|
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. |
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.
I don't get this "portland antifa" notion. As some one who's visited Portland multiple times, then moved to Portland, I've never once had an "antifa" issue or have ever seen "antifa". The only time I hear about antifa is when the extreme right try to descend on the city.
|
Canada5565 Posts
On November 04 2019 13:08 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 12:47 Xxio 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. 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. I don't get this "portland antifa" notion. As some one who's visited Portland multiple times, then moved to Portland, I've never once had an "antifa" issue or have ever seen "antifa". The only time I hear about antifa is when the extreme right try to descend on the city.
I'm glad for that. There is the baton assault that Falling mentioned in this thread, among other incidents.
|
On November 04 2019 06:57 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 06:19 Danglars wrote:
It's much easier to give good will to people with real economic gripes that just look like frustration. This antifa guy probably won't own a house like his parents, raise a family on a single income like his parents, and pay off his student loans fairly quickly after graduation. It's hard to see how he'll search out the good aspects of capitalism, or blame market failure on distinctly anti-capitalistic trends. That looks like someone you might sympathize with, just misguided and driving further down a wrong road. Just reading down the list of alt-right diagnostic criteria, I pick up quite a few that just disgusts me at a core level. My current revulsion at the alt-left or far-left groups is more taught or acquired by contrast. i was born in '87 in southern Ontario. Since forever up until 1994 Canada had an extremely high median standard of living. From 1994 to 2008 the standard of living rose by 22.4% in Canada and by even more in southern Ontario. Southern Ontario is the epicenter of economic opportunity in Canada. And yet, the internet cafe where I hung out had a Communist group, a far right group and an alt-right group. All the guys in these groups whined and complained like they were living in a slave society. personal story details + Show Spoiler +i knew guys who hadn't graduated from high school who had $30/hour construction jobs at age 17. One guy punched out his construction foreman boss. A week later he got another construction job for $30/hour. Employers were mega desperate for employees. I got a part time job in high school doing software testing for database software apps. In my last year of high school their main database programmer demanded $150/hour. They offered me the job. So when I was 17 i was building database software apps. Mainly, it was because employers were so desperate for hard working employees. The apps were not super sophisticated and mastering ANSI SQL isn't exactly rocket science. Driving force behind me getting any kind of work in database software applications as a teenager was ... employers were desperate. so listening to these whiners with these bizarre ideologies moan and whine about how horrible Ontario and Canada were... it was really comical. Like most people growing up during that era I took advantage of the great economic conditions and amazing opportunities. A small minority of people did not; some of those guys gravitated to these extreme groups even in the face of very favourable conditions. Southern Ontario was just fine. These sad weak people are the problem. In my view it boils down to poor self esteem , lack of life experience, and lack of will power. These people would rather just blame "the system". It is a lot easier that way. "Making it" is hard work. Its easier to bitch, moan, whine and complain.
I certainly know the type of person you're describing.
|
On November 04 2019 13:08 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 12:47 Xxio 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. 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. I don't get this "portland antifa" notion. As some one who's visited Portland multiple times, then moved to Portland, I've never once had an "antifa" issue or have ever seen "antifa". The only time I hear about antifa is when the extreme right try to descend on the city.
Portland antifa seem like reasonable anti fascists from my interactions with them. 🤷♀️
|
On November 04 2019 13:27 Xxio wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 13:08 ShoCkeyy wrote:On November 04 2019 12:47 Xxio 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. 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. I don't get this "portland antifa" notion. As some one who's visited Portland multiple times, then moved to Portland, I've never once had an "antifa" issue or have ever seen "antifa". The only time I hear about antifa is when the extreme right try to descend on the city. I'm glad for that. There is the baton assault that Falling mentioned in this thread, among other incidents.
Can you name any of the good things Portland ANTIFA has got up to?
|
Canada5565 Posts
On November 04 2019 15:22 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 13:27 Xxio wrote:On November 04 2019 13:08 ShoCkeyy wrote:On November 04 2019 12:47 Xxio 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. 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. I don't get this "portland antifa" notion. As some one who's visited Portland multiple times, then moved to Portland, I've never once had an "antifa" issue or have ever seen "antifa". The only time I hear about antifa is when the extreme right try to descend on the city. I'm glad for that. There is the baton assault that Falling mentioned in this thread, among other incidents. Can you name any of the good things Portland ANTIFA has got up to?
Unfortunately, I haven't come across any incidents I consider to be good. If there are some that you consider good, I'd like to read about them, to have a better understanding of the organization (for lack of a better word). Listed below are two high-profile Portland antifa incidents I do not consider good. I believe the 2016 anti-Trump riot could also be included, but I left it out as I'm not sure whether or not antifa members took part explicitly under that brand. And there are more antifa incidents, beyond Portland, I do not consider good, like beating peaceful protestors in Berkeley, mobbing Tucker Carlson's home, unprovoked assault with a metal bike lock, throwing incendiary devices at an immigration center, and violent counter-protesting in Sacramento.
If antifa has done charity work, helped communities in a direct way, like how Trump supporters cleaned up 12 tons of street trash in West Baltimore, I would genuinely like to know. I understand antifa to be fundamentally militant, aggressive, and against free speech. I would love to be wrong about that.
|
I mean I'm no expert in Portland ANTIFA, I only really know the work of a local group here in the UK.
My question was intended to make the point that if you've only heard about the bad incidents that you disagree with, what is it you think they are doing the rest of the time?
It could be that the only time they are reported on is when someone does something you would see as crossing a line, therefore your opinion of them is warped by selective coverage, right?
From my experience the vast majority of antifa work is super boring day to day stuff like telling record stores if they are selling records containing nazi propaganda so they can remove them, tracking hard right inflitration of local authority groups and exposing it, stuff like that.
|
On November 04 2019 16:45 Xxio wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 15:22 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 04 2019 13:27 Xxio wrote:On November 04 2019 13:08 ShoCkeyy wrote:On November 04 2019 12:47 Xxio 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. 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. I don't get this "portland antifa" notion. As some one who's visited Portland multiple times, then moved to Portland, I've never once had an "antifa" issue or have ever seen "antifa". The only time I hear about antifa is when the extreme right try to descend on the city. I'm glad for that. There is the baton assault that Falling mentioned in this thread, among other incidents. Can you name any of the good things Portland ANTIFA has got up to? Unfortunately, I haven't come across any incidents I consider to be good. If there are some that you consider good, I'd like to read about them, to have a better understanding of the organization (for lack of a better word). Listed below are two high-profile Portland antifa incidents I do not consider good. I believe the 2016 anti-Trump riot could also be included, but I left it out as I'm not sure whether or not antifa members took part explicitly under that brand. And there are more antifa incidents, beyond Portland, I do not consider good, like beating peaceful protestors in Berkeley, mobbing Tucker Carlson's home, unprovoked assault with a metal bike lock, throwing incendiary devices at an immigration center, and violent counter-protesting in Sacramento. If antifa has done charity work, helped communities in a direct way, like how Trump supporters cleaned up 12 tons of street trash in West Baltimore, I would genuinely like to know. I understand antifa to be fundamentally militant, aggressive, and against free speech. I would love to be wrong about that.
You can't link Andy Ngo... He literally went into a group of antifa and provoked them to be attacked so he can play the victim. Just like every other alt right person I've seen in Portland, they all try to be attacked to play the victim, like this guy. I mean, you claim Antifa has done bad, but at least they haven't murdered anybody. The alt right has murdered people already, or at least tried too like the Trump Bomber.
|
Northern Ireland25120 Posts
On November 04 2019 17:12 Jockmcplop wrote:
I mean I'm no expert in Portland ANTIFA, I only really know the work of a local group here in the UK.
My question was intended to make the point that if you've only heard about the bad incidents that you disagree with, what is it you think they are doing the rest of the time?
It could be that the only time they are reported on is when someone does something you would see as crossing a line, therefore your opinion of them is warped by selective coverage, right?
From my experience the vast majority of antifa work is super boring day to day stuff like telling record stores if they are selling records containing nazi propaganda so they can remove them, tracking hard right inflitration of local authority groups and exposing it, stuff like that.
It is for the most part rather sedate stuff.
I can understand concerns over Antifa activity, they have overstepped the mark on occasion for sure. However they are also a rather loose collective by their very nature too.
They’re a useful boogeyman for the ‘centrist and totally not right wing’ crowd to use to make it into a free speech martyr narrative and deflect away from those folks 1 or 2 degrees further to the right that they continue to give platforms to and softball criticism vs what they throw at anyone vaguely on the left.
|
On November 04 2019 13:08 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 12:47 Xxio 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. 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. I don't get this "portland antifa" notion. As some one who's visited Portland multiple times, then moved to Portland, I've never once had an "antifa" issue or have ever seen "antifa". The only time I hear about antifa is when the extreme right try to descend on the city.
in Toronto, a few members of the Communist group called "Fight Back" created a plan to pretend to be far right Kevin J. Johnston supporters; they would run around picking fights with people to make it appear Johnston was a violent psycho. In Toronto, the media is frequently wrong in identifying which fringe weirdo group is doing what.
People who want to claim the right wing is more violent would gravitate towards the stories that fit their world view. People who like to claim the left wing is more violent gravitate towards the stories that fit their world view.
Unless you are on the ground at the time its really hard to tell for certain. Even if you are... its hard to say.
|
Well, I've changed my mind. Not by arguments by those who see it as a problem but rather by the usual alt-right posters in the thread who are desperate to convince people that the spread of alt-right scoial media memes in gaming communities is not a problem, but the reaction to prevent its spread is a problem, the only conclusion I can arrive at is that it is indeed a part and parcel of the alt-right that needs to be spoken against.
|
On November 04 2019 16:45 Xxio wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 15:22 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 04 2019 13:27 Xxio wrote:On November 04 2019 13:08 ShoCkeyy wrote:On November 04 2019 12:47 Xxio 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. 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. I don't get this "portland antifa" notion. As some one who's visited Portland multiple times, then moved to Portland, I've never once had an "antifa" issue or have ever seen "antifa". The only time I hear about antifa is when the extreme right try to descend on the city. I'm glad for that. There is the baton assault that Falling mentioned in this thread, among other incidents. Can you name any of the good things Portland ANTIFA has got up to? Unfortunately, I haven't come across any incidents I consider to be good. If there are some that you consider good, I'd like to read about them, to have a better understanding of the organization (for lack of a better word). Listed below are two high-profile Portland antifa incidents I do not consider good. I believe the 2016 anti-Trump riot could also be included, but I left it out as I'm not sure whether or not antifa members took part explicitly under that brand. And there are more antifa incidents, beyond Portland, I do not consider good, like beating peaceful protestors in Berkeley, mobbing Tucker Carlson's home, unprovoked assault with a metal bike lock, throwing incendiary devices at an immigration center, and violent counter-protesting in Sacramento. If antifa has done charity work, helped communities in a direct way, like how Trump supporters cleaned up 12 tons of street trash in West Baltimore, I would genuinely like to know. I understand antifa to be fundamentally militant, aggressive, and against free speech. I would love to be wrong about that.
The important thing is to resist apologists for both sides in the violent confrontations. The most violent factions of antifa know they’re sunk if a non-aligned journalist gets their mayhem on video, so they set up either “that guy wasn’t us” or “he brought our behavior down on himself; earned his beating.” If you’re going to document the violence or lack of violence in any neutral way, bring a posse of people filming it from beginning to end. Blaming the victim goes back multiple decades with this group.
For alt-right apologia, you watch out for Breitbart and OAN and Fox Cable News. You may see there similar whitewashing as you see around these parts with antifa.
(You’ve seen the section of antifa cheerleaders and closeted supporters, on this website and elsewhere, that legitimately need to know which side did the beating up to know whether to call it dangerous attacks on the press or understandable reaction to provocation. They’re really useful to the alt-right. They go hysterical on alt-right influence, the alt-right calls them out on their duplicity for excusing violence when it suits them, and they feed off each other.)
|
Canada5565 Posts
On November 04 2019 21:45 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 16:45 Xxio wrote:On November 04 2019 15:22 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 04 2019 13:27 Xxio wrote:On November 04 2019 13:08 ShoCkeyy wrote:On November 04 2019 12:47 Xxio 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. 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. I don't get this "portland antifa" notion. As some one who's visited Portland multiple times, then moved to Portland, I've never once had an "antifa" issue or have ever seen "antifa". The only time I hear about antifa is when the extreme right try to descend on the city. I'm glad for that. There is the baton assault that Falling mentioned in this thread, among other incidents. Can you name any of the good things Portland ANTIFA has got up to? Unfortunately, I haven't come across any incidents I consider to be good. If there are some that you consider good, I'd like to read about them, to have a better understanding of the organization (for lack of a better word). Listed below are two high-profile Portland antifa incidents I do not consider good. I believe the 2016 anti-Trump riot could also be included, but I left it out as I'm not sure whether or not antifa members took part explicitly under that brand. And there are more antifa incidents, beyond Portland, I do not consider good, like beating peaceful protestors in Berkeley, mobbing Tucker Carlson's home, unprovoked assault with a metal bike lock, throwing incendiary devices at an immigration center, and violent counter-protesting in Sacramento. If antifa has done charity work, helped communities in a direct way, like how Trump supporters cleaned up 12 tons of street trash in West Baltimore, I would genuinely like to know. I understand antifa to be fundamentally militant, aggressive, and against free speech. I would love to be wrong about that. You can't link Andy Ngo... He literally went into a group of antifa and provoked them to be attacked so he can play the victim. Just like every other alt right person I've seen in Portland, they all try to be attacked to play the victim, like this guy. I mean, you claim Antifa has done bad, but at least they haven't murdered anybody. The alt right has murdered people already, or at least tried too like the Trump Bomber.
Actually, I can. It was a vicious, unjustifiable group assault by masked assailants that caused a brain hemorrhage. His affiliations and minor provocations (if any) don't alter what happened. And I'm not claiming anything. I'm linking direct evidence. I doubt "at least they haven't killed anybody" (yet) will boost anyone's confidence in antifa.
On November 05 2019 00:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 16:45 Xxio wrote:On November 04 2019 15:22 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 04 2019 13:27 Xxio wrote:On November 04 2019 13:08 ShoCkeyy wrote:On November 04 2019 12:47 Xxio 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. 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. I don't get this "portland antifa" notion. As some one who's visited Portland multiple times, then moved to Portland, I've never once had an "antifa" issue or have ever seen "antifa". The only time I hear about antifa is when the extreme right try to descend on the city. I'm glad for that. There is the baton assault that Falling mentioned in this thread, among other incidents. Can you name any of the good things Portland ANTIFA has got up to? Unfortunately, I haven't come across any incidents I consider to be good. If there are some that you consider good, I'd like to read about them, to have a better understanding of the organization (for lack of a better word). Listed below are two high-profile Portland antifa incidents I do not consider good. I believe the 2016 anti-Trump riot could also be included, but I left it out as I'm not sure whether or not antifa members took part explicitly under that brand. And there are more antifa incidents, beyond Portland, I do not consider good, like beating peaceful protestors in Berkeley, mobbing Tucker Carlson's home, unprovoked assault with a metal bike lock, throwing incendiary devices at an immigration center, and violent counter-protesting in Sacramento. If antifa has done charity work, helped communities in a direct way, like how Trump supporters cleaned up 12 tons of street trash in West Baltimore, I would genuinely like to know. I understand antifa to be fundamentally militant, aggressive, and against free speech. I would love to be wrong about that. The important thing is to resist apologists for both sides in the violent confrontations. The most violent factions of antifa know they’re sunk if a non-aligned journalist gets their mayhem on video, so they set up either “that guy wasn’t us” or “he brought our behavior down on himself; earned his beating.” If you’re going to document the violence or lack of violence in any neutral way, bring a posse of people filming it from beginning to end. Blaming the victim goes back multiple decades with this group. For alt-right apologia, you watch out for Breitbart and OAN and Fox Cable News. You may see there similar whitewashing as you see around these parts with antifa. (You’ve seen the section of antifa cheerleaders and closeted supporters, on this website and elsewhere, that legitimately need to know which side did the beating up to know whether to call it dangerous attacks on the press or understandable reaction to provocation. They’re really useful to the alt-right. They go hysterical on alt-right influence, the alt-right calls them out on their duplicity for excusing violence when it suits them, and they feed off each other.)
I completely agree. Well said!
|
You linked evidence to a person who purposely wanted to get assaulted. There's a stark difference between a person looking for a fight and one that isn't.
|
Literal Quillette dropped Ngo for being a fascist before they dropped phrenology and people are still defending him and his brain hemorrhage I don't know why we even bother.
|
On November 05 2019 00:22 Nebuchad wrote:
Literal Quillette dropped Ngo for being a fascist before they dropped phrenology and people are still defending him and his brain hemorrhage I don't know why we even bother.
At least Xxio is providing the thread with a helpful demonstration of how selective skepticism is a tried and true alt-right tactic. Very performative.
|
It's the same concept what the proud boys did in New York. They went around looking for fights so they can play the victim, instead NY charged them because there was clear evidence they were the instigators, just like link I posted above about a Trump supporter playing the victim while looking for a fight in Portland.
Don't get me wrong, I don't condone violence, but if you're looking for violence, and you get your ass beat, then that was the decision the instigator made.
|
The takeaway is clear; individuals with a known history of instigation and support for fashy ideas like Ngo get the benefit of the imagined doubt and a nebulous catch all label and folks who seem to fit said label do not.
|
Are we still working on the assumption that if you see in the news that someone did something bad, the group they are affiliated to are all bad?
I'm reading through and I don't see anyone having a problem with that.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/nyregion/cesar-sayoc-trump-mail-bomber.html
Then again I guess Trump supporters are just terrorists so you'll never get reasonable conversation from them, right?
|
On November 05 2019 01:08 Jockmcplop wrote:Are we still working on the assumption that if you see in the news that someone did something bad, the group they are affiliated to are all bad? I'm reading through and I don't see anyone having a problem with that. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/nyregion/cesar-sayoc-trump-mail-bomber.htmlThen again I guess Trump supporters are just terrorists so you'll never get reasonable conversation from them, right?
Simultaneously, I wouldn't expect a lot of people from the right wing offering up excuses like they were deliberately antagonizing his group, they stood for all these insane ideas, so basically they got what they deserved and should behave differently to not have violence directed against them. I think many people in this thread would have zero problems condemning a right-wing group if violent actions were directed against neutral or critical journalists in their midst. When the roles are reversed, suddenly there's these unfilmed provocative actions (somehow missing among the insane amount of video evidence of the violent protest in question) that make the victim partially deserve his fate. I see it as nothing but tribal.
And like I said earlier, when all that matters is tribe, the alt-right is empowered to say, "These hypocrites support violence as long as the right people suffer from it. They'll find every excuse in the book if the victim isn't one of them." If we're talking about the sliding scale: No impact, minor impact from memes, rallying cry to stop censorship of memes, monetary aid to the group ... that tribalism rates extremely high on sustaining and growing the alt-right in America. Portland Antifa, and it's most recent June 29th counter-protest, stands as a great example to see if the most obvious acts of violence can be condemned unilaterally by sensible people. In opposition to this, the first second and third things offered up on the assaults is all the reasons the people were asking for it. There's no real point in talking about how many Antifa groups also do physical confrontations in the streets with permitted protests, when all its defenders shy away from condemning actually documented and publicized violence from a single Antifa protest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
