|
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. |
I'd say alt-right is too ill-defined to be of much use for or against. It's proclaimed adherents have substantial disagreement over what it is, and appear to cover a fair range of viewpoints.
This feels like the same issue that occurs with the BLM movement; though that one has a bit more specificity. But BLM does have the issue of no clear structure/people in charge at a high level, and numerous proclaimed adherents who have considerable disagreements over the issues; otoh it does have at least a somewhat clear overall tone/goal (with considerable disagreements on the particulars of it).
If someone claims to be alt-right, I don't have any clear sense of what that means about them in particular, too many different ways of being it.
|
On November 19 2016 09:29 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 09:18 Sermokala wrote:On November 19 2016 09:07 Tachion wrote:On November 19 2016 08:37 RealityIsKing wrote:
The Alt Rights are just people that don't like how the Republican Party was operating.
And Trump is the alternative path to become a president instead of the traditional Republican way. I am far from knowledgeable on the subject, but from what i understand alt-right means far more than just an alternative republican party. It's rooted in white nationalism and has core values in preserving white identity and rejects progressive and multi-cultural influences like gay rights, feminism, SJW's, jews, muslims, and globalism. Writing this out, I'm not really sure what differentiates them from an organization like the KKK. There's no real consensus on what the alt-right ideology is yet since it's a fairly new thing, so I'm sure others have a different interpretation of it than I do. Do you understand how you poison the debate and dismiss any possibility of a decent argument when you talk like this. First you state that you don't know much or understand much about the alt right (I don't think anyone can really say that they know for sure what the alt right is) and then you go into saying its sexist and racist and nothing different then the KKK. I mean where do people go from there other then simply stating "no you're ignorant thats not true". You can't tell yourself that you're the better side when you act as bad if not worse then the side you disagree with. You should be asking questions about specific points of the alt right and general trends you see with it that you argue is various names for bad. Otherwise whats the point? I was very implicit in stating that my take on the subject was rather primitive. My views are not set in stone, this is only how I've come to understand the subject thus far. If you think I'm wrong somewhere, say so. It seems like you're offended that I've interpreted it differently than you.
Yes but you stating that is part of the problem. You can't state that you are unsure and then state sureities about what you think. What you're doing is preconditioning your thoughts and arguments before learning anything, which is the exact thing that you use words to describe as bad in your post.
You confirm this by your second sentence when you go on the attack against me and try to place me on the other side of the argument you're trying to make vis a vis calling me a sexist, racist, anti Semite and bigot. Theres no way to civilly continue the conversation with you and if the only person that was involved in the conversation to get to that point is you when you have to admit where the blame for it getting there lies.
|
On November 19 2016 09:07 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 08:37 RealityIsKing wrote:
The Alt Rights are just people that don't like how the Republican Party was operating.
And Trump is the alternative path to become a president instead of the traditional Republican way. I am far from knowledgeable on the subject, but from what i understand alt-right means far more than just an alternative republican party. It's rooted in white nationalism and has core values in preserving white identity and rejects progressive and multi-cultural influences like gay rights, feminism, SJW's, jews, muslims, and globalism. Writing this out, I'm not really sure what differentiates them from an organization like the KKK. There's no real consensus on what the alt-right ideology is yet since it's a fairly new thing, so I'm sure others have a different interpretation of it than I do.
The KKK have uniforms, set goals, and are much more united than the alt-right, the distinction is huge. The alt-right seem to just be a mob of angry people who reject things in a sort-of similar manner, but don't do much about it. The KKK will have meetings where they reaffirm their beliefs and then act on them; the alt-right don't agree with each other, and they debate over their own membership and what their movement is.
|
On November 19 2016 09:18 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 09:07 Tachion wrote:On November 19 2016 08:37 RealityIsKing wrote:
The Alt Rights are just people that don't like how the Republican Party was operating.
And Trump is the alternative path to become a president instead of the traditional Republican way. I am far from knowledgeable on the subject, but from what i understand alt-right means far more than just an alternative republican party. It's rooted in white nationalism and has core values in preserving white identity and rejects progressive and multi-cultural influences like gay rights, feminism, SJW's, jews, muslims, and globalism. Writing this out, I'm not really sure what differentiates them from an organization like the KKK. There's no real consensus on what the alt-right ideology is yet since it's a fairly new thing, so I'm sure others have a different interpretation of it than I do. Do you understand how you poison the debate and dismiss any possibility of a decent argument when you talk like this. First you state that you don't know much or understand much about the alt right (I don't think anyone can really say that they know for sure what the alt right is) and then you go into saying its sexist and racist and nothing different then the KKK. I mean where do people go from there other then simply stating "no you're ignorant thats not true". You can't tell yourself that you're the better side when you act as bad if not worse then the side you disagree with. You should be asking questions about specific points of the alt right and general trends you see with it that you argue is various names for bad. Otherwise whats the point? Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 09:17 Nebuchad wrote:
So I've had to go and read the Establishment conservative's guide to the alt-right, thx guys...
"The media empire of the modern-day alternative right coalesced around Richard Spencer during his editorship of Taki’s Magazine. In 2010, Spencer founded AlternativeRight.com, which would become a center of alt-right thought."
This part, listed under intellectuals (of the alt-right), highlights an element that they present as crucial to the development of the alt-right, the foundation of AlternativeRight.com by Richard Spencer. Richard Spencer who in my echo chamber has been described in unsavory terms, advocating among other things, for the sterilization of other races. This didn't appear in the breitbart article though.
What did appear, though, under the "1488ers": basically a repudiation of nazis, followed by:
"Based on our research we believe this stands in stark contrast with the rest of the alt-right, who focus more on building communities and lifestyles based around their values than plotting violent revolution."
So my initial question is: are we allowed to criticize those intellectuals of the alt-right, and following that, their characterization as contrasting starkly with true racists? This is exactly the oppisite of your post and legitimatly contributes to the thread in a real way. And to Nebuchad, Yes as they should and everyone should equally, once we can do that for the nazies to the LGBT equally we will all be equal. The problem comes when you generalize and put in a basket the entire moment for the basis of those few people. You can do that to people who are in the KKK and who support the KKK because they're an explicit organization while the "alt-right" is an abstract movement of conservatives that don't associate with the establishment organizations.
If an influential thinker that is described as having created a "center of alt-right thought" is one of them, what's your basis for saying it's few people? Breitbart tells me that the alt-right looks down on "true racists", that tells me Spencer isn't one of them in their eyes. Which, if there is no dispute of his views, is a problem.
|
On November 19 2016 09:17 Nebuchad wrote:
So I've had to go and read the Establishment conservative's guide to the alt-right, thx guys...
"The media empire of the modern-day alternative right coalesced around Richard Spencer during his editorship of Taki’s Magazine. In 2010, Spencer founded AlternativeRight.com, which would become a center of alt-right thought."
This part, listed under intellectuals (of the alt-right), highlights an element that they present as crucial to the development of the alt-right, the foundation of AlternativeRight.com by Richard Spencer. Richard Spencer who in my echo chamber has been described in unsavory terms, advocating among other things, for the sterilization of other races. This didn't appear in the breitbart article though. Nor did I find out that Spencer has literally organized an event in collaboration with a neonazi group at UC Berkeley.
What did appear, though, under the "1488ers": a repudiation of basically nazis, the "true racists", followed by:
"Based on our research we believe this stands in stark contrast with the rest of the alt-right, who focus more on building communities and lifestyles based around their values than plotting violent revolution."
So my initial question is: are we allowed to criticize those intellectuals of the alt-right, and following that, their characterization as contrasting starkly with true racists?
My understanding of the Alt-Right started with that guide, but I've since rejected it. The roots of the Alt-Right are undeniably in white nationalism (as the guide discusses) and white identitarianism. I think an argument can be made that the Alt Right also incorporates identitarian politics revolving around culture (namely Western culture), but once you untether the Alt Right from its identitiarian foundation, the term loses meaning.
|
On November 19 2016 09:33 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 09:29 Tachion wrote:On November 19 2016 09:18 Sermokala wrote:On November 19 2016 09:07 Tachion wrote:On November 19 2016 08:37 RealityIsKing wrote:
The Alt Rights are just people that don't like how the Republican Party was operating.
And Trump is the alternative path to become a president instead of the traditional Republican way. I am far from knowledgeable on the subject, but from what i understand alt-right means far more than just an alternative republican party. It's rooted in white nationalism and has core values in preserving white identity and rejects progressive and multi-cultural influences like gay rights, feminism, SJW's, jews, muslims, and globalism. Writing this out, I'm not really sure what differentiates them from an organization like the KKK. There's no real consensus on what the alt-right ideology is yet since it's a fairly new thing, so I'm sure others have a different interpretation of it than I do. Do you understand how you poison the debate and dismiss any possibility of a decent argument when you talk like this. First you state that you don't know much or understand much about the alt right (I don't think anyone can really say that they know for sure what the alt right is) and then you go into saying its sexist and racist and nothing different then the KKK. I mean where do people go from there other then simply stating "no you're ignorant thats not true". You can't tell yourself that you're the better side when you act as bad if not worse then the side you disagree with. You should be asking questions about specific points of the alt right and general trends you see with it that you argue is various names for bad. Otherwise whats the point? I was very implicit in stating that my take on the subject was rather primitive. My views are not set in stone, this is only how I've come to understand the subject thus far. If you think I'm wrong somewhere, say so. It seems like you're offended that I've interpreted it differently than you. Yes but you stating that is part of the problem. You can't state that you are unsure and then state sureities about what you think. What you're doing is preconditioning your thoughts and arguments before learning anything, which is the exact thing that you use words to describe as bad in your post. You confirm this by your second sentence when you go on the attack against me and try to place me on the other side of the argument you're trying to make vis a vis calling me a sexist, racist, anti Semite and bigot. Theres no way to civilly continue the conversation with you and if the only person that was involved in the conversation to get to that point is you when you have to admit where the blame for it getting there lies.
I stated what I came to understand of the alt-right so far, while implying that I may be wrong because I wasn't very knowledgeable and left it pretty open for discussion. Maybe instead of getting all super defensive, you can actually address what I said and where you think I went wrong? It would be much more productive. You're arguing for the sake of arguing, I'm just trying to get other opinions on the subject to help fill in the gaps of what i don't know about it.
Let me try this in a more open ended fashion.
How would you define or describe the alt-right Sermokala?
On November 19 2016 09:34 Howie_Dewitt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 09:07 Tachion wrote:On November 19 2016 08:37 RealityIsKing wrote:
The Alt Rights are just people that don't like how the Republican Party was operating.
And Trump is the alternative path to become a president instead of the traditional Republican way. I am far from knowledgeable on the subject, but from what i understand alt-right means far more than just an alternative republican party. It's rooted in white nationalism and has core values in preserving white identity and rejects progressive and multi-cultural influences like gay rights, feminism, SJW's, jews, muslims, and globalism. Writing this out, I'm not really sure what differentiates them from an organization like the KKK. There's no real consensus on what the alt-right ideology is yet since it's a fairly new thing, so I'm sure others have a different interpretation of it than I do. The KKK have uniforms, set goals, and are much more united than the alt-right, the distinction is huge. The alt-right seem to just be a mob of angry people who reject things in a sort-of similar manner, but don't do much about it. The KKK will have meetings where they reaffirm their beliefs and then act on them; the alt-right don't agree with each other, and they debate over their own membership and what their movement is.
You are very right in regards to the differences in unity and organization, I can't say I've ever heard about an alt-right rally through the streets :p In ideological terms though they appear to have a lot in common.
|
On November 19 2016 06:38 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 06:21 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 19 2016 05:06 RvB wrote:On November 19 2016 04:12 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 19 2016 02:29 Doodsmack wrote:
And yes, alt right white nationalism is at the core of Trump's support, and perhaps policy, considering the position of Bannon. Bannon's stated world view is one of protecting the supremacy of Judeo-Christian culture. Protecting the right to life, liberty and property, the non-agression principle, free speech, separation of church and state, equality against the law, due process and innocent until proven guilty, small government (or at least not HUGE government). Yes, those are the values many Trump supporters voted for. I like them as well, and consider them superior to other cultures. It's about values, not race, by the way. How do you reconcile liberty while restricting the free movement of people? The right to walk, live and work where you want is falls under freedom as well yet Trump (and his supporters) want to restrict it. Of all the different levels of hypocrisy in GoTunk's post, I don't think free movement is one to focus on. Milo also thinks that lesbians don't exist, why the fuck are we taking his personal experiences seriously again? Yea, I'm not about to take Milo very seriously. He has a long track record of saying stupid shit that loses him his credibility. Yes I realise that. I'm just the most interested in how classical liberals try to reconcile liberty with limiting the free movement. It features pretty prominently in the Brexit debate as well where a lot of classical liberals are anti EU and anti immigration. Show nested quote +President-elect Donald Trump agreed to pay $25 million to settle claims that his defunct Trump University defrauded students, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said in a statement. www.bloomberg.com
To your legit question,you can have "no borders" when inmigrants are coming to compete in the free market, and cannot obtain benefits, power, or special treatment trough the government. Theoretically, inmigrants are basically moving from one city to another since both countries would live on free societies without a central power taking wealth from one group to another.
What currently happens, is that inmigrants move in receiving massive benefits; they are basically getting bribed by the government to come in (and vote for more, bigger government). There exists a massive transfer of wealth from the host population to the inmigrant one.
Do you see the difference?
|
On November 19 2016 09:36 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 09:18 Sermokala wrote:On November 19 2016 09:07 Tachion wrote:On November 19 2016 08:37 RealityIsKing wrote:
The Alt Rights are just people that don't like how the Republican Party was operating.
And Trump is the alternative path to become a president instead of the traditional Republican way. I am far from knowledgeable on the subject, but from what i understand alt-right means far more than just an alternative republican party. It's rooted in white nationalism and has core values in preserving white identity and rejects progressive and multi-cultural influences like gay rights, feminism, SJW's, jews, muslims, and globalism. Writing this out, I'm not really sure what differentiates them from an organization like the KKK. There's no real consensus on what the alt-right ideology is yet since it's a fairly new thing, so I'm sure others have a different interpretation of it than I do. Do you understand how you poison the debate and dismiss any possibility of a decent argument when you talk like this. First you state that you don't know much or understand much about the alt right (I don't think anyone can really say that they know for sure what the alt right is) and then you go into saying its sexist and racist and nothing different then the KKK. I mean where do people go from there other then simply stating "no you're ignorant thats not true". You can't tell yourself that you're the better side when you act as bad if not worse then the side you disagree with. You should be asking questions about specific points of the alt right and general trends you see with it that you argue is various names for bad. Otherwise whats the point? On November 19 2016 09:17 Nebuchad wrote:
So I've had to go and read the Establishment conservative's guide to the alt-right, thx guys...
"The media empire of the modern-day alternative right coalesced around Richard Spencer during his editorship of Taki’s Magazine. In 2010, Spencer founded AlternativeRight.com, which would become a center of alt-right thought."
This part, listed under intellectuals (of the alt-right), highlights an element that they present as crucial to the development of the alt-right, the foundation of AlternativeRight.com by Richard Spencer. Richard Spencer who in my echo chamber has been described in unsavory terms, advocating among other things, for the sterilization of other races. This didn't appear in the breitbart article though.
What did appear, though, under the "1488ers": basically a repudiation of nazis, followed by:
"Based on our research we believe this stands in stark contrast with the rest of the alt-right, who focus more on building communities and lifestyles based around their values than plotting violent revolution."
So my initial question is: are we allowed to criticize those intellectuals of the alt-right, and following that, their characterization as contrasting starkly with true racists? This is exactly the oppisite of your post and legitimatly contributes to the thread in a real way. And to Nebuchad, Yes as they should and everyone should equally, once we can do that for the nazies to the LGBT equally we will all be equal. The problem comes when you generalize and put in a basket the entire moment for the basis of those few people. You can do that to people who are in the KKK and who support the KKK because they're an explicit organization while the "alt-right" is an abstract movement of conservatives that don't associate with the establishment organizations. If an influential thinker that is described as having created a "center of alt-right thought" is one of them, what's your basis for saying it's few people? Breitbart tells me that the alt-right looks down on "true racists", that tells me Spencer isn't one of them in their eyes. Which, if there is no dispute of his views, is a problem.
I'm lost. There are a ton of actual nazies and literally terrible human beings that are apart of the alt right in a not insignifigant amount. Its a fringe movement by definition.
I'm thinking of the libertarian party and the terrible people and thinkers in that movement but I don't paint the "libertarian" name with those kinds of people.
|
On November 19 2016 09:45 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 09:33 Sermokala wrote:On November 19 2016 09:29 Tachion wrote:On November 19 2016 09:18 Sermokala wrote:On November 19 2016 09:07 Tachion wrote:On November 19 2016 08:37 RealityIsKing wrote:
The Alt Rights are just people that don't like how the Republican Party was operating.
And Trump is the alternative path to become a president instead of the traditional Republican way. I am far from knowledgeable on the subject, but from what i understand alt-right means far more than just an alternative republican party. It's rooted in white nationalism and has core values in preserving white identity and rejects progressive and multi-cultural influences like gay rights, feminism, SJW's, jews, muslims, and globalism. Writing this out, I'm not really sure what differentiates them from an organization like the KKK. There's no real consensus on what the alt-right ideology is yet since it's a fairly new thing, so I'm sure others have a different interpretation of it than I do. Do you understand how you poison the debate and dismiss any possibility of a decent argument when you talk like this. First you state that you don't know much or understand much about the alt right (I don't think anyone can really say that they know for sure what the alt right is) and then you go into saying its sexist and racist and nothing different then the KKK. I mean where do people go from there other then simply stating "no you're ignorant thats not true". You can't tell yourself that you're the better side when you act as bad if not worse then the side you disagree with. You should be asking questions about specific points of the alt right and general trends you see with it that you argue is various names for bad. Otherwise whats the point? I was very implicit in stating that my take on the subject was rather primitive. My views are not set in stone, this is only how I've come to understand the subject thus far. If you think I'm wrong somewhere, say so. It seems like you're offended that I've interpreted it differently than you. Yes but you stating that is part of the problem. You can't state that you are unsure and then state sureities about what you think. What you're doing is preconditioning your thoughts and arguments before learning anything, which is the exact thing that you use words to describe as bad in your post. You confirm this by your second sentence when you go on the attack against me and try to place me on the other side of the argument you're trying to make vis a vis calling me a sexist, racist, anti Semite and bigot. Theres no way to civilly continue the conversation with you and if the only person that was involved in the conversation to get to that point is you when you have to admit where the blame for it getting there lies. I stated what I came to understand of the alt-right so far, while implying that I may be wrong because I wasn't very knowledgeable and left it pretty open for discussion. Maybe instead of getting all super defensive, you can actually address what I said and where you think I went wrong? It would be much more productive. You're arguing for the sake of arguing, I'm just trying to get other opinions on the subject to help fill in the gaps of what i don't know about it. Let me try this in a more open ended fashion. How would you define or describe the alt-right Sermokala? Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 09:34 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On November 19 2016 09:07 Tachion wrote:On November 19 2016 08:37 RealityIsKing wrote:
The Alt Rights are just people that don't like how the Republican Party was operating.
And Trump is the alternative path to become a president instead of the traditional Republican way. I am far from knowledgeable on the subject, but from what i understand alt-right means far more than just an alternative republican party. It's rooted in white nationalism and has core values in preserving white identity and rejects progressive and multi-cultural influences like gay rights, feminism, SJW's, jews, muslims, and globalism. Writing this out, I'm not really sure what differentiates them from an organization like the KKK. There's no real consensus on what the alt-right ideology is yet since it's a fairly new thing, so I'm sure others have a different interpretation of it than I do. The KKK have uniforms, set goals, and are much more united than the alt-right, the distinction is huge. The alt-right seem to just be a mob of angry people who reject things in a sort-of similar manner, but don't do much about it. The KKK will have meetings where they reaffirm their beliefs and then act on them; the alt-right don't agree with each other, and they debate over their own membership and what their movement is. You are very right in regards to the differences in unity and organization, I can't say I've ever heard about an alt-right rally through the streets :p In ideological terms though they appear to have a lot in common.
You didn't leave things up for discussion in your post.
It's rooted in white nationalism and has core values in preserving white identity and rejects progressive and multi-cultural influences like gay rights, feminism, SJW's, jews, muslims, and globalism.
Writing this out, I'm not really sure what differentiates them from an organization like the KKK
This is what you posted. You go from "I don't know much about the alt right" to "I don't see anything that makes them different then the literal KKK". You reinforce this assertion that the alt right is the kkk in your eyes at the end of your post as well. You can't say that you're not very knowledgeable and yet at the same time make a judgement about what you think of it. The only way you could have come to this judgement is a prejudice to fill in your self admitted gaps of knowledge.
I would say I'm pretty offensive on your post and trying to point out how its flawed and is a bad way to discuss things regardless of the content.
I would describe the Alt right as a fringe populist offshoot of the politically "right" side of the nation.
|
Canada11509 Posts
I wonder if there's a litmus test (that avoids racial stuff) to determine if one is Alt Right. One test I would put forward is to ask what they think of William F Buckley, specifically about his purging the John Birch Society from the conservative movement (after all there are a great many reasons one could dislike Buckley). It has been my experience that they across the board dislike the idea of reading out of groups like the Birch Society. Not that this is necessarily the Society returned- the Alt Right is too young as whole. But they DO strongly resent that the Society was written out and that that sort of thing won't happen again.
|
On November 19 2016 10:36 Falling wrote:
I wonder if there's a litmus test (that avoids racial stuff) to determine if one is Alt Right. One test I would put forward is to ask what they think of William F Buckley, specifically about his purging the John Birsch Society from the conservative movement (after all there are a great many reasons one could dislike Buckley). It has been my experience that they across the board dislike the idea of reading out of groups like the Birsch Society. Not that this is necessarily the Society returned- the Alt Right is too young as whole. But they DO strongly resent that the Society was written out and that that sort of thing won't happen again.
I doubt much of the modern alt-right members would remember that chapter in American conservatism, nor be able to spell the John Birch Society, nor know what they were all about.
|
On November 19 2016 08:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 08:39 kwizach wrote:On November 19 2016 08:27 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 08:24 kwizach wrote:On November 19 2016 08:05 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 07:53 Blisse wrote:
Does this boil down to whether Bannon turning Breitbart into an alt-right newsground mean that Bannon is a white nationalist/supremist? How do you distinguish between the alt-right and white nationalism/supremism? White nationalism and white supremacism are parts of some elements of the Alt-Right. However, Breitbart is not an Alt-Right media outlet. Nor is it a white supremacist/nationalist media outlet. The real tip off is that the real white supremacists don't consider Breitbart to be part of the Alt-Right, and they hate some of the folks at Breitbart. The problem is that mainstream media and democrats are casually throwing around labels that they don't even understand. They haven't done their homework, and frankly, they don't care because they thought that they could use the Alt-Right as a massive strawman to take down Trump. Like I discussed at the time, all that they did was piss into the wind. "We're the platform for the alt-right" -- Steve Bannon One supposed quote being reported by a Mother Jones reporter is not enough to overcome all of the other statements by Bannon and other Breitbart folks ( not to mention the real Alt-Right folks) saying otherwise. This is interesting -- Bannon's statement on Breitbart being the "platform from the alt-right" has been widely quoted in the media, and I have yet to find a single instance of him denying he said that. What is your evidence that Bannon is denying that Breitbart is a platform for the alt-right, and that the reporter quoting him invented the statement? From what I'm seeing, even the Breitbart editorial staff itself is not denying that Bannon said that Breitbart was the platform for the alt-right. It seems like you are simply wrong. Numerous writers for Breitbart have said it. I have to go find the quotes.
Again, Bannon has called the website a "platform for the alt right", its editorial staff did not dispute the statement, a former editor-at-large declared it had embraced the alt right under Bannon, and its relevant articles and comment sections fit how the alt right is defined to a T. There is no reason to deny reality: the website has clearly become a platform for the alt right.
|
Canada11509 Posts
On November 19 2016 10:48 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 10:36 Falling wrote:
I wonder if there's a litmus test (that avoids racial stuff) to determine if one is Alt Right. One test I would put forward is to ask what they think of William F Buckley, specifically about his purging the John Birch Society from the conservative movement (after all there are a great many reasons one could dislike Buckley). It has been my experience that they across the board dislike the idea of reading out of groups like the Birch Society. Not that this is necessarily the Society returned- the Alt Right is too young as whole. But they DO strongly resent that the Society was written out and that that sort of thing won't happen again. I doubt much of the modern alt-right members would remember that chapter in American conservatism, nor be able to spell the John Birch Society, nor know what they were all about.
That wasn't a hypothetical in the sense of 'do any of them remember'. By my experience, they do remember and do talk about him a fair amount. He's the prime example of what is wrong with the establishment. My question was whether it was widespread enough to be used as a litmus test.
|
On November 19 2016 10:49 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 08:53 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 08:39 kwizach wrote:On November 19 2016 08:27 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 08:24 kwizach wrote:On November 19 2016 08:05 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 07:53 Blisse wrote:
Does this boil down to whether Bannon turning Breitbart into an alt-right newsground mean that Bannon is a white nationalist/supremist? How do you distinguish between the alt-right and white nationalism/supremism? White nationalism and white supremacism are parts of some elements of the Alt-Right. However, Breitbart is not an Alt-Right media outlet. Nor is it a white supremacist/nationalist media outlet. The real tip off is that the real white supremacists don't consider Breitbart to be part of the Alt-Right, and they hate some of the folks at Breitbart. The problem is that mainstream media and democrats are casually throwing around labels that they don't even understand. They haven't done their homework, and frankly, they don't care because they thought that they could use the Alt-Right as a massive strawman to take down Trump. Like I discussed at the time, all that they did was piss into the wind. "We're the platform for the alt-right" -- Steve Bannon One supposed quote being reported by a Mother Jones reporter is not enough to overcome all of the other statements by Bannon and other Breitbart folks ( not to mention the real Alt-Right folks) saying otherwise. This is interesting -- Bannon's statement on Breitbart being the "platform from the alt-right" has been widely quoted in the media, and I have yet to find a single instance of him denying he said that. What is your evidence that Bannon is denying that Breitbart is a platform for the alt-right, and that the reporter quoting him invented the statement? From what I'm seeing, even the Breitbart editorial staff itself is not denying that Bannon said that Breitbart was the platform for the alt-right. It seems like you are simply wrong. Numerous writers for Breitbart have said it. I have to go find the quotes. Again, Bannon has called the website a "platform for the alt right", its editorial staff did not dispute the statement, a former editor-at-large declared it had embraced the alt right under Bannon, and its relevant articles and comment sections fit how the alt right is defined to a T. There is no reason to deny reality: the website has clearly become a platform for the alt right.
Newsflash. When someone in the media screams that they're a platform for X category you can consider it either as an attempt to hijack, misdirect or suck up the energy of said movement to sell copies. They're just riding the bandwagon and trying to appeal to the masses of people that might identify with the label by spamming out shit they don't know anything about because the average journalist finds his facts on twitter these days.
These people couldn't predict a trump win. How on earth do you expect these people to accurately represent a movement?
|
On November 19 2016 10:56 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 10:48 Danglars wrote:On November 19 2016 10:36 Falling wrote:
I wonder if there's a litmus test (that avoids racial stuff) to determine if one is Alt Right. One test I would put forward is to ask what they think of William F Buckley, specifically about his purging the John Birch Society from the conservative movement (after all there are a great many reasons one could dislike Buckley). It has been my experience that they across the board dislike the idea of reading out of groups like the Birch Society. Not that this is necessarily the Society returned- the Alt Right is too young as whole. But they DO strongly resent that the Society was written out and that that sort of thing won't happen again. I doubt much of the modern alt-right members would remember that chapter in American conservatism, nor be able to spell the John Birch Society, nor know what they were all about. That wasn't a hypothetical in the sense of 'do any of them remember'. By my experience, they do remember and do talk about him a fair amount. He's the prime example of what is wrong with the establishment. My question was whether it was widespread enough to be used as a litmus test.
Ask them what they think of Ben Shapiro.
|
Canada11509 Posts
On November 19 2016 11:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 10:56 Falling wrote:On November 19 2016 10:48 Danglars wrote:On November 19 2016 10:36 Falling wrote:
I wonder if there's a litmus test (that avoids racial stuff) to determine if one is Alt Right. One test I would put forward is to ask what they think of William F Buckley, specifically about his purging the John Birch Society from the conservative movement (after all there are a great many reasons one could dislike Buckley). It has been my experience that they across the board dislike the idea of reading out of groups like the Birch Society. Not that this is necessarily the Society returned- the Alt Right is too young as whole. But they DO strongly resent that the Society was written out and that that sort of thing won't happen again. I doubt much of the modern alt-right members would remember that chapter in American conservatism, nor be able to spell the John Birch Society, nor know what they were all about. That wasn't a hypothetical in the sense of 'do any of them remember'. By my experience, they do remember and do talk about him a fair amount. He's the prime example of what is wrong with the establishment. My question was whether it was widespread enough to be used as a litmus test. Ask them what they think of Ben Shapiro.
Actually, that was a weird one for me as well. Because I was first familiar with Shapiro by various 'Conservative destroys SJWs at university' type videos, so I thought he was a darling of the anti-PC crowd. But from what I've seen, it's oil and water these days.
|
On November 19 2016 08:48 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 08:26 oBlade wrote:On November 19 2016 07:53 Blisse wrote:
Does this boil down to whether Bannon turning Breitbart into an alt-right newsground mean that Bannon is a white nationalist/supremist? How do you distinguish between the alt-right and white nationalism/supremism? in reality they have not much editorializing (later I learned this was one of the design goals in mind) That's not a very defensible statement. At any given time I can go to their main page and disprove it. Right now, it says "Hateful Harry" right at the top.
I don't see any "Hateful Harry," but whatever, it's not important, because I very clearly in plain English didn't say there was no editorializing. I said there was not much editorializing. It's telling you're in a rush to show you can "disprove" any assessment you see. Breitbart is provocative and they have blunt spin in their headlines. Compare that to all the bloggers you find at the Guardian and you can see what I'm talking about.
|
On November 19 2016 11:47 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 11:12 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 10:56 Falling wrote:On November 19 2016 10:48 Danglars wrote:On November 19 2016 10:36 Falling wrote:
I wonder if there's a litmus test (that avoids racial stuff) to determine if one is Alt Right. One test I would put forward is to ask what they think of William F Buckley, specifically about his purging the John Birch Society from the conservative movement (after all there are a great many reasons one could dislike Buckley). It has been my experience that they across the board dislike the idea of reading out of groups like the Birch Society. Not that this is necessarily the Society returned- the Alt Right is too young as whole. But they DO strongly resent that the Society was written out and that that sort of thing won't happen again. I doubt much of the modern alt-right members would remember that chapter in American conservatism, nor be able to spell the John Birch Society, nor know what they were all about. That wasn't a hypothetical in the sense of 'do any of them remember'. By my experience, they do remember and do talk about him a fair amount. He's the prime example of what is wrong with the establishment. My question was whether it was widespread enough to be used as a litmus test. Ask them what they think of Ben Shapiro. Actually, that was a weird one for me as well. Because I was first familiar with Shapiro by various 'Conservative destroys SJWs at university' type videos, so I thought he was a darling of the anti-PC crowd. But from what I've seen, it's oil and water these days.
Ben Shapiro is definitely anti-SJW, but he is no friend of the alt-right, and openly feuds with them. Likewise, the alt-right detests him. So if you get something resembling a virulent response from a person on the right to Ben Shapiro, that person is likely alt right.
|
On November 19 2016 10:49 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 08:53 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 08:39 kwizach wrote:On November 19 2016 08:27 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 08:24 kwizach wrote:On November 19 2016 08:05 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 07:53 Blisse wrote:
Does this boil down to whether Bannon turning Breitbart into an alt-right newsground mean that Bannon is a white nationalist/supremist? How do you distinguish between the alt-right and white nationalism/supremism? White nationalism and white supremacism are parts of some elements of the Alt-Right. However, Breitbart is not an Alt-Right media outlet. Nor is it a white supremacist/nationalist media outlet. The real tip off is that the real white supremacists don't consider Breitbart to be part of the Alt-Right, and they hate some of the folks at Breitbart. The problem is that mainstream media and democrats are casually throwing around labels that they don't even understand. They haven't done their homework, and frankly, they don't care because they thought that they could use the Alt-Right as a massive strawman to take down Trump. Like I discussed at the time, all that they did was piss into the wind. "We're the platform for the alt-right" -- Steve Bannon One supposed quote being reported by a Mother Jones reporter is not enough to overcome all of the other statements by Bannon and other Breitbart folks ( not to mention the real Alt-Right folks) saying otherwise. This is interesting -- Bannon's statement on Breitbart being the "platform from the alt-right" has been widely quoted in the media, and I have yet to find a single instance of him denying he said that. What is your evidence that Bannon is denying that Breitbart is a platform for the alt-right, and that the reporter quoting him invented the statement? From what I'm seeing, even the Breitbart editorial staff itself is not denying that Bannon said that Breitbart was the platform for the alt-right. It seems like you are simply wrong. Numerous writers for Breitbart have said it. I have to go find the quotes. Again, Bannon has called the website a "platform for the alt right", its editorial staff did not dispute the statement, a former editor-at-large declared it had embraced the alt right under Bannon, and its relevant articles and comment sections fit how the alt right is defined to a T. There is no reason to deny reality: the website has clearly become a platform for the alt right.
Yes, these are fair points about whether Bannon believes that Breitbart is an Alt-Right website. I'm not finding what I was thinking was out there, so who knows. I could just be conflating Breitbart's and Bannon's rejections of the stricter/white nationalist version of the Alt-Right with imaginary rejections of the broader definition of the Alt-Right that they have pushed from time to time.
|
On November 19 2016 12:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 10:49 kwizach wrote:On November 19 2016 08:53 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 08:39 kwizach wrote:On November 19 2016 08:27 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 08:24 kwizach wrote:On November 19 2016 08:05 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 07:53 Blisse wrote:
Does this boil down to whether Bannon turning Breitbart into an alt-right newsground mean that Bannon is a white nationalist/supremist? How do you distinguish between the alt-right and white nationalism/supremism? White nationalism and white supremacism are parts of some elements of the Alt-Right. However, Breitbart is not an Alt-Right media outlet. Nor is it a white supremacist/nationalist media outlet. The real tip off is that the real white supremacists don't consider Breitbart to be part of the Alt-Right, and they hate some of the folks at Breitbart. The problem is that mainstream media and democrats are casually throwing around labels that they don't even understand. They haven't done their homework, and frankly, they don't care because they thought that they could use the Alt-Right as a massive strawman to take down Trump. Like I discussed at the time, all that they did was piss into the wind. "We're the platform for the alt-right" -- Steve Bannon One supposed quote being reported by a Mother Jones reporter is not enough to overcome all of the other statements by Bannon and other Breitbart folks ( not to mention the real Alt-Right folks) saying otherwise. This is interesting -- Bannon's statement on Breitbart being the "platform from the alt-right" has been widely quoted in the media, and I have yet to find a single instance of him denying he said that. What is your evidence that Bannon is denying that Breitbart is a platform for the alt-right, and that the reporter quoting him invented the statement? From what I'm seeing, even the Breitbart editorial staff itself is not denying that Bannon said that Breitbart was the platform for the alt-right. It seems like you are simply wrong. Numerous writers for Breitbart have said it. I have to go find the quotes. Again, Bannon has called the website a "platform for the alt right", its editorial staff did not dispute the statement, a former editor-at-large declared it had embraced the alt right under Bannon, and its relevant articles and comment sections fit how the alt right is defined to a T. There is no reason to deny reality: the website has clearly become a platform for the alt right. Yes, these are fair points about whether Bannon believes that Breitbart is an Alt-Right website. I'm not finding what I was thinking was out there, so who knows. I could just be conflating Breitbart's and Bannon's rejections of the stricter/white nationalist version of the Alt-Right with imaginary rejections of the broader definition of the Alt-Right that they have pushed from time to time.
Since individuals will use and think about a certain train of thought or ideology in different ways (accepting certain parts, rejecting others) it could be that Bannon likes the alt-right and wants to give it a platform while also not agreeing with some of the more radical and strict ideas. The fact that "true" alt-righters think he isn't one doesn't mean much imo because ideas are pretty dynamic and change over time as more people buy into it (since no two people will have the same interpretation of said ideology).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
