some violations of campaign finance laws. Or the leaked messages implicating her in further violations of campaign finance laws prior to the official start of her campaign. these are all presumably national security issues. but when you've got multiple former CIA directors coming out to support hillary or bash Trump, that should be a hint on this issue, no? Trump is less interested in using the CIA to destabilize other nations and less interested in fighting Russia. So I'm not surprised that former CIA directors of which probably a lot were active in the cold war don't like him.
what if we are the ones being destablized, and russia is the one doing it?
|
On November 10 2016 05:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:03 oneofthem wrote:
btw for the straight economic determinists out there, trump had good turnout in rural areas with good economic performance too.
it's not as simple as desperate people, but also a culture of anxiety and resistance against perceived injustice. a variety of data to support this, some from before the election. Like I have been saying, there's a tremendous cultural element to this election. Just look at the media coverage regarding the election today. The basic story that they're reporting is that Trump won thanks to a bunch of uneducated, racist, white male idiots. And this negative attitude towards Trump and the types of people that voted for Trump has been pervasive from the top down on the left for years. Hell, you need look no further than this thread to see the rampancy of this unfounded and ridiculous narrative.
Now imagine how it is in The Netherlands. What you're describing x10. The propaganda is strong.
|
On November 10 2016 05:46 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:44 Ghostcom wrote:On November 10 2016 05:36 Logo wrote:On November 10 2016 05:30 Ghostcom wrote:On November 10 2016 05:11 Logo wrote:On November 10 2016 05:07 Ghostcom wrote:On November 10 2016 05:00 Logo wrote:On November 10 2016 04:56 WhiteDog wrote:On November 10 2016 04:51 Logo wrote:On November 10 2016 04:46 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
And people like this girl are partly responsible for this. If people have shitty ideas, then engage with them and discuss. There's reason to everything : the moral kabbal that some people in the left created in the last few years participated in the appearance of the "alt right". On a campus, you should discuss everything with everyone.
Her twitter feed is a beautiful exemple of cognitive bias. "Those white men, they're sexist and racist and hating on us, and they elected him for that" : no, it's the economy stupid. I don't disagree with problems of communication in a general sense, but have you see alt-right places like /r/the_donald and 4chan? You're basically arguing that people should try and have reasonable discussions over Twitch Chat, except in this case everyone else in chat hates what you have to say on principal alone. You can't have a reasonable argument on the internet in a place like a twitch chat or reddit where trolling is the rule, but in a class room or on a college campus, in face to face interactions, you can talk with anyone. When you insult someone and assimilate everything he or she says to his/her caracteristics (men or women, white or not, etc.) you lose all chance to actually engage in a good discussion. Yeah, and I think that's where we agree. But from my perspective the alt right is a movement that's deeply seeded in online communities and has a much weaker physical presence. Someone who's actively on US campuses may disagree with that (would be interested to hear about it). Anyways with that perceptions that's why I scoff at the idea of engaging the alt right, the only forms they seem to occupy as an organizational force are ones where trolling is the rule. Part of the reason for the lack of physical presence is probably because of the way they are met with an instantaneous attempt at shaming them to silence if they ever dare speak up in public. Further, can you even blame them considering the complete and utter lack of introspection from "progressives" like the ones whose twitter was linked? (Note: I use "" to denote that I don't actually consider her progressive). That's a very circular logic, "I'm afraid to express my movement in public because my movement online is mostly about trolling and harassment". Of course no one is going to take a movement seriously when their only public expressions as individuals are harassing women, trolling, and other unsavory acts and their more official channels tend to be regarded as some of the most skewed reporting available. Like can you show me some positive things the alt-right stands for? I'm sorry if I didn't explain the logic well enough. The concept is essentially that whenever you make something forbidden you don't extinguish it, you merely drive it underground where it'll stew and develop on its own - including communication forms. What has happened over the past decade is that divergent opinions have become more and more forbidden and ridiculed (note, I'm not talking about "Hitler did nothing wrong"-stuff - I'm talking about pretty much any topic from immigration to what we eat). This creates a sub-culture for those who actually want to discuss these things - and the best place for discussing controversial opinions just so happens to be the internet as no one knows who you are. Please note I won't pretend this is some profound insight - its pretty much history repeating itself. I have however literally no idea about what the alt-right stands for. I wouldn't even know where to start or end with defining the "movement" - in fact I doubt it can even legitimately qualify as such. Yeah, but again I feel like you're conflating a pretty reasonable idea with an alt-right movement that doesn't really embody those ideas. From everything I've seen (going all the way back to before Gamergate) the alt-right movement has always been largely about lashing out & harassing (women especially) and really not much else. Like the closest thing I've ever seen to an alt right message is "alpha males rule". At best it's a reactionary movement to the idea of stuff like safe spaces, but instead of reacting to those concepts it's reacted to the reasons why people push for those concepts (and hence reduces itself to harassment and what not). But again it's hard to get perspective because the movement is just a shapeless mass of anger rather than some organized entity. I think you are misrepresenting at least part of those that have been described as alt-right in the media by claiming they are all about harassment. But as it is such a hard to define group I doubt we will get much closer to it. I think Gamergate was (much like this election) a great example of an echo chamber effect - to the point where no one can really agree on what triggered it all: Being angry at girls playing games or a corrupt gaming (review) industry. Both sides probably has merit. I can agree with reality? I was there on twitter already following the relevant people as the movement formed, I read the initial tweets and posts before the 'movement' even had a name. I followed the journalists that the so called scandal focused on and read their relevant coverage of the relevant developers. I don't really need other people to try and dispute what I saw first hand and really that's all that I've ever seen from people who defend Gamergate. It was about harassment of women who make artsy games that co-opted a bunch of people who were conned into thinking it was about corrupt gaming reviews (which in turn does make the group partially about that, but never as its core).
Echo chamber in effect. Both sides probably have merit.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
All the CIA support of Hillary I've seen praises how active she is in starting conflicts and in getting involved in places. Never once have I seen any of them praise her talent for deescalation or being against unnecessary conflict. It's quite striking because it tells you what they really are pushing for.
|
On November 10 2016 05:55 LegalLord wrote:
All the CIA support of Hillary I've seen praises how active she is in starting conflicts and in getting involved in places. Never once have I seen any of them praise her talent for deescalation or being against unnecessary conflict. It's quite striking because it tells you what they really are pushing for.
Which should really not be very surprising to anyone familiar with what the CIA have been involved with over the last 40 years.
|
On November 10 2016 05:50 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:48 Ghostcom wrote:On November 10 2016 05:43 Acrofales wrote:On November 10 2016 05:37 CosmicSpiral wrote:On November 10 2016 05:26 Grumbels wrote:
Who is citing the alt-right as instrumental to the election? She is. It's basically the underlying assumption of her Twitter rant. On November 10 2016 05:26 Grumbels wrote:
For my part I'm just aware of the fact that the alt-right is Trump's most loyal group of supporters and is a toxic group of characters that are now empowered thanks to his victory. And furthermore, nobody that voted for Trump can actually articulate a good reason for why they're supporting him, all rational arguments immediately fall apart. It is only the alt-right that truly understands his message: soothing resentful white men that they are more important than the rest of the world, as is their birthright. That's not Trump's message either. The reality is he never had one. He was improving his way through the campaign trail and contradicted himself 1759607 times along the way. But since he didn't have a feasible plan or ideology to sell, he gave the public vague catchphrases and promises that they could interpret as anything. Most of his supporters are reacting to him on an emotional level, not an intellectual one. On November 10 2016 05:26 Grumbels wrote:
I'm sorry if using the word alt-right makes me literally Joe McCarthy during the red scare, I hope history won't demonize me too much. I wasn't trying to insult you. I'm pointing out that her screed follows the same pattern as the other movements I mentioned. The only difference is that since the "conspirators" couldn't have been the elite by definition (since whether they want to admit it or not, they would constitute her and much of her audience), they must be a grassroots movement. And yet they share the same traits as the "Masons" and "Papists" and "commies": living among us yet undetectable, morally abhorrent, possessing the power to influence world events without description as to the extent of their power, and existing at every level of society. I haven't figured out why we care about this tweeter (twit?). Can't we just conclude the discussion by saying that her original tweet was wrong, or at least a gross simplification, and stop this whole back and forth? We care because it exemplifies a complete lack of introspection - the same which was evident throughout Clintons campaign. It wasn't the entire reason she lost, but it was definitely part of it. Claiming she lost because she is a woman or that this election was decided based on racism showcases how deaf Clinton and her supporters were to the complaints of the average Trump supporter. I think the cracked article (am I really writing this?) explained it decently. Can you really mix up someone offering a reason as them blaming the entire thing on that reason? Like there's clearly a dozen if not more reasons why Clinton lost and all of them worked together to make it happen.
You might want to read the entire twitter thread that was linked. She "argued" (stated is more like it) the reason for the election being lost was because of racism and misogyny.
|
On November 10 2016 05:53 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:46 Logo wrote:On November 10 2016 05:44 Ghostcom wrote:On November 10 2016 05:36 Logo wrote:On November 10 2016 05:30 Ghostcom wrote:On November 10 2016 05:11 Logo wrote:On November 10 2016 05:07 Ghostcom wrote:On November 10 2016 05:00 Logo wrote:On November 10 2016 04:56 WhiteDog wrote:On November 10 2016 04:51 Logo wrote:
[quote]
I don't disagree with problems of communication in a general sense, but have you see alt-right places like /r/the_donald and 4chan?
You're basically arguing that people should try and have reasonable discussions over Twitch Chat, except in this case everyone else in chat hates what you have to say on principal alone. You can't have a reasonable argument on the internet in a place like a twitch chat or reddit where trolling is the rule, but in a class room or on a college campus, in face to face interactions, you can talk with anyone. When you insult someone and assimilate everything he or she says to his/her caracteristics (men or women, white or not, etc.) you lose all chance to actually engage in a good discussion. Yeah, and I think that's where we agree. But from my perspective the alt right is a movement that's deeply seeded in online communities and has a much weaker physical presence. Someone who's actively on US campuses may disagree with that (would be interested to hear about it). Anyways with that perceptions that's why I scoff at the idea of engaging the alt right, the only forms they seem to occupy as an organizational force are ones where trolling is the rule. Part of the reason for the lack of physical presence is probably because of the way they are met with an instantaneous attempt at shaming them to silence if they ever dare speak up in public. Further, can you even blame them considering the complete and utter lack of introspection from "progressives" like the ones whose twitter was linked? (Note: I use "" to denote that I don't actually consider her progressive). That's a very circular logic, "I'm afraid to express my movement in public because my movement online is mostly about trolling and harassment". Of course no one is going to take a movement seriously when their only public expressions as individuals are harassing women, trolling, and other unsavory acts and their more official channels tend to be regarded as some of the most skewed reporting available. Like can you show me some positive things the alt-right stands for? I'm sorry if I didn't explain the logic well enough. The concept is essentially that whenever you make something forbidden you don't extinguish it, you merely drive it underground where it'll stew and develop on its own - including communication forms. What has happened over the past decade is that divergent opinions have become more and more forbidden and ridiculed (note, I'm not talking about "Hitler did nothing wrong"-stuff - I'm talking about pretty much any topic from immigration to what we eat). This creates a sub-culture for those who actually want to discuss these things - and the best place for discussing controversial opinions just so happens to be the internet as no one knows who you are. Please note I won't pretend this is some profound insight - its pretty much history repeating itself. I have however literally no idea about what the alt-right stands for. I wouldn't even know where to start or end with defining the "movement" - in fact I doubt it can even legitimately qualify as such. Yeah, but again I feel like you're conflating a pretty reasonable idea with an alt-right movement that doesn't really embody those ideas. From everything I've seen (going all the way back to before Gamergate) the alt-right movement has always been largely about lashing out & harassing (women especially) and really not much else. Like the closest thing I've ever seen to an alt right message is "alpha males rule". At best it's a reactionary movement to the idea of stuff like safe spaces, but instead of reacting to those concepts it's reacted to the reasons why people push for those concepts (and hence reduces itself to harassment and what not). But again it's hard to get perspective because the movement is just a shapeless mass of anger rather than some organized entity. I think you are misrepresenting at least part of those that have been described as alt-right in the media by claiming they are all about harassment. But as it is such a hard to define group I doubt we will get much closer to it. I think Gamergate was (much like this election) a great example of an echo chamber effect - to the point where no one can really agree on what triggered it all: Being angry at girls playing games or a corrupt gaming (review) industry. Both sides probably has merit. I can agree with reality? I was there on twitter already following the relevant people as the movement formed, I read the initial tweets and posts before the 'movement' even had a name. I followed the journalists that the so called scandal focused on and read their relevant coverage of the relevant developers. I don't really need other people to try and dispute what I saw first hand and really that's all that I've ever seen from people who defend Gamergate. It was about harassment of women who make artsy games that co-opted a bunch of people who were conned into thinking it was about corrupt gaming reviews (which in turn does make the group partially about that, but never as its core). Echo chamber in effect. Both sides probably have merit.
False Equivalency hard at work? You sound like every media company where both sides always have to be equal.
Also echo chamber with who? Myself?
But yeah I bet a bunch of 3rd rate tellings have a better impression than 1st hand observation.
|
Just because two autocrats shake hands doesn't mean you've reason to celebrate peace, plenty of historical examples. Aggressiveness is a really bad indicator for long term stability, what is more important is whether nations behave as rational actors. Volatility is a much bigger problem.
|
United States15275 Posts
On November 10 2016 05:43 Acrofales wrote:
I haven't figured out why we care about this tweeter (twit?). Can't we just conclude the discussion by saying that her original tweet was wrong, or at least a gross simplification, and stop this whole back and forth?
Honestly, the main reason I wrote all of that was the paragraph I wrote after the quote.
This is already happen among Clinton supporters and pundits of the left. Apparently America is a toxic stew of racism, sexism, and ignorance that placed their future in the hands of a blustering strongman, which left those who were truly understanding and moral bemoaning the future. Even if that entire sentence was true, it doesn't excuse the fact that those people shot themselves in the foot. It couldn't possibly the results of a hundred different trends that converged for this specific election. The Democratic Party couldn't possibly be accountable for their hypocrisy, terrible strategy, and determination to frame themselves as the "good guy" at the expense of everything else. It couldn't possibly be the sheer arrogance and snobbery from groups that should, in theory, know what it's like to be belittled, forgotten, and abused by those with power. The lack of introspection is staggering for a party that supposed holds up secular humanism and rationalist views.
From a very cynical point of view, her tweets are probably going to be representative of the Democrats' attitude moving forward. Trump's win should have alerted them to the fact that something has gone dangerously wrong with their party. They need to reassess their values and strategy moving forward into the future. They need to recognize that Trump attracted people based on a lot of different factors (anxieties and fears ignored by their stances, a general apathy and loss of faith in government, etc.) and that they have severe flaws in their own ideology (too much focus on maintaining identity groups and a self-image of moral righteousness, too much encouragement on collapsing social + cultural + economic attitudes into a single homogeneous means of identification, an obsession with changing norms through controlling language instead of actual policy, their general lack of empathy or attention to the populace outside the urban regions where they dominate, etc.). I hope the party make deep changes and came back with a different platform.
What they will probably do is gripe a lot and stubbornly insist that it was the idiocy and flaws of "the other" that created this reality. It's the sexist, misogynist white males that did it/Berniebros that threw away votes out of spite/women who don't respect themselves/former Democrats that betrayed the party/hick idiots that fell for a salesman/minority groups who didn't unanimously vote for the party that understands their needs. After all, their supporters are doing this right now and I don't see the party deviating from their attitudes anytime soon.
|
On November 10 2016 05:57 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:50 Logo wrote:On November 10 2016 05:48 Ghostcom wrote:On November 10 2016 05:43 Acrofales wrote:On November 10 2016 05:37 CosmicSpiral wrote:On November 10 2016 05:26 Grumbels wrote:
Who is citing the alt-right as instrumental to the election? She is. It's basically the underlying assumption of her Twitter rant. On November 10 2016 05:26 Grumbels wrote:
For my part I'm just aware of the fact that the alt-right is Trump's most loyal group of supporters and is a toxic group of characters that are now empowered thanks to his victory. And furthermore, nobody that voted for Trump can actually articulate a good reason for why they're supporting him, all rational arguments immediately fall apart. It is only the alt-right that truly understands his message: soothing resentful white men that they are more important than the rest of the world, as is their birthright. That's not Trump's message either. The reality is he never had one. He was improving his way through the campaign trail and contradicted himself 1759607 times along the way. But since he didn't have a feasible plan or ideology to sell, he gave the public vague catchphrases and promises that they could interpret as anything. Most of his supporters are reacting to him on an emotional level, not an intellectual one. On November 10 2016 05:26 Grumbels wrote:
I'm sorry if using the word alt-right makes me literally Joe McCarthy during the red scare, I hope history won't demonize me too much. I wasn't trying to insult you. I'm pointing out that her screed follows the same pattern as the other movements I mentioned. The only difference is that since the "conspirators" couldn't have been the elite by definition (since whether they want to admit it or not, they would constitute her and much of her audience), they must be a grassroots movement. And yet they share the same traits as the "Masons" and "Papists" and "commies": living among us yet undetectable, morally abhorrent, possessing the power to influence world events without description as to the extent of their power, and existing at every level of society. I haven't figured out why we care about this tweeter (twit?). Can't we just conclude the discussion by saying that her original tweet was wrong, or at least a gross simplification, and stop this whole back and forth? We care because it exemplifies a complete lack of introspection - the same which was evident throughout Clintons campaign. It wasn't the entire reason she lost, but it was definitely part of it. Claiming she lost because she is a woman or that this election was decided based on racism showcases how deaf Clinton and her supporters were to the complaints of the average Trump supporter. I think the cracked article (am I really writing this?) explained it decently. Can you really mix up someone offering a reason as them blaming the entire thing on that reason? Like there's clearly a dozen if not more reasons why Clinton lost and all of them worked together to make it happen. You might want to read the entire twitter thread that was linked. She argued the reason for the election being lost was because of racism and misogyny.
I tried but lost the train of thought as it got derailed by a bunch of nonsense tweets by other people, I'll go back and read it or abstain from commenting on it anymore (it seems highly irrelevant to anything).
|
On November 10 2016 05:38 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:21 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2016 05:03 oneofthem wrote:
btw for the straight economic determinists out there, trump had good turnout in rural areas with good economic performance too.
it's not as simple as desperate people, but also a culture of anxiety and resistance against perceived injustice. a variety of data to support this, some from before the election. Like I have been saying, there's a tremendous cultural element to this election. Just look at the media coverage regarding the election today. The basic story that they're reporting is that Trump won thanks to a bunch of uneducated, racist, white male idiots. And this negative attitude towards Trump and the types of people that voted for Trump has been pervasive from the top down on the left for years. Hell, you need look no further than this thread to see the rampancy of this unfounded and ridiculous narrative. you don't really need the media to get a sense that trump won thanks to racist white male idiots. i was out in the city last night. there were literally 20 something white male idiots with red hats climbing the trees in front of the white house and yelling shit at all the dc clinton supporters. groups of bearded white men in red hats screaming about how trump has saved white men from destruction. that is literally what they said. and the groups were exclusively white twenty something males with extreme self-awareness deficits
Sure, there are some bad apples in the mix, but the problems arise when the acting assumption is that 40%+ of the country is deplorable.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 10 2016 05:57 Nyxisto wrote:
Just because two autocrats shake hands doesn't mean you've reason to celebrate peace, plenty of historical examples. Aggressiveness is a really bad indicator for long term stability, what is more important is whether nations behave as rational actors. Volatility is a much bigger problem.
this is correct. concession to putin e.g. in ukraine may foster additional conflict that the u.s. deep state would react against independently of trump, by law and treaty.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 10 2016 05:55 LegalLord wrote:
All the CIA support of Hillary I've seen praises how active she is in starting conflicts and in getting involved in places. Never once have I seen any of them praise her talent for deescalation or being against unnecessary conflict. It's quite striking because it tells you what they really are pushing for.
mike morrell? a bit of policy advocacy on his part wrt syria but you'd have to be parroting the putin line to portray that one as a case of u.s. aggression.
sovereignty falls where fundamental duties of government fails.
personally i don't really care about syria. it's rather the enabling of global kleptocracy and general destruction of the u.s. (hypocritical to be sure) system against corruption and money laundering etc. while the (deep) state is seen as an enemy of the people on civil rights issues, it is an indispensable institution when it comes to restraining international capital, that force with no morality, no regard for human life and democratic values.
the international institutionalist mood in foreign policy encourages institution and rules on this very critical issue. if we get a decent international tax and regulatory system out of it, this prize alone is acceptable price to pay for a few spy loops in the internets.
or you want to see a world run by china/russia style business-politics.
|
On November 10 2016 05:57 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:53 Ghostcom wrote:On November 10 2016 05:46 Logo wrote:On November 10 2016 05:44 Ghostcom wrote:On November 10 2016 05:36 Logo wrote:On November 10 2016 05:30 Ghostcom wrote:On November 10 2016 05:11 Logo wrote:On November 10 2016 05:07 Ghostcom wrote:On November 10 2016 05:00 Logo wrote:On November 10 2016 04:56 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
You can't have a reasonable argument on the internet in a place like a twitch chat or reddit where trolling is the rule, but in a class room or on a college campus, in face to face interactions, you can talk with anyone. When you insult someone and assimilate everything he or she says to his/her caracteristics (men or women, white or not, etc.) you lose all chance to actually engage in a good discussion. Yeah, and I think that's where we agree. But from my perspective the alt right is a movement that's deeply seeded in online communities and has a much weaker physical presence. Someone who's actively on US campuses may disagree with that (would be interested to hear about it). Anyways with that perceptions that's why I scoff at the idea of engaging the alt right, the only forms they seem to occupy as an organizational force are ones where trolling is the rule. Part of the reason for the lack of physical presence is probably because of the way they are met with an instantaneous attempt at shaming them to silence if they ever dare speak up in public. Further, can you even blame them considering the complete and utter lack of introspection from "progressives" like the ones whose twitter was linked? (Note: I use "" to denote that I don't actually consider her progressive). That's a very circular logic, "I'm afraid to express my movement in public because my movement online is mostly about trolling and harassment". Of course no one is going to take a movement seriously when their only public expressions as individuals are harassing women, trolling, and other unsavory acts and their more official channels tend to be regarded as some of the most skewed reporting available. Like can you show me some positive things the alt-right stands for? I'm sorry if I didn't explain the logic well enough. The concept is essentially that whenever you make something forbidden you don't extinguish it, you merely drive it underground where it'll stew and develop on its own - including communication forms. What has happened over the past decade is that divergent opinions have become more and more forbidden and ridiculed (note, I'm not talking about "Hitler did nothing wrong"-stuff - I'm talking about pretty much any topic from immigration to what we eat). This creates a sub-culture for those who actually want to discuss these things - and the best place for discussing controversial opinions just so happens to be the internet as no one knows who you are. Please note I won't pretend this is some profound insight - its pretty much history repeating itself. I have however literally no idea about what the alt-right stands for. I wouldn't even know where to start or end with defining the "movement" - in fact I doubt it can even legitimately qualify as such. Yeah, but again I feel like you're conflating a pretty reasonable idea with an alt-right movement that doesn't really embody those ideas. From everything I've seen (going all the way back to before Gamergate) the alt-right movement has always been largely about lashing out & harassing (women especially) and really not much else. Like the closest thing I've ever seen to an alt right message is "alpha males rule". At best it's a reactionary movement to the idea of stuff like safe spaces, but instead of reacting to those concepts it's reacted to the reasons why people push for those concepts (and hence reduces itself to harassment and what not). But again it's hard to get perspective because the movement is just a shapeless mass of anger rather than some organized entity. I think you are misrepresenting at least part of those that have been described as alt-right in the media by claiming they are all about harassment. But as it is such a hard to define group I doubt we will get much closer to it. I think Gamergate was (much like this election) a great example of an echo chamber effect - to the point where no one can really agree on what triggered it all: Being angry at girls playing games or a corrupt gaming (review) industry. Both sides probably has merit. I can agree with reality? I was there on twitter already following the relevant people as the movement formed, I read the initial tweets and posts before the 'movement' even had a name. I followed the journalists that the so called scandal focused on and read their relevant coverage of the relevant developers. I don't really need other people to try and dispute what I saw first hand and really that's all that I've ever seen from people who defend Gamergate. It was about harassment of women who make artsy games that co-opted a bunch of people who were conned into thinking it was about corrupt gaming reviews (which in turn does make the group partially about that, but never as its core). Echo chamber in effect. Both sides probably have merit. False Equivalency hard at work? You sound like every media company where both sides always have to be equal. Also echo chamber with who? Myself? But yeah I bet a bunch of 3rd rate tellings have a better impression than 1st hand observation.
Echo chamber with who you followed on twitter/what you read.
You are not the only one of the two of us with the 1.st hand observation. I've likely read about as much shit of Gamergate as you - more than to last me a lifetime to be honest. However, I acknowledge that my perspective isn't the only valid one - especially not when it comes to defining the underlying motivation of such a fragmented movement as Gamergate was/the alt-right is. I mean, I'm also not going to try and define the motivation of Anonymous - or the specific opinions of Occupy Wall street.
EDIT:
On November 10 2016 05:58 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:57 Ghostcom wrote:On November 10 2016 05:50 Logo wrote:On November 10 2016 05:48 Ghostcom wrote:On November 10 2016 05:43 Acrofales wrote:On November 10 2016 05:37 CosmicSpiral wrote:On November 10 2016 05:26 Grumbels wrote:
Who is citing the alt-right as instrumental to the election? She is. It's basically the underlying assumption of her Twitter rant. On November 10 2016 05:26 Grumbels wrote:
For my part I'm just aware of the fact that the alt-right is Trump's most loyal group of supporters and is a toxic group of characters that are now empowered thanks to his victory. And furthermore, nobody that voted for Trump can actually articulate a good reason for why they're supporting him, all rational arguments immediately fall apart. It is only the alt-right that truly understands his message: soothing resentful white men that they are more important than the rest of the world, as is their birthright. That's not Trump's message either. The reality is he never had one. He was improving his way through the campaign trail and contradicted himself 1759607 times along the way. But since he didn't have a feasible plan or ideology to sell, he gave the public vague catchphrases and promises that they could interpret as anything. Most of his supporters are reacting to him on an emotional level, not an intellectual one. On November 10 2016 05:26 Grumbels wrote:
I'm sorry if using the word alt-right makes me literally Joe McCarthy during the red scare, I hope history won't demonize me too much. I wasn't trying to insult you. I'm pointing out that her screed follows the same pattern as the other movements I mentioned. The only difference is that since the "conspirators" couldn't have been the elite by definition (since whether they want to admit it or not, they would constitute her and much of her audience), they must be a grassroots movement. And yet they share the same traits as the "Masons" and "Papists" and "commies": living among us yet undetectable, morally abhorrent, possessing the power to influence world events without description as to the extent of their power, and existing at every level of society. I haven't figured out why we care about this tweeter (twit?). Can't we just conclude the discussion by saying that her original tweet was wrong, or at least a gross simplification, and stop this whole back and forth? We care because it exemplifies a complete lack of introspection - the same which was evident throughout Clintons campaign. It wasn't the entire reason she lost, but it was definitely part of it. Claiming she lost because she is a woman or that this election was decided based on racism showcases how deaf Clinton and her supporters were to the complaints of the average Trump supporter. I think the cracked article (am I really writing this?) explained it decently. Can you really mix up someone offering a reason as them blaming the entire thing on that reason? Like there's clearly a dozen if not more reasons why Clinton lost and all of them worked together to make it happen. You might want to read the entire twitter thread that was linked. She argued the reason for the election being lost was because of racism and misogyny. I tried but lost the train of thought as it got derailed by a bunch of nonsense tweets by other people, I'll go back and read it or abstain from commenting on it anymore (it seems highly irrelevant to anything).
I wouldn't waste my time to be completely honest with you. At most you'll lose a couple of brain cells - twitter discourse is that stupid.
EDIT2: I'm not going to argue either point further. You have made up your mind, and I've made up mine. Which is fine. Interesting times ahead for the Dems and how they are going to rebound from this.
EDIT3: Just to be crystal clear: I do not for a moment condone harassment.
|
On November 10 2016 06:05 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:57 Logo wrote:On November 10 2016 05:53 Ghostcom wrote:On November 10 2016 05:46 Logo wrote:On November 10 2016 05:44 Ghostcom wrote:On November 10 2016 05:36 Logo wrote:On November 10 2016 05:30 Ghostcom wrote:On November 10 2016 05:11 Logo wrote:On November 10 2016 05:07 Ghostcom wrote:On November 10 2016 05:00 Logo wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, and I think that's where we agree. But from my perspective the alt right is a movement that's deeply seeded in online communities and has a much weaker physical presence. Someone who's actively on US campuses may disagree with that (would be interested to hear about it). Anyways with that perceptions that's why I scoff at the idea of engaging the alt right, the only forms they seem to occupy as an organizational force are ones where trolling is the rule.
Part of the reason for the lack of physical presence is probably because of the way they are met with an instantaneous attempt at shaming them to silence if they ever dare speak up in public. Further, can you even blame them considering the complete and utter lack of introspection from "progressives" like the ones whose twitter was linked? (Note: I use "" to denote that I don't actually consider her progressive). That's a very circular logic, "I'm afraid to express my movement in public because my movement online is mostly about trolling and harassment". Of course no one is going to take a movement seriously when their only public expressions as individuals are harassing women, trolling, and other unsavory acts and their more official channels tend to be regarded as some of the most skewed reporting available. Like can you show me some positive things the alt-right stands for? I'm sorry if I didn't explain the logic well enough. The concept is essentially that whenever you make something forbidden you don't extinguish it, you merely drive it underground where it'll stew and develop on its own - including communication forms. What has happened over the past decade is that divergent opinions have become more and more forbidden and ridiculed (note, I'm not talking about "Hitler did nothing wrong"-stuff - I'm talking about pretty much any topic from immigration to what we eat). This creates a sub-culture for those who actually want to discuss these things - and the best place for discussing controversial opinions just so happens to be the internet as no one knows who you are. Please note I won't pretend this is some profound insight - its pretty much history repeating itself. I have however literally no idea about what the alt-right stands for. I wouldn't even know where to start or end with defining the "movement" - in fact I doubt it can even legitimately qualify as such. Yeah, but again I feel like you're conflating a pretty reasonable idea with an alt-right movement that doesn't really embody those ideas. From everything I've seen (going all the way back to before Gamergate) the alt-right movement has always been largely about lashing out & harassing (women especially) and really not much else. Like the closest thing I've ever seen to an alt right message is "alpha males rule". At best it's a reactionary movement to the idea of stuff like safe spaces, but instead of reacting to those concepts it's reacted to the reasons why people push for those concepts (and hence reduces itself to harassment and what not). But again it's hard to get perspective because the movement is just a shapeless mass of anger rather than some organized entity. I think you are misrepresenting at least part of those that have been described as alt-right in the media by claiming they are all about harassment. But as it is such a hard to define group I doubt we will get much closer to it. I think Gamergate was (much like this election) a great example of an echo chamber effect - to the point where no one can really agree on what triggered it all: Being angry at girls playing games or a corrupt gaming (review) industry. Both sides probably has merit. I can agree with reality? I was there on twitter already following the relevant people as the movement formed, I read the initial tweets and posts before the 'movement' even had a name. I followed the journalists that the so called scandal focused on and read their relevant coverage of the relevant developers. I don't really need other people to try and dispute what I saw first hand and really that's all that I've ever seen from people who defend Gamergate. It was about harassment of women who make artsy games that co-opted a bunch of people who were conned into thinking it was about corrupt gaming reviews (which in turn does make the group partially about that, but never as its core). Echo chamber in effect. Both sides probably have merit. False Equivalency hard at work? You sound like every media company where both sides always have to be equal. Also echo chamber with who? Myself? But yeah I bet a bunch of 3rd rate tellings have a better impression than 1st hand observation. Echo chamber with who you followed on twitter/what you read. You are not the only one of the two of us with the 1.st hand observation. I've likely read about as much shit of Gamergate as you - more than to last me a lifetime to be honest. However, I acknowledge that my perspective isn't the only valid one - especially not when it comes to defining the underlying motivation of such a fragmented movement as Gamergate was/the alt-right is. I mean, I'm also not going to try and define the motivation of Anonymous - or the specific opinions of Occupy Wall street.
I read like 50 unfiltered tweets calling a women a cunt, trash, a piece of shit, and trying to spread around nudes of said woman. Then woke up the next morning and saw the same stream of tweets but now with a hashtag of #gamergate. I didn't read screen caps, cherry picked tweets, retweets, or what have you. I read the list of actual tweets directed at an actual person on day 1.
That's my echo chamber.
Like I said I think a lot of people got co-opted into the movement because they actually cared about game journalism, but that's never what the movement was about.
|
On November 10 2016 05:38 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:21 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2016 05:03 oneofthem wrote:
btw for the straight economic determinists out there, trump had good turnout in rural areas with good economic performance too.
it's not as simple as desperate people, but also a culture of anxiety and resistance against perceived injustice. a variety of data to support this, some from before the election. Like I have been saying, there's a tremendous cultural element to this election. Just look at the media coverage regarding the election today. The basic story that they're reporting is that Trump won thanks to a bunch of uneducated, racist, white male idiots. And this negative attitude towards Trump and the types of people that voted for Trump has been pervasive from the top down on the left for years. Hell, you need look no further than this thread to see the rampancy of this unfounded and ridiculous narrative. you don't really need the media to get a sense that trump won thanks to racist white male idiots. i was out in the city last night. there were literally 20 something white male idiots with red hats climbing the trees in front of the white house and yelling shit at all the dc clinton supporters. groups of bearded white men in red hats screaming about how trump has saved white men from destruction. that is literally what they said. and the groups were exclusively white twenty something males with extreme self-awareness deficits
Cernovich and his alt-right crew were partying just down the street from me in Orange County California, and I was seriously considering infiltrating it with my beard and an Angels hat. I'm usually more familiar with the Santa Monica crazies that do Kwarkian "fascism now" every day, but let me say, this alt right and their cuck-calling is right up there. But please don't think a handful of protestors typifies why Trump won any more than the naked/bodypainted slut-walkers typifies Clinton's crazy base. You'll miss the big picture.
|
I'm still looking for a hint of an answer to the following question.
How much did "internet characters" influence the election? (S. Molyneux, Mike Cernovich, Mia yannopolus, Paul Watson, Breitbart, etc..)
|
On November 10 2016 06:21 GoTuNk! wrote:
I'm still looking for a hint of an answer to the following question.
How much did "internet characters" influence the election? (S. Molyneux, Mike Cernovich, Mia yannopolus, Paul Watson, Breitbart, etc..)
I don't know if they had that much direct influence, but it's hard to tell because you obviously can't peer into people's Facebook feeds and see how that information spreads.
On the other side it does feel like those channels have ultimately shown enough influence to sort of bubble up in more mainstream news sources and influence the narrative there.
I'd love to see a knowledgable look into it.
|
Stock market closes up today. Biotech ETF up 7% today and Dow up 260 points. So much for the Trump crash.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
