Alt-right terminology / symbolism - Page 8

On November 03 2019 02:57 Danglars wrote:

I just need to know you're serious when you called JimmyJRaynor
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.


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:

1. 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)
   
2. 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.
   
3. [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.
   
4. 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.
   
5. [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.
   
6. 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.
   
7. [Belief that] people have a general preference for “like” populations, which is a dynamic originating via evolution.
   
8. [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.
   

On November 03 2019 02:57 Danglars wrote:

I just need to know you're serious when you called JimmyJRaynor
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.


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:

1. 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)
   
2. 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.
   
3. [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.
   
4. 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.
   
5. [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.
   
6. 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.
   
7. [Belief that] people have a general preference for “like” populations, which is a dynamic originating via evolution.
   
8. [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.
   

On November 04 2019 06:55 Nebuchad wrote:


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.

On November 04 2019 05:32 Xxio wrote:

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.

On November 04 2019 07:07 CoupdeBoule wrote:

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.

On November 04 2019 07:07 CoupdeBoule wrote:

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.

On November 04 2019 05:32 Xxio wrote:

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.

On November 04 2019 06:47 Nebuchad wrote:


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.

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.

On November 04 2019 07:41 BerserkSword wrote:


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.





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 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" ?

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" ?

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.

On November 04 2019 09:51 Nebuchad wrote:

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.

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".

On November 03 2019 02:57 Danglars wrote:

I just need to know you're serious when you called JimmyJRaynor
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.


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:

1. 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)
   
2. 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.
   
3. [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.
   
4. 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.
   
5. [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.
   
6. 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.
   
7. [Belief that] people have a general preference for “like” populations, which is a dynamic originating via evolution.
   
8. [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.
   

On November 04 2019 05:32 Xxio wrote:

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.