Alt-right terminology / symbolism - Page 4
Forum Index > General Forum |
Creating polls with physical violence against an individual or group as an option, or advocating for / supporting physical violence against an individual or group in a post = ban. This is your only warning. | ||
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
DeepElemBlues
United States5075 Posts
On October 26 2019 05:59 Dangermousecatdog wrote: It's not really true that they are fairly obvious and not tolerated. if they were obvious this discussion would not be occuring. If their beliefs weren't tolerated, especially in USA, this discussion would not be occuring either. Off the internet it's pretty much a non-issue. No one but political junkies knows about this, really, or gives a damn. It's a tempest in a teapot. All about political energy. Can this resonate with non-political junkies and get their motors running? Well, turns out the answer is no. The mainstream was exposed to all this stuff in a big way two years ago, because the media thought it might be a way to attack the president. Didn't work. Didn't resonate with the masses either way. Didn't make people like Trump more, didn't make them like him less. 'Humorous' pictures and videos and whatever had less relevance off the internet than political junkies thought might be the case. It's a good topic if you want a how many angels can fit on the head of a pin type argument because it comes down to do you personally find it important or not. Personally I think Nazi types are a hopeless minority (this is a good thing) that were much larger in numbers and more violent in the 1980s and early 1990s. Then the federal government sat on them and now they make memes on the internet and (badly) LARP the communist-Nazi street fights of late 1920s Germany on the weekends. The older, more dangerous generation is dying off, already dead, or in federal and state prisons, and their replacements are dweebs like Richard Spencer. These are not people who represent a serious threat to the culture or political institutions of the country. The ability of individuals to perpetrate simple mayhem is always present but maybe the government should do its job, seeing as how it turns out that so many of these people that go perpetrate simple mayhem for whatever reason were already known to the government but the government didn't do its job and the opportunity to stop them was missed. | ||
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
JimmyJRaynor
Canada15524 Posts
On October 25 2019 22:03 ShoCkeyy wrote: The alt-right term is simple, and there were plenty of others that explained it. It's people who have views of fascism, authoritarianism, and neo nazism within the conservative party. In Canada, I'd say there is a bigger problem with the NDP having members who believe in authoritarianism than there is within the Conservative party. The "Fight Back" group within the NDP is particularly bad there are others within the NDP. I'm not too worried about "Fight Back"s hand signs though. I'm more concerned with their policies and warped view of history. On October 26 2019 12:02 DeepElemBlues wrote: Personally I think Nazi types are a hopeless minority (this is a good thing) that were much larger in numbers and more violent in the 1980s and early 1990s. Then the federal government sat on them and now they make memes on the internet and (badly) LARP the communist-Nazi street fights of late 1920s Germany on the weekends. I wonder how serious the "Nazi" issue was in the 1990s. I do not think it was a big issue. If it were a serious issue why would a mainstream comedy show by Jerry Seinfeld called "The Soup Nazi" be so positively received. Seinfeld isn't Chappelle. He is non-political and very middle of the road. Wouldn't people be disturbed by using the word "Nazi" so much and applying it to a real life situation? Did you see mainstream comedy shows making jokes about "Desert Shield" in 1990? No, because until the US invaded "Desert Shield" was considered a very serious situation that could result in many US casualties. In conclusion, I don't think Nazism was a big concern in the 1990s. Do you have any documentation to back up your claim about nazism in america is/was a real problem in the 1990s ? | ||
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On October 27 2019 07:54 JimmyJRaynor wrote: In Canada, I'd say there is a bigger problem with the NDP having members who believe in authoritarianism than there is within the Conservative party. The "Fight Back" group within the NDP is particularly bad there are others within the NDP. I'm not too worried about "Fight Back"s hand signs though. I'm more concerned with their policies and warped view of history. I wonder how serious the "Nazi" issue was in the 1990s. I do not think it was a big issue. If it were a serious issue why would a mainstream comedy show by Jerry Seinfeld called "The Soup Nazi" be so positively received. Seinfeld isn't Chappelle. He is non-political and very middle of the road. Wouldn't people be disturbed by using the word "Nazi" so much and applying it to a real life situation? Did you see mainstream comedy shows making jokes about "Desert Shield" in 1990? No, because until the US invaded "Desert Shield" was considered a very serious situation that could result in many US casualties. In conclusion, I don't think Nazism was a big concern in the 1990s. Do you have any documentation to back up your claim about nazism in america is/was a real problem in the 1990s ? There is also an episode where they hijack a Nazi's leader limousine, it's prolly one of the best of the entire show. "The Limo", enjoy. | ||
JimmyJRaynor
Canada15524 Posts
I wonder if a comedy show like "Hogan's Heroes" could exist today? or would too many people spaz out at the sight of a swastika or those "SS" symbols on the arm bands of some of the germans? They even humanized the german oppressors in the show. | ||
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
I say it's hard if you didn't live through the history in question to gauge whether the informal social norms can be inferred from success, or if it was totally against those norms and existed only because of personal celebrity, media production independence, and a quasi-asshole forgiveness card for parody or insult comedy. I could equally imagine a non-comedy context, say a documentary context, that could not give fair portrayal to social attitudes or document comedic figures. That would provide the counterargument to inferring social norms from comedy, because maybe no article was published about proposed documentaries being rejected on the basis of violating informal social norms. The above was on the problem with comedy as a distinct genre and the trouble separating society's tolerance with comedy going against the grain with making inferences on prevailing social norms. I do hope my argument from example and hypothetical is dealt with or examined if anybody is arguing with the last part. Let me paraphrase the OP and some others to mean, "The danger of irreverent use of anti-establishment and edgy memes is that vulnerable persons will see them as harmless fun, and become actually susceptible to fall for white-supremacist or anti-semitic ideology and movements promoting them. Serious and proper education should inform conscientious people that use of such terminology or memes aids recruitment in such organization, is actually a pernicious and real force, and should be avoided and condemned on those grounds." My paraphrase of opposition "The nature the cited ideologies are so abhorrent, that there is only a small danger of people crossing from modern-punk memes and terminology to actual belief in the ideology of some people spreading them. There is far greater danger that education in opposing these memes (for reason of fringe groups co-opting them) is counterproductive and actively plays into their hands. The fringe groups will more effectively use such education and opposition to inspire sympathy and raise their public profile, because of the meme's legitimate edgy use to make people laugh at overreactions to trolling and the cleverness in devising/applying the memes. Comedy thrives on societal sacred cows--what you're not allowed to joke about or who you can't make fun of." I think both perspectives as I've paraphrased them are genuine perspectives, and neither (as I previously heard) intentionally ignore something real to make their argument. I'm weighing comparative dangers and social goods to arrive at my support of the latter and rejection of the former. In a different situation, or a different society, these weights would adjust ... like in the wake of a great tragedy, I'd tell others to not poke fun at the grieving community. | ||
JimmyJRaynor
Canada15524 Posts
On October 28 2019 02:23 Danglars wrote: The backlash or response to certain irreverent or perhaps offensive parody is tough to gauge usually. The easiest example of the latter was Chapelle's Sticks & Stones netflix special. the difference between Seinfeld and Chapelle is that Chapelle is a niche market comedian. the Seinfeld show at the airing of the "Soup Nazi" was the #2 rated show in the USA and #1 sit-com. It was extremely popular in Canada. It was very middle of the road and very mainstream. So you have to judge each reaction differently. There was zero backlash and no boycott of Seinfeld after the "Soup Nazi" aired. People loved it and Seinfeld continued to smash ratings records long after that show aired. On October 28 2019 02:23 Danglars wrote: I say it's hard if you didn't live through the history in question to gauge whether the informal social norms can be inferred from success, or if it was totally against those norms and existed only because of personal celebrity, media production independence, and a quasi-asshole forgiveness card for parody or insult comedy. I could equally imagine a non-comedy context, say a documentary context, that could not give fair portrayal to social attitudes or document comedic figures. Comedy offers a "guard down" emotional response that you can't get from a documentary. There are two historical events in US history that I can tell were taken very damn seriously based on zero comedy done about them at the time of their occurrence. (1) The 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis. (2) 1990 "Desert Shield" during the Iraq invasion of Kuwait. You won't find anyone joking about how all kinds of people might die during those two events. In my research, I did find a few years later the 1979 Iran Hostage events came up in a comedy context. However, it is interesting to note what is being joked about. Hostages dying or the first failed rescue attempt that results in US deaths didn't come up. To wit, here is SCTV's take on Iran Hostage hero Ken Taylor. For the record, US Prez Carter stated Argo is a fiction movie. On October 28 2019 02:23 Danglars wrote: In a different situation, or a different society, these weights would adjust ... like in the wake of a great tragedy, I'd tell others to not poke fun at the grieving community. to add to this point... + Show Spoiler + They are making fun of Ken Taylor, the weak Canadian dollar, and Canadians drinking too much beer for 5 minutes. They don't joke about how the USA miscalculated during their initial rescue attempt resulting in the deaths of US military personnel. They didn't joke about the Reagan Iran-Contra deal. They stayed away from the nasty stuff. That tells me those things were politically sensitive at the time. It also tells me that in the early 1980s... when push came to shove... when it really mattered Canadians and Americans really stuck together.. they were very very strong allies to each other. Unlike today. In general, the art of the day offers an insight into the thoughts, feelings and ideas of the citizenry. Comedy is merely 1 form of art. | ||
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 28 2019 03:01 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Comedy offers a "guard down" emotional response that you can't get from a documentary. There are two historical events in US history that I can tell were taken very damn seriously based on zero comedy done about them at the time of their occurrence. (1) The 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis. (2) 1990 "Desert Shield" during the Iraq invasion of Kuwait. You won't find anyone joking about how all kinds of people might die during those two events. In my research, I did find a few years later the 1979 Iran Hostage events came up in a comedy context. However, it is interesting to note what is being joked about. Hostages dying or the first failed rescue attempt that results in US deaths didn't come up. To wit, here is SCTV's take on Iran Hostage hero Ken Taylor. For the record, US Prez Carter stated Argo is a fiction movie. How do you separate this from some separate phenomena? A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic. I wouldn't expect to find comedy making fun of McAuliffe's decision to go about the Challenger in light of it's subsequent explosion. The hostage crisis was small. Secondarily, it was evocative in terms of human empathy ... people not responsible for some actions being the primary ones to bear the consequences. Some people near a shooting of a violent criminal killed accidentally by police is a similar idea. Who does comedy on that, if not long after? I'm not so much saying you have no point, other than not being fully convinced you can draw these conclusions from it and trust them. The main difference I see is the number of victims (adjusted for war & tragedy) and perceived culpability (also echoed in Desert Shield, unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country motivated by greed). I see them more connected than social norms, but maybe I'm explaining things through the lens of "these events and differences tell something real about the human spirit and epochal western culture" than "we can use time from event to time of comedy to reveal something about temporal societal norms." Have you self-examined the possible error of using something overdefined by many inputs to focus on just one correlation? I still have trouble subtracting the censorious attitudes of society (How much does society allow for fringe comic genius, entertainment like snuff films or hardcore pornography? How much do they expand norms for exceptional celebrity with comedic genius?) from the broader social property of actual acceptance? You do raise an interesting point. Would you draw a similar conclusion about the social norms regarding children killed indiscriminately by school shooters, and the time period between the last occurance and Aziz Ansari's joke about Why does that mean I have to listen to you? How does that make you interesting? You didn't get shot! You pushed some fat kid in the way—and now I got to listen to you talking?! Why or why not?too add to this point... + Show Spoiler + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFnpBXdeIFM They are making fun of Ken Taylor, the weak Canadian dollar, and the Canadians drinking too much beer for 5 minutes. They don't joke about how the USA miscalculated during their initial rescue attempt resulting in the deaths of US military personnel. They didn't joke about the Reagan Iran-Contra deal. They stayed away from the nasty stuff. That tells me those things were politically sensitive at the time. In general, the art of the day offers an insight into the thoughts, feelings and ideas of the citizenry. Comedy is merely 1 form of art. I have similar thoughts to my last couple paragraphs. Art certainly shows something about society, but it's entangled in multiple layers of meaning. Tolerance vs intolerance of comedic license to approach tragedy or evil with parody, your take of it's exposure of underlying norms of the topic rather than the comedy, smaller victim counts for the category vs just a statistic of millions, the relative culpability vs sympathy of the victims and participants. How are we to know if past popularity reflected the social norms or social tolerance of irreverent comedic art? Or if past celebrities granted their viewers permission to laugh, and would have done the same for other topics but were so few that some passed them by? I experienced this with Joan River's jokes about 9/11 and the backlash she felt. She still said the jokes, but the mixed reaction betrayed part social norm, part wondering about how close is too close in time to the tragedy in general, and part waiting to hear her justification because of her reputation for talking about subjects like suicide. It said something about social norms, but I don't think the whole story is too well revealed by it. I'm having some trouble distilling down my thoughts because I do think you have a point, but I'm troubled with a second aspect which is the morphing tolerance society has for celebrities or fringe comics saying the unsay-able. I consider the hypothesis that American society has become less tolerant over time on irreverent jokes on topics like race, Nazis, LGBTQ, and police conduct to be an arguable point and an overlapping point, no matter if you believe it to be a change for good or ill. If you understand me, let me know. My thoughts aren't well-developed on the impacts of celebrity, publisher independence (ie it's a lot easier to put things out now that there's not a dozen channels of TV & Movie), tolerance for comedy, social norms, and moral philosophy ... which in my view overlap your point. | ||
JimmyJRaynor
Canada15524 Posts
On October 28 2019 03:42 Danglars wrote: How do you separate this from some separate phenomena? A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic. I wouldn't expect to find comedy making fun of McAuliffe's decision to go about the Challenger in light of it's subsequent explosion. Interesting you bring up the Shuttle explosion.... The big joke in Canada right after the shuttle explosion was someone motioning with 1 arm in a free-style swimming stroke . The person telling the joke does that motion and then asks the question : "what is this?". When the person doesn't know the answer you reply with "Its the Canadian Space Arm swimming back to shore after the Challenger exploded". The joke is in my dad's high school year book. 1 of the "bad ass rebel guys" put it in there a couple of weeks after teh CHallenger exploded. The key is this: You would never hear that joke on a mainstream, middle of the road top-rated sit-com of the day. Like you wouldn't hear that joke on "The Cosby Show" or "Family Ties". Top rated middle of the road comedy shows get to be top rated by being middle of the road and appealing to the most mainstream people. If that joke were told on the Cosby Show in prime time the back lash would be brutal. | ||
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 28 2019 04:46 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Interesting you bring up the Shuttle explosion.... The big joke in Canada right after the shuttle explosion was someone motioning with 1 arm in a free-style swimming stroke . The person telling the joke does that motion and then asks the question : "what is this?". When the person doesn't know the answer you reply with "Its the Canadian Space Arm swimming back to shore after the Challenger exploded". The joke is in my dad's high school year book. 1 of the "bad ass rebel guys" put it in there a couple of weeks after teh CHallenger exploded. The key is this: You would never hear that joke on a mainstream, middle of the road top-rated sit-com of the day. Like you wouldn't hear that joke on "The Cosby Show" or "Family Ties". Top rated middle of the road comedy shows get to be top rated by being middle of the road and appealing to the most mainstream people. If that joke were told on the Cosby Show in prime time the back lash would be brutal. Interesting point. You're restricting it to the long-established mainstream, middle of the road top-rated sit-com of the day. That might just be the key, with only the filter of what the broadcasting executives fear (which might run ahead of public opinion). I'll mull that over. | ||
JimmyJRaynor
Canada15524 Posts
Just to wrap this up. I do not think Nazism was any kind of big important danger in the USA in the 1980s or early 1990s. The comedy show Hogan's Heroes ran in re-runs throughout the USA throughout the 1980s. The show was never seen as any kind of threat. The show was received as light-hearted humour. It was filled with all forms of Nazi symbolism. It is set in a Nazi prisoner of war camp. The German oppressors are humanized in every episode. In the 1990s two episodes of Seinfeld all kinds of Nazi jokes take place. Both comedy shows were mainstream and extremely politically correct for their time. Had Nazism presented a clear and present danger to the average American citizen I can't see Hogan's Heroes or Seinfeld being received as shows filled with light hearted casual humour. I'd say the perceived biggest threat in the 1980s in the USA was the Soviet Union. It was not Nazism. I'd also say the average American was greatly embarrassed by the 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis and how Jimmy Carter badly fumbled it. Americans were also sick of the Soviets invading countries around it while Jimmy Carter sat idly by. Reagan's "Make American Great Again" campaign captured the imaginations and votes of Americans who wanted the USA to once again be perceived as a great nation. Nazism doesn't factor into any of these issues. Essentially, Nazism was a non-issue. | ||
KelianQatar
303 Posts
| ||
JieXian
Malaysia4677 Posts
Hitler (the epitome of the right) was a vegetarian and had a dog which we can assume he loved. Should we avoid vegetarianism and having a dog by association now? Where do we draw the line? Where your feelings start and end? Please let morality guide you, not association with something else. If you already know that those people didn't use the terms out of malice, the discussion should end there. | ||
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
Nebuchad
Switzerland11272 Posts
On October 28 2019 16:33 JieXian wrote: What timeline is this? Hitler (the epitome of the right) was a vegetarian and had a dog which we can assume he loved. Should we avoid vegetarianism and having a dog by association now? Where do we draw the line? Where your feelings start and end? Please let morality guide you, not association with something else. If you already know that those people didn't use the terms out of malice, the discussion should end there. Oh shit fellow leftists, this one found the "Hitler was a vegetarian" line, he's onto us! | ||
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
hunts
United States2113 Posts
On October 29 2019 02:21 Danglars wrote: Time to shut down the thread boys. Vegetarian, dog loving Hitler and concentration camps. Except the concentration camp part is quite literally happening, but it seems you still support it. User was warned for this post | ||
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 29 2019 02:30 hunts wrote: Except the concentration camp part is quite literally happening, but it seems you still support it. For your next trick, the pair of you drop into the SC2 tournament threads with another one-two punch. On October 28 2019 22:18 Dangermousecatdog wrote: It's all a big joke till USA has concentration camps locking up their citizens with the wrong skin colour separating children who mysteriously go missing. On October 29 2019 02:30 hunts wrote: Except the concentration camp part is quite literally happening, but it seems you still support it. We shall discuss nothing of importance until the goddamn concentration camps disappearing children are shut down! You two go make your own thread or blog about me and/or that topic, and stop shitting up other threads with idiotic tangents. | ||
9-BiT
United States1089 Posts
User was warned for this post. | ||
| ||