|
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. |
Canada10904 Posts
On November 04 2019 06:47 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 05:32 Xxio wrote:On November 03 2019 02:57 Danglars wrote:On November 02 2019 23:58 Nebuchad wrote: It's okay Danglars we just have a difference in opinions about Jimmy and I know you respect diversity of thought.
Who is and isn't far right is the least interesting question ever though. Far right parties get 25 to 45% of the vote in all the west and nobody is ever far right when you talk to them. I just need to know you're serious when you called JimmyJRaynor basically far right, or so far right adjacent that the difference doesn't particularly matter Then you're well underestimating the 25-45% of far right parties. Taking JJR as somebody basically far right, I'd say far right parties number in the 60%+ range. This wouldn't be the first time I thought your characterizations are profoundly silly. On November 03 2019 01:43 Xxio wrote:I searched for an objective description of the alt-right and found this article by Oxford Research Group: https://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/blog/the-alt-right-an-introduction-part-i. I'm glad for the dry, academic analysis. Does anyone have good resources for understanding what the alt-right is? They seem kind of like the antifa of the other side of the spectrum, both being militant and amorphous. First things first: many people mean "alt-right" in purely terms of political games. Label your opposition alt-right, act outraged or shocked that normal people support them or that they're allowed a voice on TV and events, and (hopefully) reap more political power. Secondly, more people won't investigate their views or policies because they're this alt-right boogeyman unworthy of much attention. Now this discussion can continue after removing the alt-right-as-political-weapon, because there are some real people in the world holding views that are accurately described as alt-right. From the article, thoughts and where I stand on them: - A key defining trait of the “alt-right” is identitarianism, focused specifically on supporting the interests of “White/European” populations. This is pretty foundational. If you can't see some overt kind of racial or ethnic component, they're almost always not alt-right. Maybe they instead have a far-right view on immigration or protectionist view on trade or far-right view on patriotic unity (say, criminalization of flag-burning)
- The “alt-right” also specifically rejects universalism, be it in the form of classical liberalism, religious universalism (such as Christianity), or modern globalisation and neoliberalism. I'd phrase the religious aspect as more of a lack of religious tolerance. The others are good descriptors.
- [T]he “alt-right” view the decline in Western societies as related to the downplaying of masculinity and the increased dominance of feminine forms of interaction and reasoning. Alt-right people do not celebrate the easing of gender roles. This one is not as powerful as an identification, since many groups may trace social dissatisfaction, like not finding a mate or being unsatisfied in relationships, back to confusion after a decline in gender norms.
- The “alt-right” also rejects what is usually referred to as “cultural Marxism,” which refers to what could be called “New Left” forms of progressivism that maintain a Marxist-style of argumentation but replaces the proletariat with various “marginalized” populations. This heavily overlaps with traditional conservatives and constitutional conservatives in the states, as well as many reactionary non-ideological groups spanning political labels. It's definitely part of the alt-right too.
- [Opposition to] Gramscian elements of these “New Left” movements, where an emphasis on metapolitics and gaining cultural hegemony plays a significant role. You'll hear this group whinge about the cultural dominance of the left in media institutions all the time.
- The “alt-right” often turns more to the far past, be it the “classical” virtues of ancient Rome and (pre-Socratic) Greece, or to the pagan myths of pre-Christian European society. Again, tons of overlap from other groups, but true for the alt-right in particular. Strong sense of classical virtues against more barbaric or decadent vices of others.
- [Belief that] people have a general preference for “like” populations, which is a dynamic originating via evolution.
- [Belief that] All other groups except Whites practice explicit race-consciousness in their activities, and thus it is unjust to require universalism from Whites while permitting (or even promoting) race-consciousness for all others. Very much overlapping many other groups. Here, from liberal-left and gay cultural critic Douglas Murray:
Whereas black studies celebrates black writers and black history, and gay studies brings out gay figures from history and pushes them to the fore, “whiteness studies” is “committed to disrupting racism by problematizing whiteness,” according to Syracuse University professor Barbara Applebaum, who wrote Oxford’s definition. This is to be done “as a corrective.”
Defining an entire group of people, their attitudes, pitfalls and moral associations, based solely on their racial characteristics is itself a fairly good demonstration of racism. For “whiteness” to be “problematized” white people must be shown to be a problem. And not only on some academic, abstract level but in the practical day-to-day business of judging other people. Once again, an overlapping concern with many critics from all political persuasions, right left and center. But alt-right people really hammer on wanting a positive white group identity, and ground it on other racial identities and cultural heritages.
Thanks for writing it out like that. A lot of it looks fine to me. Of course there are people in that grouping who, in my opinion, take it too far - just as there are people who take leftist positions too far. It seems to me that antifa, communists, anarchists and so on on the far left are given the benefit of the doubt, the bad actors are usually ignored, and there is assumption of good will. The opposite lens is cast on the alt-right or any right wing initiative. Maybe it comes down to perceived intent outweighing actual results and behavior. I think the Douglas Murray quote makes a very good point. Overall, I wish people would think much more about culture and much less about race. Antifa is good. You'll find that we hear less about violence from the left not only because the left is less violent, but also because we generally hear less from the left altogether, radical or otherwise. The radicalism from the right is given an undue importance in the discourse, and then it's blamed and criticized, because it's irrational and morally reprehensible. This creates an enemy for liberalism that liberalism is very obviously superior to, and that's part of a strategy. I doubt that the left is less violent- I suspect it's just when the right gets violent, they're more scary. But I've seen those videos with antifa whipping out collapsible batons and striking unarmed people in the streets. Makes for entertaining youtube videos, but doesn't play so well elsewhere.
|
On November 04 2019 06:47 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 05:32 Xxio wrote:On November 03 2019 02:57 Danglars wrote:On November 02 2019 23:58 Nebuchad wrote: It's okay Danglars we just have a difference in opinions about Jimmy and I know you respect diversity of thought.
Who is and isn't far right is the least interesting question ever though. Far right parties get 25 to 45% of the vote in all the west and nobody is ever far right when you talk to them. I just need to know you're serious when you called JimmyJRaynor basically far right, or so far right adjacent that the difference doesn't particularly matter Then you're well underestimating the 25-45% of far right parties. Taking JJR as somebody basically far right, I'd say far right parties number in the 60%+ range. This wouldn't be the first time I thought your characterizations are profoundly silly. On November 03 2019 01:43 Xxio wrote:I searched for an objective description of the alt-right and found this article by Oxford Research Group: https://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/blog/the-alt-right-an-introduction-part-i. I'm glad for the dry, academic analysis. Does anyone have good resources for understanding what the alt-right is? They seem kind of like the antifa of the other side of the spectrum, both being militant and amorphous. First things first: many people mean "alt-right" in purely terms of political games. Label your opposition alt-right, act outraged or shocked that normal people support them or that they're allowed a voice on TV and events, and (hopefully) reap more political power. Secondly, more people won't investigate their views or policies because they're this alt-right boogeyman unworthy of much attention. Now this discussion can continue after removing the alt-right-as-political-weapon, because there are some real people in the world holding views that are accurately described as alt-right. From the article, thoughts and where I stand on them: - A key defining trait of the “alt-right” is identitarianism, focused specifically on supporting the interests of “White/European” populations. This is pretty foundational. If you can't see some overt kind of racial or ethnic component, they're almost always not alt-right. Maybe they instead have a far-right view on immigration or protectionist view on trade or far-right view on patriotic unity (say, criminalization of flag-burning)
- The “alt-right” also specifically rejects universalism, be it in the form of classical liberalism, religious universalism (such as Christianity), or modern globalisation and neoliberalism. I'd phrase the religious aspect as more of a lack of religious tolerance. The others are good descriptors.
- [T]he “alt-right” view the decline in Western societies as related to the downplaying of masculinity and the increased dominance of feminine forms of interaction and reasoning. Alt-right people do not celebrate the easing of gender roles. This one is not as powerful as an identification, since many groups may trace social dissatisfaction, like not finding a mate or being unsatisfied in relationships, back to confusion after a decline in gender norms.
- The “alt-right” also rejects what is usually referred to as “cultural Marxism,” which refers to what could be called “New Left” forms of progressivism that maintain a Marxist-style of argumentation but replaces the proletariat with various “marginalized” populations. This heavily overlaps with traditional conservatives and constitutional conservatives in the states, as well as many reactionary non-ideological groups spanning political labels. It's definitely part of the alt-right too.
- [Opposition to] Gramscian elements of these “New Left” movements, where an emphasis on metapolitics and gaining cultural hegemony plays a significant role. You'll hear this group whinge about the cultural dominance of the left in media institutions all the time.
- The “alt-right” often turns more to the far past, be it the “classical” virtues of ancient Rome and (pre-Socratic) Greece, or to the pagan myths of pre-Christian European society. Again, tons of overlap from other groups, but true for the alt-right in particular. Strong sense of classical virtues against more barbaric or decadent vices of others.
- [Belief that] people have a general preference for “like” populations, which is a dynamic originating via evolution.
- [Belief that] All other groups except Whites practice explicit race-consciousness in their activities, and thus it is unjust to require universalism from Whites while permitting (or even promoting) race-consciousness for all others. Very much overlapping many other groups. Here, from liberal-left and gay cultural critic Douglas Murray:
Whereas black studies celebrates black writers and black history, and gay studies brings out gay figures from history and pushes them to the fore, “whiteness studies” is “committed to disrupting racism by problematizing whiteness,” according to Syracuse University professor Barbara Applebaum, who wrote Oxford’s definition. This is to be done “as a corrective.”
Defining an entire group of people, their attitudes, pitfalls and moral associations, based solely on their racial characteristics is itself a fairly good demonstration of racism. For “whiteness” to be “problematized” white people must be shown to be a problem. And not only on some academic, abstract level but in the practical day-to-day business of judging other people. Once again, an overlapping concern with many critics from all political persuasions, right left and center. But alt-right people really hammer on wanting a positive white group identity, and ground it on other racial identities and cultural heritages.
Thanks for writing it out like that. A lot of it looks fine to me. Of course there are people in that grouping who, in my opinion, take it too far - just as there are people who take leftist positions too far. It seems to me that antifa, communists, anarchists and so on on the far left are given the benefit of the doubt, the bad actors are usually ignored, and there is assumption of good will. The opposite lens is cast on the alt-right or any right wing initiative. Maybe it comes down to perceived intent outweighing actual results and behavior. I think the Douglas Murray quote makes a very good point. Overall, I wish people would think much more about culture and much less about race. Antifa is good. You'll find that we hear less about violence from the left not only because the left is less violent, but also because we generally hear less from the left altogether, radical or otherwise. The radicalism from the right is given an undue importance in the discourse, and then it's blamed and criticized, because it's irrational and morally reprehensible. This creates an enemy for liberalism that liberalism is very obviously superior to, and that's part of a strategy.
Antifa is not good. At least not in the U.S. And my post is going to be about the situation in the U.S. since that's all I know.
I'm not going to make the discussion about violence from right vs left a dick measuring contest. But the left does commit acts of belligerence and violence which, in fact, to me, seems like the violence from the left is a lot more widespread and out in the open especially in the liberal citadels of the U.S. Politicians like Hillary Clinton and Maxine Waters straight up openly incite violence towards Republicans. Meanwhile a lot of the right wing political violence occurs at the hands of lone wolves who are supported by literally zero Republican/right wing politicians, for example.
On November 04 2019 06:55 Nebuchad wrote: I bet they called him a nazi because they're hysterical, I bet they called him a nazi because they think everyone right of Stalin is a nazi.
There is so much truth to this though. It doesn't take much for many leftists to label someone as a "nazi" nowadays. Droves of leftists in the U.S. think Trump and/or most of his supporters are Nazis....lol
I've been called a Nazi myself multiple times for expressing my disdain for Hillary, telling people I prefer Trump over Hillary, etc, during the time around the 2016 election. I am a registered libertarian, didn't vote for either candidate, and my parents are from Afghanistan, but some fanatical leftists in NYC think I'm a Nazi because I don't fall in line with their thinking lmfao
|
On November 04 2019 07:13 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 07:07 CoupdeBoule wrote:On November 04 2019 06:55 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 05:34 crnm95 wrote:On November 04 2019 03:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2019 03:10 crnm95 wrote: Oh look another debate between neurotic “No Fun Allowed”-authoritarians and those less hysterically unreasonable I think the subject is a bit more nuanced than that though, considering dog-whistling is a very real thing, politically and culturally. I didnt believe but I just opened up TwitchChat thereby exposing myself to Pepe memes. YOU WERE RIGHT!!! I AM NOW AN ALT-RIGHT FASCIST!!! PepeHands No of course not. But we now perceive leftwingers to be shrill idiots who complain about nothing, and this is making us less likely to hear them out. They keep us from just enjoying our games and our community, fucking social justice warriors, I just want to beat some protosses ffs. Let's ostracize them, so that we don't have to hear from their nonsense again. And this other dude also, I know he's been a gamer for years but he seemed to agree with the leftist dude, probably should remove him as well, probably undercover. Also this nazi dude, he uses the same symbols as us, he is part of our community. He is humanized. Is he really a nazi? He could be an ironic nazi, isn't that a funny meme, after all who is a nazi? Those ideas are atrocious, universally condemned, no one is a nazi really. Remember how hysterical the left is? I bet they called him a nazi because they're hysterical, I bet they called him a nazi because they think everyone right of Stalin is a nazi. His ideas are probably not as bad as they say, he could be just a tradcath that is being maligned. I suddenly know a lot about the subtle differences between far right political ideologies, I wonder how that came to happen. The left is the real enemy, even if we don't agree on everything we could probably work together. Also he raised a good point about cultures the other day, and since we've chased all the leftists from the community because they were hysterical, nobody answered. If nobody answered I see no reason to assume that he was wrong there. That's interesting. Telling that you seem to think this is a left/right issue and not an authoritarian (such as -you guessed it!- nazis) vs freedom issue. Yes of course. Nazism isn't only defined by its authoritarianism, it's also a fascist ideology, and therefore reactionary and rightwing. You will always recruit nazis through social views first, and then tell them that the authoritarianism is necessary to save the nation from all the bad people, progress, and the jews. You mind walking me through how you define fascism? (Offtopic but im really curious after reading what you wrote)
As for people falling prey to dangerous ideology and extremism, Im more of a believer in “pray for broader shoulders, not lighter burdens” - lets lay out to people why something leads nowhere good instead of going after people being silly just because some alt-right crazies decided to try to claim some of the perfectly innocent symbols.
|
Northern Ireland20729 Posts
On November 04 2019 07:41 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 06:47 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 05:32 Xxio wrote:On November 03 2019 02:57 Danglars wrote:On November 02 2019 23:58 Nebuchad wrote: It's okay Danglars we just have a difference in opinions about Jimmy and I know you respect diversity of thought.
Who is and isn't far right is the least interesting question ever though. Far right parties get 25 to 45% of the vote in all the west and nobody is ever far right when you talk to them. I just need to know you're serious when you called JimmyJRaynor basically far right, or so far right adjacent that the difference doesn't particularly matter Then you're well underestimating the 25-45% of far right parties. Taking JJR as somebody basically far right, I'd say far right parties number in the 60%+ range. This wouldn't be the first time I thought your characterizations are profoundly silly. On November 03 2019 01:43 Xxio wrote:I searched for an objective description of the alt-right and found this article by Oxford Research Group: https://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/blog/the-alt-right-an-introduction-part-i. I'm glad for the dry, academic analysis. Does anyone have good resources for understanding what the alt-right is? They seem kind of like the antifa of the other side of the spectrum, both being militant and amorphous. First things first: many people mean "alt-right" in purely terms of political games. Label your opposition alt-right, act outraged or shocked that normal people support them or that they're allowed a voice on TV and events, and (hopefully) reap more political power. Secondly, more people won't investigate their views or policies because they're this alt-right boogeyman unworthy of much attention. Now this discussion can continue after removing the alt-right-as-political-weapon, because there are some real people in the world holding views that are accurately described as alt-right. From the article, thoughts and where I stand on them: - A key defining trait of the “alt-right” is identitarianism, focused specifically on supporting the interests of “White/European” populations. This is pretty foundational. If you can't see some overt kind of racial or ethnic component, they're almost always not alt-right. Maybe they instead have a far-right view on immigration or protectionist view on trade or far-right view on patriotic unity (say, criminalization of flag-burning)
- The “alt-right” also specifically rejects universalism, be it in the form of classical liberalism, religious universalism (such as Christianity), or modern globalisation and neoliberalism. I'd phrase the religious aspect as more of a lack of religious tolerance. The others are good descriptors.
- [T]he “alt-right” view the decline in Western societies as related to the downplaying of masculinity and the increased dominance of feminine forms of interaction and reasoning. Alt-right people do not celebrate the easing of gender roles. This one is not as powerful as an identification, since many groups may trace social dissatisfaction, like not finding a mate or being unsatisfied in relationships, back to confusion after a decline in gender norms.
- The “alt-right” also rejects what is usually referred to as “cultural Marxism,” which refers to what could be called “New Left” forms of progressivism that maintain a Marxist-style of argumentation but replaces the proletariat with various “marginalized” populations. This heavily overlaps with traditional conservatives and constitutional conservatives in the states, as well as many reactionary non-ideological groups spanning political labels. It's definitely part of the alt-right too.
- [Opposition to] Gramscian elements of these “New Left” movements, where an emphasis on metapolitics and gaining cultural hegemony plays a significant role. You'll hear this group whinge about the cultural dominance of the left in media institutions all the time.
- The “alt-right” often turns more to the far past, be it the “classical” virtues of ancient Rome and (pre-Socratic) Greece, or to the pagan myths of pre-Christian European society. Again, tons of overlap from other groups, but true for the alt-right in particular. Strong sense of classical virtues against more barbaric or decadent vices of others.
- [Belief that] people have a general preference for “like” populations, which is a dynamic originating via evolution.
- [Belief that] All other groups except Whites practice explicit race-consciousness in their activities, and thus it is unjust to require universalism from Whites while permitting (or even promoting) race-consciousness for all others. Very much overlapping many other groups. Here, from liberal-left and gay cultural critic Douglas Murray:
Whereas black studies celebrates black writers and black history, and gay studies brings out gay figures from history and pushes them to the fore, “whiteness studies” is “committed to disrupting racism by problematizing whiteness,” according to Syracuse University professor Barbara Applebaum, who wrote Oxford’s definition. This is to be done “as a corrective.”
Defining an entire group of people, their attitudes, pitfalls and moral associations, based solely on their racial characteristics is itself a fairly good demonstration of racism. For “whiteness” to be “problematized” white people must be shown to be a problem. And not only on some academic, abstract level but in the practical day-to-day business of judging other people. Once again, an overlapping concern with many critics from all political persuasions, right left and center. But alt-right people really hammer on wanting a positive white group identity, and ground it on other racial identities and cultural heritages.
Thanks for writing it out like that. A lot of it looks fine to me. Of course there are people in that grouping who, in my opinion, take it too far - just as there are people who take leftist positions too far. It seems to me that antifa, communists, anarchists and so on on the far left are given the benefit of the doubt, the bad actors are usually ignored, and there is assumption of good will. The opposite lens is cast on the alt-right or any right wing initiative. Maybe it comes down to perceived intent outweighing actual results and behavior. I think the Douglas Murray quote makes a very good point. Overall, I wish people would think much more about culture and much less about race. Antifa is good. You'll find that we hear less about violence from the left not only because the left is less violent, but also because we generally hear less from the left altogether, radical or otherwise. The radicalism from the right is given an undue importance in the discourse, and then it's blamed and criticized, because it's irrational and morally reprehensible. This creates an enemy for liberalism that liberalism is very obviously superior to, and that's part of a strategy. Antifa is not good. At least not in the U.S. And my post is going to be about the situation in the U.S. since that's all I know. I'm not going to make the discussion about violence from right vs left a dick measuring contest. But the left does commit acts of belligerence and violence which, in fact, to me, seems like the violence from the left is a lot more widespread and out in the open especially in the liberal citadels of the U.S. Politicians like Hillary Clinton and Maxine Waters straight up openly incite violence towards Republicans. Meanwhile a lot of the right wing political violence occurs at the hands of lone wolves who are supported by literally zero Republican/right wing politicians, for example. Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 06:55 Nebuchad wrote: I bet they called him a nazi because they're hysterical, I bet they called him a nazi because they think everyone right of Stalin is a nazi. There is so much truth to this though. It doesn't take much for many leftists to label someone as a "nazi" nowadays. Droves of leftists in the U.S. think Trump and/or most of his supporters are Nazis....lol I've been called a Nazi myself multiple times for expressing my disdain for Hillary, telling people I prefer Trump over Hillary, etc, during the time around the 2016 election. I am a registered libertarian, didn't vote for either candidate, and my parents are from Afghanistan, but some fanatical leftists in NYC think I'm a Nazi because I don't fall in line with their thinking lmfao The right have state apparatus to perpetuate violence with, they don’t particularly need civilian agitants like the left does.
But yes people throw around the Nazi term far too loosely for sure, that said a lot of people do hold lowkey racist views and should be challenged on them. Not saying you are one such individual of course! but the left is damned if they do damned if they don’t sometimes.
|
Northern Ireland20729 Posts
On November 04 2019 07:45 CoupdeBoule wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 07:13 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 07:07 CoupdeBoule wrote:On November 04 2019 06:55 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 05:34 crnm95 wrote:On November 04 2019 03:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2019 03:10 crnm95 wrote: Oh look another debate between neurotic “No Fun Allowed”-authoritarians and those less hysterically unreasonable I think the subject is a bit more nuanced than that though, considering dog-whistling is a very real thing, politically and culturally. I didnt believe but I just opened up TwitchChat thereby exposing myself to Pepe memes. YOU WERE RIGHT!!! I AM NOW AN ALT-RIGHT FASCIST!!! PepeHands No of course not. But we now perceive leftwingers to be shrill idiots who complain about nothing, and this is making us less likely to hear them out. They keep us from just enjoying our games and our community, fucking social justice warriors, I just want to beat some protosses ffs. Let's ostracize them, so that we don't have to hear from their nonsense again. And this other dude also, I know he's been a gamer for years but he seemed to agree with the leftist dude, probably should remove him as well, probably undercover. Also this nazi dude, he uses the same symbols as us, he is part of our community. He is humanized. Is he really a nazi? He could be an ironic nazi, isn't that a funny meme, after all who is a nazi? Those ideas are atrocious, universally condemned, no one is a nazi really. Remember how hysterical the left is? I bet they called him a nazi because they're hysterical, I bet they called him a nazi because they think everyone right of Stalin is a nazi. His ideas are probably not as bad as they say, he could be just a tradcath that is being maligned. I suddenly know a lot about the subtle differences between far right political ideologies, I wonder how that came to happen. The left is the real enemy, even if we don't agree on everything we could probably work together. Also he raised a good point about cultures the other day, and since we've chased all the leftists from the community because they were hysterical, nobody answered. If nobody answered I see no reason to assume that he was wrong there. That's interesting. Telling that you seem to think this is a left/right issue and not an authoritarian (such as -you guessed it!- nazis) vs freedom issue. Yes of course. Nazism isn't only defined by its authoritarianism, it's also a fascist ideology, and therefore reactionary and rightwing. You will always recruit nazis through social views first, and then tell them that the authoritarianism is necessary to save the nation from all the bad people, progress, and the jews. You mind walking me through how you define fascism? (Offtopic but im really curious after reading what you wrote) As for people falling prey to dangerous ideology and extremism, Im more of a believer in “pray for broader shoulders, not lighter burdens” - lets lay out to people why something leads nowhere good instead of going after people being silly just because some alt-right crazies decided to try to claim some of the perfectly innocent symbols. They know exactly where it goes, they want to get there, in some form anyway.
It’s extremely hard to fix folks who end up in such a place, it’s easier by far but more complicated to address them early in the ‘disenfranchised from society’ phase.
|
On November 04 2019 07:45 CoupdeBoule wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 07:13 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 07:07 CoupdeBoule wrote:On November 04 2019 06:55 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 05:34 crnm95 wrote:On November 04 2019 03:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2019 03:10 crnm95 wrote: Oh look another debate between neurotic “No Fun Allowed”-authoritarians and those less hysterically unreasonable I think the subject is a bit more nuanced than that though, considering dog-whistling is a very real thing, politically and culturally. I didnt believe but I just opened up TwitchChat thereby exposing myself to Pepe memes. YOU WERE RIGHT!!! I AM NOW AN ALT-RIGHT FASCIST!!! PepeHands No of course not. But we now perceive leftwingers to be shrill idiots who complain about nothing, and this is making us less likely to hear them out. They keep us from just enjoying our games and our community, fucking social justice warriors, I just want to beat some protosses ffs. Let's ostracize them, so that we don't have to hear from their nonsense again. And this other dude also, I know he's been a gamer for years but he seemed to agree with the leftist dude, probably should remove him as well, probably undercover. Also this nazi dude, he uses the same symbols as us, he is part of our community. He is humanized. Is he really a nazi? He could be an ironic nazi, isn't that a funny meme, after all who is a nazi? Those ideas are atrocious, universally condemned, no one is a nazi really. Remember how hysterical the left is? I bet they called him a nazi because they're hysterical, I bet they called him a nazi because they think everyone right of Stalin is a nazi. His ideas are probably not as bad as they say, he could be just a tradcath that is being maligned. I suddenly know a lot about the subtle differences between far right political ideologies, I wonder how that came to happen. The left is the real enemy, even if we don't agree on everything we could probably work together. Also he raised a good point about cultures the other day, and since we've chased all the leftists from the community because they were hysterical, nobody answered. If nobody answered I see no reason to assume that he was wrong there. That's interesting. Telling that you seem to think this is a left/right issue and not an authoritarian (such as -you guessed it!- nazis) vs freedom issue. Yes of course. Nazism isn't only defined by its authoritarianism, it's also a fascist ideology, and therefore reactionary and rightwing. You will always recruit nazis through social views first, and then tell them that the authoritarianism is necessary to save the nation from all the bad people, progress, and the jews. You mind walking me through how you define fascism? (Offtopic but im really curious after reading what you wrote) As for people falling prey to dangerous ideology and extremism, Im more of a believer in “pray for broader shoulders, not lighter burdens” - lets lay out to people why something leads nowhere good instead of going after people being silly just because some alt-right crazies decided to try to claim some of the perfectly innocent symbols.
Think of all political ideologies as they relate to social hierarchies.
Leftwing ideologies think social hierarchies are bad, and should be eliminated or reduced. Rightwing ideologies think social hierarchies are either a necessary evil or a good thing, and that they should be maintained or increased.
The main social hierarchy today is capitalism. From that starting point:
Far right is when you want a radical change in society, so that there is an increased level of importance for social hierarchies compared to liberal capitalism. There is a helpful line that we use to define the limit where you stop being rightwing and start being far right: in liberalism, you are (supposed to be) where you are in society because of the amount of effort you've put into where you are (american dream, meritocracy, all that bullshit). In the far right, there is some element of your identity that becomes relevant to where you are in the social hierarchy. It can be anything; religion in theocracies, race in nazism, it can even be something really vague like tradition or culture in the far right forms of conservatism. Note that even our liberal center right systems generally retain some far right elements because your identity typically has some influence on where you are likely to be in society - this is where privilege comes in, but also more generally you're better off as a citizen than as an immigrant in every liberal country as far as I know, that was the whole point of having those immigration waves in the first place.
The ideal society for the far right is one where there is a rigid social hierarchy, where "you and the people you like", however defined, are on top, and the others are second class citizens, below you. They are to be exploited and discriminated against.
Fascism ostensibly has "the nation" as the people they like, but it also borrows from the traditional social hierarchies in that man > woman, straight > queer, cis > trans, white > black (in the first world). It recognizes that authoritarianism is necessary to create the society that it wants, so it is also authoritarian.
Fascism isn't very distinct from other far right ideologies in how it functions, but it's distinct in its propaganda, and that's due to the propaganda of WW2 mostly. Like all far right ideologies, fascism is intellectually bankrupt and definitionally irrational, in that it posits an ideal society that isn't based on any kind of rational analysis of the world, just on what you feel good about and what you feel bad about. But fascism has embraced this irrationality and uses it to posit a mythical worldview. The modern world is plagued by degeneracy, there was a specific time in the somewhat distant past where the world was good and moral and it is crucial that we come back to that point no matter the means. It's kind of an epic tale, with grandiose fights and crusades that other far right ideologies don't necessarily have. Which makes it both more attractive to people with far right inclinations, and arguably more dangerous, as the mythology creates a concrete goal and a sense of urgency that you don't find in, for example, traditional religious conservatism.
|
On November 04 2019 07:41 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 06:47 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 05:32 Xxio wrote:On November 03 2019 02:57 Danglars wrote:On November 02 2019 23:58 Nebuchad wrote: It's okay Danglars we just have a difference in opinions about Jimmy and I know you respect diversity of thought.
Who is and isn't far right is the least interesting question ever though. Far right parties get 25 to 45% of the vote in all the west and nobody is ever far right when you talk to them. I just need to know you're serious when you called JimmyJRaynor basically far right, or so far right adjacent that the difference doesn't particularly matter Then you're well underestimating the 25-45% of far right parties. Taking JJR as somebody basically far right, I'd say far right parties number in the 60%+ range. This wouldn't be the first time I thought your characterizations are profoundly silly. On November 03 2019 01:43 Xxio wrote:I searched for an objective description of the alt-right and found this article by Oxford Research Group: https://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/blog/the-alt-right-an-introduction-part-i. I'm glad for the dry, academic analysis. Does anyone have good resources for understanding what the alt-right is? They seem kind of like the antifa of the other side of the spectrum, both being militant and amorphous. First things first: many people mean "alt-right" in purely terms of political games. Label your opposition alt-right, act outraged or shocked that normal people support them or that they're allowed a voice on TV and events, and (hopefully) reap more political power. Secondly, more people won't investigate their views or policies because they're this alt-right boogeyman unworthy of much attention. Now this discussion can continue after removing the alt-right-as-political-weapon, because there are some real people in the world holding views that are accurately described as alt-right. From the article, thoughts and where I stand on them: - A key defining trait of the “alt-right” is identitarianism, focused specifically on supporting the interests of “White/European” populations. This is pretty foundational. If you can't see some overt kind of racial or ethnic component, they're almost always not alt-right. Maybe they instead have a far-right view on immigration or protectionist view on trade or far-right view on patriotic unity (say, criminalization of flag-burning)
- The “alt-right” also specifically rejects universalism, be it in the form of classical liberalism, religious universalism (such as Christianity), or modern globalisation and neoliberalism. I'd phrase the religious aspect as more of a lack of religious tolerance. The others are good descriptors.
- [T]he “alt-right” view the decline in Western societies as related to the downplaying of masculinity and the increased dominance of feminine forms of interaction and reasoning. Alt-right people do not celebrate the easing of gender roles. This one is not as powerful as an identification, since many groups may trace social dissatisfaction, like not finding a mate or being unsatisfied in relationships, back to confusion after a decline in gender norms.
- The “alt-right” also rejects what is usually referred to as “cultural Marxism,” which refers to what could be called “New Left” forms of progressivism that maintain a Marxist-style of argumentation but replaces the proletariat with various “marginalized” populations. This heavily overlaps with traditional conservatives and constitutional conservatives in the states, as well as many reactionary non-ideological groups spanning political labels. It's definitely part of the alt-right too.
- [Opposition to] Gramscian elements of these “New Left” movements, where an emphasis on metapolitics and gaining cultural hegemony plays a significant role. You'll hear this group whinge about the cultural dominance of the left in media institutions all the time.
- The “alt-right” often turns more to the far past, be it the “classical” virtues of ancient Rome and (pre-Socratic) Greece, or to the pagan myths of pre-Christian European society. Again, tons of overlap from other groups, but true for the alt-right in particular. Strong sense of classical virtues against more barbaric or decadent vices of others.
- [Belief that] people have a general preference for “like” populations, which is a dynamic originating via evolution.
- [Belief that] All other groups except Whites practice explicit race-consciousness in their activities, and thus it is unjust to require universalism from Whites while permitting (or even promoting) race-consciousness for all others. Very much overlapping many other groups. Here, from liberal-left and gay cultural critic Douglas Murray:
Whereas black studies celebrates black writers and black history, and gay studies brings out gay figures from history and pushes them to the fore, “whiteness studies” is “committed to disrupting racism by problematizing whiteness,” according to Syracuse University professor Barbara Applebaum, who wrote Oxford’s definition. This is to be done “as a corrective.”
Defining an entire group of people, their attitudes, pitfalls and moral associations, based solely on their racial characteristics is itself a fairly good demonstration of racism. For “whiteness” to be “problematized” white people must be shown to be a problem. And not only on some academic, abstract level but in the practical day-to-day business of judging other people. Once again, an overlapping concern with many critics from all political persuasions, right left and center. But alt-right people really hammer on wanting a positive white group identity, and ground it on other racial identities and cultural heritages.
Thanks for writing it out like that. A lot of it looks fine to me. Of course there are people in that grouping who, in my opinion, take it too far - just as there are people who take leftist positions too far. It seems to me that antifa, communists, anarchists and so on on the far left are given the benefit of the doubt, the bad actors are usually ignored, and there is assumption of good will. The opposite lens is cast on the alt-right or any right wing initiative. Maybe it comes down to perceived intent outweighing actual results and behavior. I think the Douglas Murray quote makes a very good point. Overall, I wish people would think much more about culture and much less about race. Antifa is good. You'll find that we hear less about violence from the left not only because the left is less violent, but also because we generally hear less from the left altogether, radical or otherwise. The radicalism from the right is given an undue importance in the discourse, and then it's blamed and criticized, because it's irrational and morally reprehensible. This creates an enemy for liberalism that liberalism is very obviously superior to, and that's part of a strategy. Antifa is not good. At least not in the U.S. And my post is going to be about the situation in the U.S. since that's all I know. I'm not going to make the discussion about violence from right vs left a dick measuring contest. But the left does commit acts of belligerence and violence which, in fact, to me, seems like the violence from the left is a lot more widespread and out in the open especially in the liberal citadels of the U.S. Politicians like Hillary Clinton and Maxine Waters straight up openly incite violence towards Republicans. Meanwhile a lot of the right wing political violence occurs at the hands of lone wolves who are supported by literally zero Republican/right wing politicians, for example. Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 06:55 Nebuchad wrote: I bet they called him a nazi because they're hysterical, I bet they called him a nazi because they think everyone right of Stalin is a nazi. There is so much truth to this though. It doesn't take much for many leftists to label someone as a "nazi" nowadays. Droves of leftists in the U.S. think Trump and/or most of his supporters are Nazis....lol I've been called a Nazi myself multiple times for expressing my disdain for Hillary, telling people I prefer Trump over Hillary, etc, during the time around the 2016 election. I am a registered libertarian, didn't vote for either candidate, and my parents are from Afghanistan, but some fanatical leftists in NYC think I'm a Nazi because I don't fall in line with their thinking lmfao
Every ideology commits violence, all the time. Some people just like to pretend that the violence associated to their ideology isn't really violence, it's something else, or that it's not really associated to their ideology, there is some nuance that allows them to escape. I wasn't trying to say that the left was inherently less violent than the right, just that now, in this very moment, it is the right that is more violent. Understandably so, as the right occupies a larger presence than the left on the political scales of the world right now.
You mention that Hillary Clinton and Maxine Waters, major political figures (of liberalism not of the left, but hey whatever), incite violence against the right, while on the right it's just on the fringes. And yet we can observe in the real US of A that there is a lot more rightwing violence and rightwing terrorism than there is from the left. Considering the setup that you have offered, this seems like a major contradiction. Any insight on how to fix it?
Libertarian socialism is the only intellectually coherent form of libertarianism, and Trump is... well I don't know if he's smart enough to have an ideology but he definitely has at least a handful of prominent fascists in his administration, Stephen Miller and the like, so yeah, I'll shrug at that. Thanks for illustrating the power of the mechanism that I described though.
|
On November 04 2019 09:22 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 07:41 BerserkSword wrote:On November 04 2019 06:47 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 05:32 Xxio wrote:On November 03 2019 02:57 Danglars wrote:On November 02 2019 23:58 Nebuchad wrote: It's okay Danglars we just have a difference in opinions about Jimmy and I know you respect diversity of thought.
Who is and isn't far right is the least interesting question ever though. Far right parties get 25 to 45% of the vote in all the west and nobody is ever far right when you talk to them. I just need to know you're serious when you called JimmyJRaynor basically far right, or so far right adjacent that the difference doesn't particularly matter Then you're well underestimating the 25-45% of far right parties. Taking JJR as somebody basically far right, I'd say far right parties number in the 60%+ range. This wouldn't be the first time I thought your characterizations are profoundly silly. On November 03 2019 01:43 Xxio wrote:I searched for an objective description of the alt-right and found this article by Oxford Research Group: https://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/blog/the-alt-right-an-introduction-part-i. I'm glad for the dry, academic analysis. Does anyone have good resources for understanding what the alt-right is? They seem kind of like the antifa of the other side of the spectrum, both being militant and amorphous. First things first: many people mean "alt-right" in purely terms of political games. Label your opposition alt-right, act outraged or shocked that normal people support them or that they're allowed a voice on TV and events, and (hopefully) reap more political power. Secondly, more people won't investigate their views or policies because they're this alt-right boogeyman unworthy of much attention. Now this discussion can continue after removing the alt-right-as-political-weapon, because there are some real people in the world holding views that are accurately described as alt-right. From the article, thoughts and where I stand on them: - A key defining trait of the “alt-right” is identitarianism, focused specifically on supporting the interests of “White/European” populations. This is pretty foundational. If you can't see some overt kind of racial or ethnic component, they're almost always not alt-right. Maybe they instead have a far-right view on immigration or protectionist view on trade or far-right view on patriotic unity (say, criminalization of flag-burning)
- The “alt-right” also specifically rejects universalism, be it in the form of classical liberalism, religious universalism (such as Christianity), or modern globalisation and neoliberalism. I'd phrase the religious aspect as more of a lack of religious tolerance. The others are good descriptors.
- [T]he “alt-right” view the decline in Western societies as related to the downplaying of masculinity and the increased dominance of feminine forms of interaction and reasoning. Alt-right people do not celebrate the easing of gender roles. This one is not as powerful as an identification, since many groups may trace social dissatisfaction, like not finding a mate or being unsatisfied in relationships, back to confusion after a decline in gender norms.
- The “alt-right” also rejects what is usually referred to as “cultural Marxism,” which refers to what could be called “New Left” forms of progressivism that maintain a Marxist-style of argumentation but replaces the proletariat with various “marginalized” populations. This heavily overlaps with traditional conservatives and constitutional conservatives in the states, as well as many reactionary non-ideological groups spanning political labels. It's definitely part of the alt-right too.
- [Opposition to] Gramscian elements of these “New Left” movements, where an emphasis on metapolitics and gaining cultural hegemony plays a significant role. You'll hear this group whinge about the cultural dominance of the left in media institutions all the time.
- The “alt-right” often turns more to the far past, be it the “classical” virtues of ancient Rome and (pre-Socratic) Greece, or to the pagan myths of pre-Christian European society. Again, tons of overlap from other groups, but true for the alt-right in particular. Strong sense of classical virtues against more barbaric or decadent vices of others.
- [Belief that] people have a general preference for “like” populations, which is a dynamic originating via evolution.
- [Belief that] All other groups except Whites practice explicit race-consciousness in their activities, and thus it is unjust to require universalism from Whites while permitting (or even promoting) race-consciousness for all others. Very much overlapping many other groups. Here, from liberal-left and gay cultural critic Douglas Murray:
Whereas black studies celebrates black writers and black history, and gay studies brings out gay figures from history and pushes them to the fore, “whiteness studies” is “committed to disrupting racism by problematizing whiteness,” according to Syracuse University professor Barbara Applebaum, who wrote Oxford’s definition. This is to be done “as a corrective.”
Defining an entire group of people, their attitudes, pitfalls and moral associations, based solely on their racial characteristics is itself a fairly good demonstration of racism. For “whiteness” to be “problematized” white people must be shown to be a problem. And not only on some academic, abstract level but in the practical day-to-day business of judging other people. Once again, an overlapping concern with many critics from all political persuasions, right left and center. But alt-right people really hammer on wanting a positive white group identity, and ground it on other racial identities and cultural heritages.
Thanks for writing it out like that. A lot of it looks fine to me. Of course there are people in that grouping who, in my opinion, take it too far - just as there are people who take leftist positions too far. It seems to me that antifa, communists, anarchists and so on on the far left are given the benefit of the doubt, the bad actors are usually ignored, and there is assumption of good will. The opposite lens is cast on the alt-right or any right wing initiative. Maybe it comes down to perceived intent outweighing actual results and behavior. I think the Douglas Murray quote makes a very good point. Overall, I wish people would think much more about culture and much less about race. Antifa is good. You'll find that we hear less about violence from the left not only because the left is less violent, but also because we generally hear less from the left altogether, radical or otherwise. The radicalism from the right is given an undue importance in the discourse, and then it's blamed and criticized, because it's irrational and morally reprehensible. This creates an enemy for liberalism that liberalism is very obviously superior to, and that's part of a strategy. Antifa is not good. At least not in the U.S. And my post is going to be about the situation in the U.S. since that's all I know. I'm not going to make the discussion about violence from right vs left a dick measuring contest. But the left does commit acts of belligerence and violence which, in fact, to me, seems like the violence from the left is a lot more widespread and out in the open especially in the liberal citadels of the U.S. Politicians like Hillary Clinton and Maxine Waters straight up openly incite violence towards Republicans. Meanwhile a lot of the right wing political violence occurs at the hands of lone wolves who are supported by literally zero Republican/right wing politicians, for example. On November 04 2019 06:55 Nebuchad wrote: I bet they called him a nazi because they're hysterical, I bet they called him a nazi because they think everyone right of Stalin is a nazi. There is so much truth to this though. It doesn't take much for many leftists to label someone as a "nazi" nowadays. Droves of leftists in the U.S. think Trump and/or most of his supporters are Nazis....lol I've been called a Nazi myself multiple times for expressing my disdain for Hillary, telling people I prefer Trump over Hillary, etc, during the time around the 2016 election. I am a registered libertarian, didn't vote for either candidate, and my parents are from Afghanistan, but some fanatical leftists in NYC think I'm a Nazi because I don't fall in line with their thinking lmfao Every ideology commits violence, all the time. Some people just like to pretend that the violence associated to their ideology isn't really violence, it's something else, or that it's not really associated to their ideology, there is some nuance that allows them to escape. I wasn't trying to say that the left was inherently less violent than the right, just that now, in this very moment, it is the right that is more violent. Understandably so, as the right occupies a larger presence than the left on the political scales of the world right now. You mention that Hillary Clinton and Maxine Waters, major political figures (of liberalism not of the left, but hey whatever), incite violence against the right, while on the right it's just on the fringes. And yet we can observe in the real US of A that there is a lot more rightwing violence and rightwing terrorism than there is from the left. Considering the setup that you have offered, this seems like a major contradiction. Any insight on how to fix it? Libertarian socialism is the only intellectually coherent form of libertarianism, and Trump is... well I don't know if he's smart enough to have an ideology but he definitely has at least a handful of prominent fascists in his administration, Stephen Miller and the like, so yeah, I'll shrug at that. Thanks for illustrating the power of the mechanism that I described though. meh, if you want a clear picture of how a libertarian functions in the world check out 2 books by Nathaniel Branden.
1. Taking Responsibility : Self Reliance and the Accountable Life. 2. The Six Pillars of Self Esteem.
You'll notice nothing in there about violence.
I'm guessing you know about as much about libertarianism as you do Bob Rae.
On November 04 2019 09:03 Nebuchad wrote: there was a specific time in the somewhat distant past where the world was good and moral and it is crucial that we come back to that point no matter the means. It's kind of an epic tale, with grandiose fights and crusades that other far right ideologies don't necessarily have. Which makes it both more attractive to people with far right inclinations, and arguably more dangerous, as the mythology creates a concrete goal and a sense of urgency that you don't find in, for example, traditional religious conservatism.
when in the "somewhat distant past" was the world "good and moral" ? you're speaking about the entire planet? so China, Madagascar, Canada, and Argentina were all simultaneously.. ."good and moral" ?
|
I have asked ten different libertarians so far why they aren't a libertarian socialist and none of them provided a satisfactory answer, feel free to be the eleventh.
On November 04 2019 09:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote: when in the "somewhat distant past" was the world "good and moral" ? you're speaking about the entire planet? so China, Madagascar, Canada, and Argentina were all simultaneously.. ."good and moral" ?
Probably varies depending on people but I'd have to guess feudalism or something. When we didn't have individualism, human rights and all that crap, and people stuck together with their communities.
|
Northern Ireland20729 Posts
On November 04 2019 09:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 09:22 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 07:41 BerserkSword wrote:On November 04 2019 06:47 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 05:32 Xxio wrote:On November 03 2019 02:57 Danglars wrote:On November 02 2019 23:58 Nebuchad wrote: It's okay Danglars we just have a difference in opinions about Jimmy and I know you respect diversity of thought.
Who is and isn't far right is the least interesting question ever though. Far right parties get 25 to 45% of the vote in all the west and nobody is ever far right when you talk to them. I just need to know you're serious when you called JimmyJRaynor basically far right, or so far right adjacent that the difference doesn't particularly matter Then you're well underestimating the 25-45% of far right parties. Taking JJR as somebody basically far right, I'd say far right parties number in the 60%+ range. This wouldn't be the first time I thought your characterizations are profoundly silly. On November 03 2019 01:43 Xxio wrote:I searched for an objective description of the alt-right and found this article by Oxford Research Group: https://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/blog/the-alt-right-an-introduction-part-i. I'm glad for the dry, academic analysis. Does anyone have good resources for understanding what the alt-right is? They seem kind of like the antifa of the other side of the spectrum, both being militant and amorphous. First things first: many people mean "alt-right" in purely terms of political games. Label your opposition alt-right, act outraged or shocked that normal people support them or that they're allowed a voice on TV and events, and (hopefully) reap more political power. Secondly, more people won't investigate their views or policies because they're this alt-right boogeyman unworthy of much attention. Now this discussion can continue after removing the alt-right-as-political-weapon, because there are some real people in the world holding views that are accurately described as alt-right. From the article, thoughts and where I stand on them: - A key defining trait of the “alt-right” is identitarianism, focused specifically on supporting the interests of “White/European” populations. This is pretty foundational. If you can't see some overt kind of racial or ethnic component, they're almost always not alt-right. Maybe they instead have a far-right view on immigration or protectionist view on trade or far-right view on patriotic unity (say, criminalization of flag-burning)
- The “alt-right” also specifically rejects universalism, be it in the form of classical liberalism, religious universalism (such as Christianity), or modern globalisation and neoliberalism. I'd phrase the religious aspect as more of a lack of religious tolerance. The others are good descriptors.
- [T]he “alt-right” view the decline in Western societies as related to the downplaying of masculinity and the increased dominance of feminine forms of interaction and reasoning. Alt-right people do not celebrate the easing of gender roles. This one is not as powerful as an identification, since many groups may trace social dissatisfaction, like not finding a mate or being unsatisfied in relationships, back to confusion after a decline in gender norms.
- The “alt-right” also rejects what is usually referred to as “cultural Marxism,” which refers to what could be called “New Left” forms of progressivism that maintain a Marxist-style of argumentation but replaces the proletariat with various “marginalized” populations. This heavily overlaps with traditional conservatives and constitutional conservatives in the states, as well as many reactionary non-ideological groups spanning political labels. It's definitely part of the alt-right too.
- [Opposition to] Gramscian elements of these “New Left” movements, where an emphasis on metapolitics and gaining cultural hegemony plays a significant role. You'll hear this group whinge about the cultural dominance of the left in media institutions all the time.
- The “alt-right” often turns more to the far past, be it the “classical” virtues of ancient Rome and (pre-Socratic) Greece, or to the pagan myths of pre-Christian European society. Again, tons of overlap from other groups, but true for the alt-right in particular. Strong sense of classical virtues against more barbaric or decadent vices of others.
- [Belief that] people have a general preference for “like” populations, which is a dynamic originating via evolution.
- [Belief that] All other groups except Whites practice explicit race-consciousness in their activities, and thus it is unjust to require universalism from Whites while permitting (or even promoting) race-consciousness for all others. Very much overlapping many other groups. Here, from liberal-left and gay cultural critic Douglas Murray:
Whereas black studies celebrates black writers and black history, and gay studies brings out gay figures from history and pushes them to the fore, “whiteness studies” is “committed to disrupting racism by problematizing whiteness,” according to Syracuse University professor Barbara Applebaum, who wrote Oxford’s definition. This is to be done “as a corrective.”
Defining an entire group of people, their attitudes, pitfalls and moral associations, based solely on their racial characteristics is itself a fairly good demonstration of racism. For “whiteness” to be “problematized” white people must be shown to be a problem. And not only on some academic, abstract level but in the practical day-to-day business of judging other people. Once again, an overlapping concern with many critics from all political persuasions, right left and center. But alt-right people really hammer on wanting a positive white group identity, and ground it on other racial identities and cultural heritages.
Thanks for writing it out like that. A lot of it looks fine to me. Of course there are people in that grouping who, in my opinion, take it too far - just as there are people who take leftist positions too far. It seems to me that antifa, communists, anarchists and so on on the far left are given the benefit of the doubt, the bad actors are usually ignored, and there is assumption of good will. The opposite lens is cast on the alt-right or any right wing initiative. Maybe it comes down to perceived intent outweighing actual results and behavior. I think the Douglas Murray quote makes a very good point. Overall, I wish people would think much more about culture and much less about race. Antifa is good. You'll find that we hear less about violence from the left not only because the left is less violent, but also because we generally hear less from the left altogether, radical or otherwise. The radicalism from the right is given an undue importance in the discourse, and then it's blamed and criticized, because it's irrational and morally reprehensible. This creates an enemy for liberalism that liberalism is very obviously superior to, and that's part of a strategy. Antifa is not good. At least not in the U.S. And my post is going to be about the situation in the U.S. since that's all I know. I'm not going to make the discussion about violence from right vs left a dick measuring contest. But the left does commit acts of belligerence and violence which, in fact, to me, seems like the violence from the left is a lot more widespread and out in the open especially in the liberal citadels of the U.S. Politicians like Hillary Clinton and Maxine Waters straight up openly incite violence towards Republicans. Meanwhile a lot of the right wing political violence occurs at the hands of lone wolves who are supported by literally zero Republican/right wing politicians, for example. On November 04 2019 06:55 Nebuchad wrote: I bet they called him a nazi because they're hysterical, I bet they called him a nazi because they think everyone right of Stalin is a nazi. There is so much truth to this though. It doesn't take much for many leftists to label someone as a "nazi" nowadays. Droves of leftists in the U.S. think Trump and/or most of his supporters are Nazis....lol I've been called a Nazi myself multiple times for expressing my disdain for Hillary, telling people I prefer Trump over Hillary, etc, during the time around the 2016 election. I am a registered libertarian, didn't vote for either candidate, and my parents are from Afghanistan, but some fanatical leftists in NYC think I'm a Nazi because I don't fall in line with their thinking lmfao Every ideology commits violence, all the time. Some people just like to pretend that the violence associated to their ideology isn't really violence, it's something else, or that it's not really associated to their ideology, there is some nuance that allows them to escape. I wasn't trying to say that the left was inherently less violent than the right, just that now, in this very moment, it is the right that is more violent. Understandably so, as the right occupies a larger presence than the left on the political scales of the world right now. You mention that Hillary Clinton and Maxine Waters, major political figures (of liberalism not of the left, but hey whatever), incite violence against the right, while on the right it's just on the fringes. And yet we can observe in the real US of A that there is a lot more rightwing violence and rightwing terrorism than there is from the left. Considering the setup that you have offered, this seems like a major contradiction. Any insight on how to fix it? Libertarian socialism is the only intellectually coherent form of libertarianism, and Trump is... well I don't know if he's smart enough to have an ideology but he definitely has at least a handful of prominent fascists in his administration, Stephen Miller and the like, so yeah, I'll shrug at that. Thanks for illustrating the power of the mechanism that I described though. meh, if you want a clear picture of how a libertarian functions in the world check out 2 books by Nathaniel Branden. 1. Taking Responsibility : Self Reliance and the Accountable Life. 2. The Six Pillars of Self Esteem. You'll notice nothing in there about violence. I'm guessing you know about as much about libertarianism as you do Bob Rae. Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 09:03 Nebuchad wrote: there was a specific time in the somewhat distant past where the world was good and moral and it is crucial that we come back to that point no matter the means. It's kind of an epic tale, with grandiose fights and crusades that other far right ideologies don't necessarily have. Which makes it both more attractive to people with far right inclinations, and arguably more dangerous, as the mythology creates a concrete goal and a sense of urgency that you don't find in, for example, traditional religious conservatism. when in the "somewhat distant past" was the world "good and moral" ? you're speaking about the entire planet? so China, Madagascar, Canada, and Argentina were all simultaneously.. ."good and moral" ? I’m not particular innately ideologically opposed to libertarianism, but I’ve heard it said that the only real adherents to the idea are the people with the luxury to be libertarian in the first place.
The other cohort are just life’s failures who think they’d do well in a total free market free for all and it’s ‘SJWs’ and affirmative action that’s holding them back.
|
On November 04 2019 10:02 Wombat_NI wrote: I’m not particular innately ideologically opposed to libertarianism, but I’ve heard it said that the only real adherents to the idea are the people with the luxury to be libertarian in the first place.
My gf is libertarian. She had 5 step fathers. It included 1 who walked around the house threatening to kill the children while loading and unloading a shot gun talking about the various soldiers he killed in Vietnam. I won't get into what 2 of the other step fathers did. She had a brutal childhood.
She left home at 16 and paid for her own university education. She obtained an MBA from UVA five years ago.
I would not say she had the 'luxury' to be libertarian... I'd say it was a survival strategy.
On November 04 2019 09:51 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 09:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote: when in the "somewhat distant past" was the world "good and moral" ? you're speaking about the entire planet? so China, Madagascar, Canada, and Argentina were all simultaneously.. ."good and moral" ? Probably varies depending on people but I'd have to guess feudalism or something. When we didn't have individualism, human rights and all that crap, and people stuck together with their communities. So you aren't providing a specific time period. ok got it.
On November 04 2019 09:51 Nebuchad wrote:I have asked ten different libertarians so far why they aren't a libertarian socialist and none of them provided a satisfactory answer, feel free to be the eleventh. LOL, you never asked me. anyhow, i'm not a anarchist. physical force and its threats should be banned from human relations and its up to the state to enforce this to the best of its ability.
|
On November 04 2019 10:09 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 10:02 Wombat_NI wrote: I’m not particular innately ideologically opposed to libertarianism, but I’ve heard it said that the only real adherents to the idea are the people with the luxury to be libertarian in the first place.
My gf is libertarian. She had 5 step fathers. It included 1 who walked around the house threatening to kill the children while loading and unloading a shot gun talking about the various soldiers he killed in Vietnam. I won't get into what 2 of the other step fathers did. She had a brutal childhood. She left home at 16 and paid for her own university education. She obtained an MBA from UVA five years ago. I would not say she had the 'luxury' to be libertarian... I'd say it was a survival strategy. Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 09:51 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 09:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote: when in the "somewhat distant past" was the world "good and moral" ? you're speaking about the entire planet? so China, Madagascar, Canada, and Argentina were all simultaneously.. ."good and moral" ? Probably varies depending on people but I'd have to guess feudalism or something. When we didn't have individualism, human rights and all that crap, and people stuck together with their communities. So you aren't providing a specific time period. ok got it.
It functions as a myth, not as a historical period.
|
Northern Ireland20729 Posts
On November 04 2019 10:09 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 10:02 Wombat_NI wrote: I’m not particular innately ideologically opposed to libertarianism, but I’ve heard it said that the only real adherents to the idea are the people with the luxury to be libertarian in the first place.
My gf is libertarian. She had 5 step fathers. It included 1 who walked around the house threatening to kill the children while loading and unloading a shot gun talking about the various soldiers he killed in Vietnam. I won't get into what 2 of the other step fathers did. She had a brutal childhood. She left home at 16 and paid for her own university education. She obtained an MBA from UVA five years ago. I would not say she had the 'luxury' to be libertarian... I'd say it was a survival strategy. Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 09:51 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 09:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote: when in the "somewhat distant past" was the world "good and moral" ? you're speaking about the entire planet? so China, Madagascar, Canada, and Argentina were all simultaneously.. ."good and moral" ? Probably varies depending on people but I'd have to guess feudalism or something. When we didn't have individualism, human rights and all that crap, and people stuck together with their communities. So you aren't providing a specific time period. ok got it. While fair play to your girlfriend for negotiating a tough start to life, she could have basically any political worldview and negotiate something like that.
While not theoretically, in practice it tends to be a fundamentally selfish ideology for fundamentally selfish people who refuse to countenance that their own achievements were made possible by wider society.
Not in all cases of course I’ve met plenty of decent ones in my time, but most libertarians I’ve ever encountered are selfish wankers from privileged backgrounds who are doing well for themselves.
|
On November 04 2019 10:18 Wombat_NI wrote: While fair play to your girlfriend for negotiating a tough start to life, she could have basically any political worldview and negotiate something like that.
I disagree. She could easily wander around blaming her mom for everything bad in her life. Instead, she chose to take responsibility for her situation and get herself out of it. Then she chose to painstakingly build a life for herself. Taking responsibility for your self and your life in a fundamental tenant of libertarianism. The socialist view of her plight is "the government needs to step in and make this poor helpless child's life better".
On November 04 2019 10:18 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 10:09 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 04 2019 10:02 Wombat_NI wrote: I’m not particular innately ideologically opposed to libertarianism, but I’ve heard it said that the only real adherents to the idea are the people with the luxury to be libertarian in the first place.
My gf is libertarian. She had 5 step fathers. It included 1 who walked around the house threatening to kill the children while loading and unloading a shot gun talking about the various soldiers he killed in Vietnam. I won't get into what 2 of the other step fathers did. She had a brutal childhood. She left home at 16 and paid for her own university education. She obtained an MBA from UVA five years ago. I would not say she had the 'luxury' to be libertarian... I'd say it was a survival strategy. On November 04 2019 09:51 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 09:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote: when in the "somewhat distant past" was the world "good and moral" ? you're speaking about the entire planet? so China, Madagascar, Canada, and Argentina were all simultaneously.. ."good and moral" ? Probably varies depending on people but I'd have to guess feudalism or something. When we didn't have individualism, human rights and all that crap, and people stuck together with their communities. So you aren't providing a specific time period. ok got it. While fair play to your girlfriend for negotiating a tough start to life, she could have basically any political worldview and negotiate something like that. While not theoretically, in practice it tends to be a fundamentally selfish ideology for fundamentally selfish people who refuse to countenance that their own achievements were made possible by wider society. Not in all cases of course I’ve met plenty of decent ones in my time, but most libertarians I’ve ever encountered are selfish wankers from privileged backgrounds who are doing well for themselves. Yes, you make a good point. Many libertarians who advertise they are libertarians are self absorbed, self righteous jerks. They've got lots of quick smart ass answers for everything. My gf doesn't advertise it. She lives it.
Check out Nathaniel Branden's books. This is how a libertarian functions in the real world. An important aspect of strengthening one's own self esteem is nurturing the self esteem of others. Any one who ignores this fact of human life is stunting their path towards self actualization
|
On November 04 2019 10:23 JimmyJRaynor wrote: I disagree. She could easily wander around blaming her mom for everything bad in her life. Instead, she chose to take responsibility for her situation and get herself out of it. Then she chose to painstakingly build a life for herself. Taking responsibility for your self and your life in a fundamental tenant of libertarianism. The socialist view of her plight is "the government needs to step in and make this poor helpless child's life better".
Can't wait til you ask her why she isn't a libertarian socialist then
|
On November 04 2019 10:46 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 10:23 JimmyJRaynor wrote: I disagree. She could easily wander around blaming her mom for everything bad in her life. Instead, she chose to take responsibility for her situation and get herself out of it. Then she chose to painstakingly build a life for herself. Taking responsibility for your self and your life in a fundamental tenant of libertarianism. The socialist view of her plight is "the government needs to step in and make this poor helpless child's life better".
Can't wait til you ask her why she isn't a libertarian socialist then same reason i'm not. which i've already posted.
|
On November 04 2019 10:48 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 10:46 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 10:23 JimmyJRaynor wrote: I disagree. She could easily wander around blaming her mom for everything bad in her life. Instead, she chose to take responsibility for her situation and get herself out of it. Then she chose to painstakingly build a life for herself. Taking responsibility for your self and your life in a fundamental tenant of libertarianism. The socialist view of her plight is "the government needs to step in and make this poor helpless child's life better".
Can't wait til you ask her why she isn't a libertarian socialist then same reason i'm not. which i've already posted.
This? "LOL, you never asked me. anyhow, i'm not a anarchist. physical force and its threats should be banned from human relations and its up to the state to enforce this to the best of its ability."
This distinguishes between libertarianism and anarchism (or anarchocapitalism), not between libertarian socialism and libertarian capitalism. You can want "as little state as possible" in libertarianism and you can want "as little state as possible" in libertarian socialism.
Here is the issue that you'll run into, in my mind. Libertarianism is at the core about maximizing liberty. More government equals less liberty for individuals. Okay, that makes sense. But more exploitation also equals less liberty for individuals, I don't think you're going to deny that. So for the same reason an individual who primarily focuses on liberty should strive for minimal government intervention, they should also strive for the least exploitative economic system. Otherwise you run into these weird contradictions where taxation is theft but wage labour and capitalistic profit are a-okay for some reason.
|
We really need to be on the look-out for these alt-right symbols wherever they may turn up. I started looking at memes like Pepe the frog and such, and now I'm alt-right and my room is covered in Nazi regalia. I never knew this could happen to me. I never wanted this. We need to be more vigilant.
User was warned for this post.
|
Canada5565 Posts
On November 04 2019 06:47 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 05:32 Xxio wrote:On November 03 2019 02:57 Danglars wrote:On November 02 2019 23:58 Nebuchad wrote: It's okay Danglars we just have a difference in opinions about Jimmy and I know you respect diversity of thought.
Who is and isn't far right is the least interesting question ever though. Far right parties get 25 to 45% of the vote in all the west and nobody is ever far right when you talk to them. I just need to know you're serious when you called JimmyJRaynor basically far right, or so far right adjacent that the difference doesn't particularly matter Then you're well underestimating the 25-45% of far right parties. Taking JJR as somebody basically far right, I'd say far right parties number in the 60%+ range. This wouldn't be the first time I thought your characterizations are profoundly silly. On November 03 2019 01:43 Xxio wrote:I searched for an objective description of the alt-right and found this article by Oxford Research Group: https://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/blog/the-alt-right-an-introduction-part-i. I'm glad for the dry, academic analysis. Does anyone have good resources for understanding what the alt-right is? They seem kind of like the antifa of the other side of the spectrum, both being militant and amorphous. First things first: many people mean "alt-right" in purely terms of political games. Label your opposition alt-right, act outraged or shocked that normal people support them or that they're allowed a voice on TV and events, and (hopefully) reap more political power. Secondly, more people won't investigate their views or policies because they're this alt-right boogeyman unworthy of much attention. Now this discussion can continue after removing the alt-right-as-political-weapon, because there are some real people in the world holding views that are accurately described as alt-right. From the article, thoughts and where I stand on them: - A key defining trait of the “alt-right” is identitarianism, focused specifically on supporting the interests of “White/European” populations. This is pretty foundational. If you can't see some overt kind of racial or ethnic component, they're almost always not alt-right. Maybe they instead have a far-right view on immigration or protectionist view on trade or far-right view on patriotic unity (say, criminalization of flag-burning)
- The “alt-right” also specifically rejects universalism, be it in the form of classical liberalism, religious universalism (such as Christianity), or modern globalisation and neoliberalism. I'd phrase the religious aspect as more of a lack of religious tolerance. The others are good descriptors.
- [T]he “alt-right” view the decline in Western societies as related to the downplaying of masculinity and the increased dominance of feminine forms of interaction and reasoning. Alt-right people do not celebrate the easing of gender roles. This one is not as powerful as an identification, since many groups may trace social dissatisfaction, like not finding a mate or being unsatisfied in relationships, back to confusion after a decline in gender norms.
- The “alt-right” also rejects what is usually referred to as “cultural Marxism,” which refers to what could be called “New Left” forms of progressivism that maintain a Marxist-style of argumentation but replaces the proletariat with various “marginalized” populations. This heavily overlaps with traditional conservatives and constitutional conservatives in the states, as well as many reactionary non-ideological groups spanning political labels. It's definitely part of the alt-right too.
- [Opposition to] Gramscian elements of these “New Left” movements, where an emphasis on metapolitics and gaining cultural hegemony plays a significant role. You'll hear this group whinge about the cultural dominance of the left in media institutions all the time.
- The “alt-right” often turns more to the far past, be it the “classical” virtues of ancient Rome and (pre-Socratic) Greece, or to the pagan myths of pre-Christian European society. Again, tons of overlap from other groups, but true for the alt-right in particular. Strong sense of classical virtues against more barbaric or decadent vices of others.
- [Belief that] people have a general preference for “like” populations, which is a dynamic originating via evolution.
- [Belief that] All other groups except Whites practice explicit race-consciousness in their activities, and thus it is unjust to require universalism from Whites while permitting (or even promoting) race-consciousness for all others. Very much overlapping many other groups. Here, from liberal-left and gay cultural critic Douglas Murray:
Whereas black studies celebrates black writers and black history, and gay studies brings out gay figures from history and pushes them to the fore, “whiteness studies” is “committed to disrupting racism by problematizing whiteness,” according to Syracuse University professor Barbara Applebaum, who wrote Oxford’s definition. This is to be done “as a corrective.”
Defining an entire group of people, their attitudes, pitfalls and moral associations, based solely on their racial characteristics is itself a fairly good demonstration of racism. For “whiteness” to be “problematized” white people must be shown to be a problem. And not only on some academic, abstract level but in the practical day-to-day business of judging other people. Once again, an overlapping concern with many critics from all political persuasions, right left and center. But alt-right people really hammer on wanting a positive white group identity, and ground it on other racial identities and cultural heritages.
Thanks for writing it out like that. A lot of it looks fine to me. Of course there are people in that grouping who, in my opinion, take it too far - just as there are people who take leftist positions too far. It seems to me that antifa, communists, anarchists and so on on the far left are given the benefit of the doubt, the bad actors are usually ignored, and there is assumption of good will. The opposite lens is cast on the alt-right or any right wing initiative. Maybe it comes down to perceived intent outweighing actual results and behavior. I think the Douglas Murray quote makes a very good point. Overall, I wish people would think much more about culture and much less about race. Antifa is good. You'll find that we hear less about violence from the left not only because the left is less violent, but also because we generally hear less from the left altogether, radical or otherwise. The radicalism from the right is given an undue importance in the discourse, and then it's blamed and criticized, because it's irrational and morally reprehensible. This creates an enemy for liberalism that liberalism is very obviously superior to, and that's part of a strategy. Not Portland antifa (firebomber included), and not the ones I've come across. I had the pleasure to attend a university free speech event they protested against and disrupted. While they claim good intent, their behavior reveals them as militant totalitarians.
|
On November 04 2019 12:47 Xxio wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 06:47 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 05:32 Xxio wrote:On November 03 2019 02:57 Danglars wrote:On November 02 2019 23:58 Nebuchad wrote: It's okay Danglars we just have a difference in opinions about Jimmy and I know you respect diversity of thought.
Who is and isn't far right is the least interesting question ever though. Far right parties get 25 to 45% of the vote in all the west and nobody is ever far right when you talk to them. I just need to know you're serious when you called JimmyJRaynor basically far right, or so far right adjacent that the difference doesn't particularly matter Then you're well underestimating the 25-45% of far right parties. Taking JJR as somebody basically far right, I'd say far right parties number in the 60%+ range. This wouldn't be the first time I thought your characterizations are profoundly silly. On November 03 2019 01:43 Xxio wrote:I searched for an objective description of the alt-right and found this article by Oxford Research Group: https://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/blog/the-alt-right-an-introduction-part-i. I'm glad for the dry, academic analysis. Does anyone have good resources for understanding what the alt-right is? They seem kind of like the antifa of the other side of the spectrum, both being militant and amorphous. First things first: many people mean "alt-right" in purely terms of political games. Label your opposition alt-right, act outraged or shocked that normal people support them or that they're allowed a voice on TV and events, and (hopefully) reap more political power. Secondly, more people won't investigate their views or policies because they're this alt-right boogeyman unworthy of much attention. Now this discussion can continue after removing the alt-right-as-political-weapon, because there are some real people in the world holding views that are accurately described as alt-right. From the article, thoughts and where I stand on them: - A key defining trait of the “alt-right” is identitarianism, focused specifically on supporting the interests of “White/European” populations. This is pretty foundational. If you can't see some overt kind of racial or ethnic component, they're almost always not alt-right. Maybe they instead have a far-right view on immigration or protectionist view on trade or far-right view on patriotic unity (say, criminalization of flag-burning)
- The “alt-right” also specifically rejects universalism, be it in the form of classical liberalism, religious universalism (such as Christianity), or modern globalisation and neoliberalism. I'd phrase the religious aspect as more of a lack of religious tolerance. The others are good descriptors.
- [T]he “alt-right” view the decline in Western societies as related to the downplaying of masculinity and the increased dominance of feminine forms of interaction and reasoning. Alt-right people do not celebrate the easing of gender roles. This one is not as powerful as an identification, since many groups may trace social dissatisfaction, like not finding a mate or being unsatisfied in relationships, back to confusion after a decline in gender norms.
- The “alt-right” also rejects what is usually referred to as “cultural Marxism,” which refers to what could be called “New Left” forms of progressivism that maintain a Marxist-style of argumentation but replaces the proletariat with various “marginalized” populations. This heavily overlaps with traditional conservatives and constitutional conservatives in the states, as well as many reactionary non-ideological groups spanning political labels. It's definitely part of the alt-right too.
- [Opposition to] Gramscian elements of these “New Left” movements, where an emphasis on metapolitics and gaining cultural hegemony plays a significant role. You'll hear this group whinge about the cultural dominance of the left in media institutions all the time.
- The “alt-right” often turns more to the far past, be it the “classical” virtues of ancient Rome and (pre-Socratic) Greece, or to the pagan myths of pre-Christian European society. Again, tons of overlap from other groups, but true for the alt-right in particular. Strong sense of classical virtues against more barbaric or decadent vices of others.
- [Belief that] people have a general preference for “like” populations, which is a dynamic originating via evolution.
- [Belief that] All other groups except Whites practice explicit race-consciousness in their activities, and thus it is unjust to require universalism from Whites while permitting (or even promoting) race-consciousness for all others. Very much overlapping many other groups. Here, from liberal-left and gay cultural critic Douglas Murray:
Whereas black studies celebrates black writers and black history, and gay studies brings out gay figures from history and pushes them to the fore, “whiteness studies” is “committed to disrupting racism by problematizing whiteness,” according to Syracuse University professor Barbara Applebaum, who wrote Oxford’s definition. This is to be done “as a corrective.”
Defining an entire group of people, their attitudes, pitfalls and moral associations, based solely on their racial characteristics is itself a fairly good demonstration of racism. For “whiteness” to be “problematized” white people must be shown to be a problem. And not only on some academic, abstract level but in the practical day-to-day business of judging other people. Once again, an overlapping concern with many critics from all political persuasions, right left and center. But alt-right people really hammer on wanting a positive white group identity, and ground it on other racial identities and cultural heritages.
Thanks for writing it out like that. A lot of it looks fine to me. Of course there are people in that grouping who, in my opinion, take it too far - just as there are people who take leftist positions too far. It seems to me that antifa, communists, anarchists and so on on the far left are given the benefit of the doubt, the bad actors are usually ignored, and there is assumption of good will. The opposite lens is cast on the alt-right or any right wing initiative. Maybe it comes down to perceived intent outweighing actual results and behavior. I think the Douglas Murray quote makes a very good point. Overall, I wish people would think much more about culture and much less about race. Antifa is good. You'll find that we hear less about violence from the left not only because the left is less violent, but also because we generally hear less from the left altogether, radical or otherwise. The radicalism from the right is given an undue importance in the discourse, and then it's blamed and criticized, because it's irrational and morally reprehensible. This creates an enemy for liberalism that liberalism is very obviously superior to, and that's part of a strategy. Not Portland antifa (firebomber included), and not the ones I've come across. I had the pleasure to attend a university free speech event they protested against and disrupted. While they claim good intent, their behavior reveals them as militant totalitarians.
Yes Portland antifa is extremely good, no the behavior of the militants at your university free speech event didn't reveal them as militant totalitarians, and furthermore, yawn.
|
|
|
|