|
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. |
This is something that has been on my mind for a while now as a long time SC2 follower. I am sure the topic has come up in bits and pieces in the US politics thread, but I wanted to know what people think about this.
I regularly see and hear alt-right terminology and symbols used in the SC2 community. Think of the 'feels bad man', 'Pepe' and other quotes circulating in Twitch chats and Twitter accounts of many pro players and streamers. I am sure that most of the time this is not because of conscious support of alt-right ideas. I am aware many of these memes have originated in gamer communities and were politicized by other groups.
Yet I do feel there is a lack of resistance or criticism on this. Shouldn't there be some thought around using the 'feels bad man' or 'grug wojak' as a twitter portrait?
|
Feels bad man
Honestly, many of these have been around for long in the web and trying to stigmatise them seems to have backfired hard.
|
I see nothing wrong with it. Symbols can be appropriated by different cultures to mean different things. In this case, the alt right appropriated pepe the frog as its symbol while gamers appropriated it for memes. In the contexts in which it is used, feelsbadman is not expressing anything to do with the alt-right.
Unless you're afraid that it's all a ploy to legitimize pepe the frog as an alt-right symbol by ingraining it to gamer culture. I don't think people should worry about this because we shouldn't let the alt-right dictate and have monopoly over a symbol (feelsbadman and other pepe memes, not specifically pepe himself) that also belongs to us. Similar deal to the "ok" sign
|
Honestly, I've never understood why would people be offended by symbols or memes, or phrases.
And no, there shouldn't be criticism about someone saying 'feels bad man'.
|
Russian Federation367 Posts
Get out of here, please. Leave us alone with your useless sjw mentality. Let us play the game and have fun like we always did. If you feel so offended by symbols why won't you sue China and Korea for using swastika on their temples? Ok? People with such mentality are so feelsbadman.
|
A symbol that doesn't originate from a bad group doesn't become bad when the group starts using it. Example: swastikas are banned here, but not the wehrmacht cross which commonly becomes the replacement in ww2 games.
|
Symbols can be appropriated by different cultures to mean different things Yes, that's what I was thinking, although it never goes fully uncontested. I see many people who understand gamer culture and 'the' alt-right movement as things that are very connected. Which is a massive misunderstanding from my point of view. (I think the 80's punk movements understood this, by appropriating fascist symbolism they were able to steer clear of mainstream media).
I guess what LuckyGnomTV is talking about is the gaming community as a separate space where we can just play the game and have fun. Of course you can do that, I think gaming is actually made for that. To shut other things out, and focus on.. well whatever we do here.
But I wonder whether it is a space truly free from politics. It is not the free for all cyberspace as imagined by the post-hippies of the 90's. (Think of the recent discussions about the tech giants, or the Hearthstone China-HK incident). That is what I am trying to think through, not as someone who feels offended (I don't feel obliged to read every meme, and I hope I don't offend people with my sjw language), its just curiosity from being engaged with this scene for a while.
|
No space is free from politics
|
That's like I can't shave my head because Neonazis do it. Or I can't wear boots. Or whatever
|
Memes or symbols aren't issues, neither are harmless phrases like "feels bad man" which can be used in millions of ways.
People killing people are issues. Unless someone goes on in a gaming setting and says death to all xxx and/or goes filming himself killing said people, then it shouldn't be an issue for a mature adult in my eyes.
|
No space is free from politics Yeah I don't think any space is free from politics. Every space has it's own kind of politics. Gaming politics is an interesting one, in part it can be thought of as a separate political sphere, with it's own micro-politics (i.e. meta-game, politics of cheesing, or prize pools etc.) It's strength is that it offers a temporary context in which alternative kinds of knowledge are valid / necessary.
That's like I can't What's the issue is that "phrases like "feels bad man" can be used in millions of ways". I am just wondering what it means when multiple people use them in different political spheres.
|
The serious answer is, if you're trying to recruit people into the far right, gaming is one of the first places you should look into. A bunch of guys, probably not very social, probably not very open, probably into competition, that's perfect. If they know what they're doing they should be coopting gamer language whenever possible, and they mostly know what they're doing.
|
Far right recruitment is definitely happening in the gaming space. I heavily see it in World of Warcraft when "All men friendly christian guilds" start their recruitment in trade chat or when in Overwatch some one decides to be heavily racist. I'm not quiet about it, I speak up and tell them to go fork themselves, and I have been reported multiple times by these far right recruiters to blizzard, and blizzard always ends up siding with me.
I don't get triggered if some one starts typing "feelsbadman", I get annoyed though when far right ideologies start spewing their hate into chats/voice coms.
|
I haven't encountered something like that before, but I am not too surprised I guess.
Coming out of the art scene myself I see in gaming culture a super interesting cultural space, which will grow in the coming years. The possibilities with narrative, interaction, (international) connectivity and communication are huge. But if it is just the companies and / or political groups from outside the gaming community that own this space it would be a shame. So what could gaming-politics be (as something in itself but also as a counter weight against stupid alt-right or christian appropriation)?
|
See, your falling into issue No.1.
There is no "gaming culture". There are several gaming cultures depending on platform and even games. I feel 0 affiliation with some fortnight player, not in any way. I also feel 0 affiliation with some mine craft player and so on... You might also just call it "people that are often online culture", but then you would realize how retarded that is and would rethink.
|
Canada10904 Posts
I think running from those sorts of phrases is giving the alt-right too much credit- like it's some sort of contagious disease that one must guard against with paranoid vigilance. It's a fear-based approach and easily abused by the alt-right as we've seen people run for the hills over the 'okay' symbol.
In as much the alt-right is involved in white nationalism, the actual beliefs that are terrible are fairly obvious and not tolerated (white genocide conspiracy theories or racist theories on ethnicities).
But there is far too much overlap with regular old meme/ troll culture to bother one's head about 'feels bad man'.
|
On October 22 2019 22:29 Harris1st wrote: That's like I can't shave my head because Neonazis do it. Or I can't wear boots. Or whatever I mean real talk: I've had some very unpleasant real life interactions with some Proud Boys and seeing them makes me never want to wear polo shirts ever again.
|
Polo shirts are alt-right thing?
|
On October 24 2019 22:43 Sbrubbles wrote: Polo shirts are alt-right thing? Admittedly it doesn't make as much sense to somebody outside the underground music live scene in the states, but a lot of the douchier guys that show up have that sort of dress code of long jeans and polo shirts and short hair that's sometimes combed over. These guys tend to gravitate towards these fraternal minded groups and the Proud Boys (a strictly white male group that believes white genocide is a real thing) have appropriated it as their uniform, specifically black with gold stripes around the collar.
|
Discussing the collective use of symbols as it relates to specific cooption by particular groups is a good thing, but Nebuchad basically already said what I was going to. Particular symbols needn’t be banned or prohibited in order for folks to spread awareness.
Carry on!
|
The main problem is not white supremacists using symbols for themselves but the ideology itself.
|
Perhaps, but an ideological group’s use of symbols is at least a component of the substance of their ideology. The whole “I’m serious until I’m joking until I’m serious” end run around serious criticism is baked into the use of memes to convey ideas, for example. The alt-right has capitalized on this dynamic.
|
Innuendo Studios is always relevant but this is a new video and it's relevant to OP's concerns, so...
+ Show Spoiler +
|
These ideologies offer the promise of salvation, happiness and a better world to those with low self esteem. Low self esteem is the root cause. Not many people understand the basic dynamics of self esteem so the root causes never really get addressed in any meaningful way.
|
The real root of problems like this is education. It honestly baffles me, that in most countries there are no classes available on how to properly raise a child. So parents around the globe are just winging it and go by trial and error. I mean we're talking about the future of humanity here, yet nobody is really taught how to be a good parent in school. That's actually pretty frightening, we just assume everybody knows what to do and will do it correctly. Parents are always shocked, when one of their kids turns out to be a hateful prick, rapist or murderer, for that very reason.
|
i don't mind people communicating their idealogies through memes. it just makes people you don't want to associate yourself easier to spot. like when some one does a nazi salute or a fortnite dance.
|
United States9652 Posts
Context is the only thing that matters. Imagine trying to ban pepe memes or the OK sign. Really? Come on.
Yeah, if people are using them in spiteful ways to align themselves with alt-right, you can call them out on it. But it's the individual behind the use of the meme, not the meme itself. Otherwise, wtf is the point? Guess Scuba divers better find a different hand gesture than the OK sign to signal they're OK underwater right? Otherwise, all scuba divers are now alt-right white supremacists.
|
On October 25 2019 01:07 thePunGun wrote: The real root of problems like this is education. It honestly baffles me, that in most countries there are no classes available on how to properly raise a child. So parents around the globe are just winging it and go by trial and error. I mean we're talking about the future of humanity here, yet nobody is really taught how to be a good parent in school. That's actually pretty frightening, we just assume everybody knows what to do and will do it correctly. Parents are always shocked, when one of their kids turns out to be a hateful prick, rapist or murderer, for that very reason.
One can be very well educated and have poor self esteem and wind up adopting a pathological ideology. In fact, the adoption of a pathological ideology is merely a larger amplification of poor self esteem.
I should say , as a condition of this working you must be in a 1st world country in some semblance of democracy. If you are living in a 3rd world country ruled by a dictator who randomly napalms hospitals for shits and giggles "high self esteem" isn't going to help you adopt a proper political ideology.
|
My point was the parents should be educated on how to raise a child. If you have a loving family (meaning parents, who actually know what they're doing) you won't end up having low self esteem and fall for any kind of ideological brainwashing (in a 1st world country).
|
|
On October 25 2019 01:48 thePunGun wrote: My point was the parents should be educated on how to raise a child. If you have a loving family (meaning parents, who actually know what they're doing) you won't end up having low self esteem and fall for any kind of ideological brainwashing (in a 1st world country). i read that article too. sounds like drivel. if you're not an ass hole in the first place i don't think memes and dog whistles are going to push you over the edge
|
Since Gamergate, I rub my eyes. So many gamers taking so much time to 'disprove' feminists.
The alt-right phenomenon in my perception has just little overlap with gaming, but I wonder what it is about. Being superficially open and progressive, but actually an ass and backwards? Though still occupying memes?
What, and even who is the alt-right anyway? A couple of months ago, an article in the German weekly newspaper "Der Spiegel" counted Dave Rubin as alt-right. But is he? Or is he just not the sharpest knife in the drawer?
(Mis)using Pepe the frog as alt-right meme is strange, too. Leave Pepe (and Britney!) alone! But seriously, is Jesse Lee Peterson right-wing, alt-right, or just a troll?
|
|
Northern Ireland20727 Posts
On October 24 2019 23:33 farvacola wrote: Perhaps, but an ideological group’s use of symbols is at least a component of the substance of their ideology. The whole “I’m serious until I’m joking until I’m serious” end run around serious criticism is baked into the use of memes to convey ideas, for example. The alt-right has capitalized on this dynamic. Yeah they really have. From my deep diving into weird corners of the internet they actively thrive on this confusion.
They like to use certain signifiers that are plausibly deniable to congregate, ‘oh look at the crazy SJWs designating Pepe as a hate symbol’ etc etc.
I mean write them off at one’s peril I suppose. From my time on legitimate fascist forums discovering how they thought they use all these tactics to seem more palatable
|
It's like how you can generally tell someone's politics by whether something oblectionable is "yikes" or "cringe". Symbols and language do gain group affiliations but if you target those, any sufficiently counterculture group will abuse it.
|
People will be assholes and when people on the right appropriate symbols they are doing it to be assholes. There's not much you can do about it except try and ignore them when you can. Causing a big fuss about it literally only helps the people you are trying to fight. Making a 6 hour Youtube series about how these symbols are now right wing symbols is counter productive, no matter how good or interesting the content of the videos is. Just let them have their frog and interpret it however they want to. Then they look like stupid kids.
|
You’re giving the alt-right way too much credit here. They aren’t “alt right terminology” or “symbols.” They’re internet memes and their use is fucking easy to understand in context. The original post appears as nothing more than reactionary terror at alt right people using irreverent memes just like normal people do. Have a little perspective, please. The internet wasn’t invented yesterday, and becoming the new Church Ladies saying everything is Satan is a poor choice of direction.
|
I’ve never heard a satisfactory definition of what the alt-right is. Seems to depend heavily on what your political orientations are.
|
On October 25 2019 12:37 Danglars wrote: You’re giving the alt-right way too much credit here. They aren’t “alt right terminology” or “symbols.” They’re internet memes and their use is fucking easy to understand in context. The original post appears as nothing more than reactionary terror at alt right people using irreverent memes just like normal people do. Have a little perspective, please. The internet wasn’t invented yesterday, and becoming the new Church Ladies saying everything is Satan is a poor choice of direction. Bullshit.
The alt-right absolutely deserves this level of credit, and are absolutely not using irreverant memes like normal people.
They're actively attempting to bring fringe beliefs into the mainstream conversation.
I'll let the modern Nazis explain this one:
Always hijack existing cultural memes in any way possible. Don't worry if the meme was originally Jewish. It doesn't matter. Cultural references and attachment of entertainment culture to Nazi concepts have the psychological purpose of removing it from the void of weirdness that it would naturally exist in, due to the way it has been dealt with by the culture thus far, and making it a part of the reader's world. Through this method we are also able to use the existing culture to transmit our own ideas and agenda.
The unindoctrinated should not be able to tell if we are joking or not.
This is from the Daily Stormer's style guide that leaked a while back.
|
On October 25 2019 14:12 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2019 12:37 Danglars wrote: You’re giving the alt-right way too much credit here. They aren’t “alt right terminology” or “symbols.” They’re internet memes and their use is fucking easy to understand in context. The original post appears as nothing more than reactionary terror at alt right people using irreverent memes just like normal people do. Have a little perspective, please. The internet wasn’t invented yesterday, and becoming the new Church Ladies saying everything is Satan is a poor choice of direction. Bullshit. The alt-right absolutely deserves this level of credit, and are absolutely not using irreverant memes like normal people. They're actively attempting to bring fringe beliefs into the mainstream conversation. I'll let the modern Nazis explain this one: Show nested quote +Always hijack existing cultural memes in any way possible. Don't worry if the meme was originally Jewish. It doesn't matter. Cultural references and attachment of entertainment culture to Nazi concepts have the psychological purpose of removing it from the void of weirdness that it would naturally exist in, due to the way it has been dealt with by the culture thus far, and making it a part of the reader's world. Through this method we are also able to use the existing culture to transmit our own ideas and agenda. This is from the Daily Stormer's style guide that leaked a while back.
And?
It's not a sign of confidence or strength that power is ceded to the fringe so easily. Say nope they don't get to manipulate language and culture like that and poof their power to do it disappears. That is literally all it takes. The OK symbol, pure insanity. Weirdos use it so it can't be used anymore. Well great what can weirdos exercise such power over next? Power that they purely manipulated their way into wielding, power that they wouldn't have if people didn't let their response be manipulated. Just say no lol. Weirdos don't get to manipulate everybody else into believing this or that symbol or whatever is unacceptable.
|
I think you underestimate the power of social engineering.
|
On October 24 2019 23:56 Nebuchad wrote:Innuendo Studios is always relevant but this is a new video and it's relevant to OP's concerns, so... + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P55t6eryY3g
This video is also relevant.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
I think Pepe has been successfully rehabilitated and 99% or more of people on Twitch who use monkaS or other Pepe emotes are not expressing racist ideologies. On Twitch, monkaS is used to express a kind of anxiety, for example in DOTA if someone is teleporting in the trees almost gets caught before the tp finishes. If someone comes in who is unfamiliar with such usage and been influenced by media moral panic they might think it's some sort of big Nazi circlejerk going on when in fact people are just expressing reactions to how the game is going.
I'm not sure banning things every time alt-right trolls try to co-opt them is a good solution because 1) they will just keep on co-opting new things and it will become an endless game of banning and new co-opting. 2) it is annoying for the vast majority who use such emojis normally.
|
On October 25 2019 01:48 thePunGun wrote: My point was the parents should be educated on how to raise a child. If you have a loving family (meaning parents, who actually know what they're doing) you won't end up having low self esteem and fall for any kind of ideological brainwashing (in a 1st world country). There are no guarantees here. Amazing parents occasionally end up raising children who become terrible human beings. On other occasions, two horrible parents end up having child that survives their BS and the child creates a good life as an adult despite the parents being horrible.
On October 25 2019 13:42 ElMeanYo wrote: I’ve never heard a satisfactory definition of what the alt-right is. Seems to depend heavily on what your political orientations are. this is a really good point. I have not heard a good concise definition either. Without a proper definition any one can claim anything about the "alt right"
Its hard to take people railing against the "alt right" seriously when they do not define their terms. I think a lot of these angry people just want to bang their fists on a desk and yell about how horrible the world is.
|
On October 25 2019 19:23 tomatriedes wrote: I think Pepe has been successfully rehabilitated and 99% or more of people on Twitch who use monkaS or other Pepe emotes are not expressing racist ideologies. On Twitch, monkaS is used to express a kind of anxiety, for example in DOTA if someone is teleporting in the trees almost gets caught before the tp finishes. If someone comes in who is unfamiliar with such usage and been influenced by media moral panic they might think it's some sort of big Nazi circlejerk going on when in fact people are just expressing reactions to how the game is going.
I'm not sure banning things every time alt-right trolls try to co-opt them is a good solution because 1) they will just keep on co-opting new things and it will become an endless game of banning and new co-opting. 2) it is annoying for the vast majority who use such emojis normally. Exactly. One day I’ll have to explain all this gamer buy-in to the media moral panic for the next generation.
|
Jimmy is right on the parents piece, did you know Fidel Castro went to a school called Belen? This school exist in South Florida. It's an all male Christian/Catholic school that teaches kids into thinking they're from god so they can't do any wrong. I know because I know a couple of parents who have kids there currently, and they already have the mentality of "if my kid does something wrong, how do I get him out of it".
The alt-right term is simple, and there were plenty of others that explained it. It's people who have views of fascism, authoritarianism, and neo nazism within the conservative party.
|
On October 25 2019 22:03 ShoCkeyy wrote: Jimmy is right on the parents piece, did you know Fidel Castro went to a school called Belen? This school exist in South Florida. It's an all male Christian/Catholic school that teaches kids into thinking they're from god so they can't do any wrong. I know because I know a couple of parents who have kids there currently, and they already have the mentality of "if my kid does something wrong, how do I get him out of it".
Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka come from really nice families. Fortunately, Homolka only got 12 years so she had a chance to redeem herself. Even some serial murderers can change. Its funny watching people get hysterical about hand signs... as though these people informally communicating with physical gestures should be banished for eternity. LOL.
Blizzard banned the "ok" sign at OWL. I wonder if they'll do anything about people who cover their right eye with their hand for 2 seconds?
|
All of you saying “just don’t buy in to the bullshit, no big deal” are ignoring that statistically not everyone will do so. These are targeting a young, psychologically/emotionally vulnerable population, not you, and even if only .001% of this population exposed to it becomes radicalized enough to commit acts of murder, that’s still 10 mass shootings if they target a million people like this. Obviously I made the statistics up, but you get the idea.
It’s like saying “obviously if a strange van pulls up to a kid and says they have candy, they're lying and the kid should ignore them, no big deal. Educating people (and kids) about this situation is a waste of time.”
|
On October 26 2019 00:05 Ryzel wrote: All of you saying “just don’t buy in to the bullshit, no big deal” are ignoring that statistically not everyone will do so. These are targeting a young, psychologically/emotionally vulnerable population, not you, and even if only .001% of this population exposed to it becomes radicalized enough to commit acts of murder, that’s still 10 mass shootings if they target a million people like this. Obviously I made the statistics up, but you get the idea.
It’s like saying “obviously if a strange van pulls up to a kid and says they have candy, they're lying and the kid should ignore them, no big deal. Educating people (and kids) about this situation is a waste of time.” I think the proper comparison for your second would be "obviously if a old van pulls up to a kid, statistically not every kid is going to ignore it. therefore we should ban men from buying vans. Kids are psychologically vulnerable"
I think the sane people here unjustly accused at ignoring bad possibilities are subconsciously weighing other, more likely, possibilities. Like 1) the people most vocally opposed to the far right acquire a reputation as cranks that want to ban memes and censor speech and 2)[ all this free publicity about a fringe element and their occult power from memes is many times more valuable than whatever power can be gained from their internet speech. They crave the attention and want to be thought of as a growing movement that is adept at using memes to convert citizens to their cause. That's why I use the religious metaphor, because the similarity of vulnerable minds falling prey to extremist propaganda is viscerally and culturally similar to old church ladies + Show Spoiler +look up the parodies of this demographic on SNL wanting to ban sinful entertainment/whatnot because vulnerable kids will be swept up by satan's influence.
I view the negative consequences from (1) and (2) as many times more sizable than vulnerable youths caught up in some white nationalist craze. Just a couple of years ago, a fringe American group had a rally on the east coast with something like ~150 people, but it turns out roughly half of them were journalists breathlessly covering the event. If the group can't get more numbers than a furry convention in a bad year, then maybe you're just making a problem worse with all the free press.
|
On October 26 2019 00:05 Ryzel wrote: All of you saying “just don’t buy in to the bullshit, no big deal” are ignoring that statistically not everyone will do so. These are targeting a young, psychologically/emotionally vulnerable population, not you, and even if only .001% of this population exposed to it becomes radicalized enough to commit acts of murder, that’s still 10 mass shootings if they target a million people like this. Obviously I made the statistics up, but you get the idea.
It’s like saying “obviously if a strange van pulls up to a kid and says they have candy, they're lying and the kid should ignore them, no big deal. Educating people (and kids) about this situation is a waste of time.”
What I was saying that when everyone kicks off about the ok sign or a frog it actively helps the right recruit people because it makes lefties look hysterical, stupid and unreasonable, which is exactly the plan.
I've become massively frustrated with the left's ability to fight this 'culture war' and it seems to me that the far left and the far right have that Peter Pan vs Hook relationship where they can't survive without each other. They feed off each other and this is just more of the same.
Kids aren't going to become racist because they saw a funny frog. They are going to become racist because lefties hate them for posting a picture of a frog.
|
On October 26 2019 00:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2019 00:05 Ryzel wrote: All of you saying “just don’t buy in to the bullshit, no big deal” are ignoring that statistically not everyone will do so. These are targeting a young, psychologically/emotionally vulnerable population, not you, and even if only .001% of this population exposed to it becomes radicalized enough to commit acts of murder, that’s still 10 mass shootings if they target a million people like this. Obviously I made the statistics up, but you get the idea.
It’s like saying “obviously if a strange van pulls up to a kid and says they have candy, they're lying and the kid should ignore them, no big deal. Educating people (and kids) about this situation is a waste of time.” I think the proper comparison for your second would be "obviously if a old van pulls up to a kid, statistically not every kid is going to ignore it. therefore we should ban men from buying vans. Kids are psychologically vulnerable" I think the sane people here unjustly accused at ignoring bad possibilities are subconsciously weighing other, more likely, possibilities. Like 1) the people most vocally opposed to the far right acquire a reputation as cranks that want to ban memes and censor speech and 2)[ all this free publicity about a fringe element and their occult power from memes is many times more valuable than whatever power can be gained from their internet speech. They crave the attention and want to be thought of as a growing movement that is adept at using memes to convert citizens to their cause. That's why I use the religious metaphor, because the similarity of vulnerable minds falling prey to extremist propaganda is viscerally and culturally similar to old church ladies + Show Spoiler +look up the parodies of this demographic on SNL wanting to ban sinful entertainment/whatnot because vulnerable kids will be swept up by satan's influence. I view the negative consequences from (1) and (2) as many times more sizable than vulnerable youths caught up in some white nationalist craze. Just a couple of years ago, a fringe American group had a rally on the east coast with something like ~150 people, but it turns out roughly half of them were journalists breathlessly covering the event. If the group can't get more numbers than a furry convention in a bad year, then maybe you're just making a problem worse with all the free press.
There’s a lot going on in this post but I’m lazy and don’t feel like requoting bits and pieces, so you’ll have to work with me a bit.
1) I never said anything about banning symbols, I said education. So I don’t think your interpretation of my analogy is accurate.
2) I never said you and others were insane for saying what you did, and on the flip-side I’m not insane for believing what I do, so let’s leave accusations of sanity out of it mkay?
3) I don’t feel like taking too deep a dive into the use of the term “unjustly”, but suffice to say I’m not prosecuting you for a crime you didn’t commit here, I’m having a discussion. I’m not here to judge you or anyone else, so no need to feel victimized.
4) Your point 1 implies that it is reasonable to believe anyone who has an issue with use of alt-right symbolism is most likely a crank who wants to ban free speech and memes. I don’t think that’s a valid presumption; I don’t know the statistics but I’d imagine the actual number of people who want to ban free speech and memes are much smaller than the population of people with issues with alt-right symbolism. I’m willing to be proved wrong though.
5) I just don’t agree with point 2. Letting fascists communicate on the Internet unchecked seems the most problematic outcome. By discussing the symbols and what they mean it brings more attention to how they work, what they’re capable of, and how to inoculate ourselves to it; it takes away the power of their subtlety.
6) I do love me some Dana Carvey, but we’re not talking about D&D or Harry Potter bullshit. We’re talking about an actual ideology with an actual historical precedent for bad things. Watch Sound of Music or google Hitler Youth to get an idea of why “vulnerable minds falling prey to extremist propaganda” can be an actual problem.
7) I’m running out of time but basically I don’t get how the 150 person rally has any bearing on this discussion. Rallies aren’t the metric for how we determine this is a problem; I doubt many of the white nationalist shooters went to any actual rallies. They’re not a prerequisite for bad things that the group does.
TLDR; your argument seems based on an idea that I (and everyone else) want to ban memes and free speech with a bit of slippery slopes thrown in. I never said that.
|
Northern Ireland20727 Posts
On October 26 2019 00:58 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2019 00:05 Ryzel wrote: All of you saying “just don’t buy in to the bullshit, no big deal” are ignoring that statistically not everyone will do so. These are targeting a young, psychologically/emotionally vulnerable population, not you, and even if only .001% of this population exposed to it becomes radicalized enough to commit acts of murder, that’s still 10 mass shootings if they target a million people like this. Obviously I made the statistics up, but you get the idea.
It’s like saying “obviously if a strange van pulls up to a kid and says they have candy, they're lying and the kid should ignore them, no big deal. Educating people (and kids) about this situation is a waste of time.” What I was saying that when everyone kicks off about the ok sign or a frog it actively helps the right recruit people because it makes lefties look hysterical, stupid and unreasonable, which is exactly the plan. I've become massively frustrated with the left's ability to fight this 'culture war' and it seems to me that the far left and the far right have that Peter Pan vs Hook relationship where they can't survive without each other. They feed off each other and this is just more of the same. Kids aren't going to become racist because they saw a funny frog. They are going to become racist because lefties hate them for posting a picture of a frog. It’s a helpful element of it for sure. The political left are bloody useless in this regard, least in my experiences.
There’s a crude pipeline where certain types look to recruit, between a ‘fuck the SJW censors’ into ‘politically incorrect’ spaces, and they siphon off those who have developed racist views or already had them in there.
You give them less space to work with by not being overly hysterical in the first place.
From browsing places with folks who’ve actually converted to white supremacy and such beliefs, a surprising amount were formerly Communists or whatever.
Seems that many don’t actually have particularly strongly held beliefs and it’s merely being in some group or movement that they gravitate towards. Probably due to social isolation or feeling they lack a place.
In work or I’d share more of my experiences down that particular rabbit hole, for the record I never flirted with such a conversion myself, it was more an exercise in hearing things from the horse’s mouth.
|
On October 26 2019 00:58 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2019 00:05 Ryzel wrote: All of you saying “just don’t buy in to the bullshit, no big deal” are ignoring that statistically not everyone will do so. These are targeting a young, psychologically/emotionally vulnerable population, not you, and even if only .001% of this population exposed to it becomes radicalized enough to commit acts of murder, that’s still 10 mass shootings if they target a million people like this. Obviously I made the statistics up, but you get the idea.
It’s like saying “obviously if a strange van pulls up to a kid and says they have candy, they're lying and the kid should ignore them, no big deal. Educating people (and kids) about this situation is a waste of time.” What I was saying that when everyone kicks off about the ok sign or a frog it actively helps the right recruit people because it makes lefties look hysterical, stupid and unreasonable, which is exactly the plan. I've become massively frustrated with the left's ability to fight this 'culture war' and it seems to me that the far left and the far right have that Peter Pan vs Hook relationship where they can't survive without each other. They feed off each other and this is just more of the same. Kids aren't going to become racist because they saw a funny frog. They are going to become racist because lefties hate them for posting a picture of a frog.
Right, but the solution isn’t to pretend nothing is going on. The solution is for lefties to stop hating them for posting it. You can educate without judging, but I agree stereotypically the left is extremely bad at this.
|
On October 26 2019 01:32 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2019 00:58 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 26 2019 00:05 Ryzel wrote: All of you saying “just don’t buy in to the bullshit, no big deal” are ignoring that statistically not everyone will do so. These are targeting a young, psychologically/emotionally vulnerable population, not you, and even if only .001% of this population exposed to it becomes radicalized enough to commit acts of murder, that’s still 10 mass shootings if they target a million people like this. Obviously I made the statistics up, but you get the idea.
It’s like saying “obviously if a strange van pulls up to a kid and says they have candy, they're lying and the kid should ignore them, no big deal. Educating people (and kids) about this situation is a waste of time.” What I was saying that when everyone kicks off about the ok sign or a frog it actively helps the right recruit people because it makes lefties look hysterical, stupid and unreasonable, which is exactly the plan. I've become massively frustrated with the left's ability to fight this 'culture war' and it seems to me that the far left and the far right have that Peter Pan vs Hook relationship where they can't survive without each other. They feed off each other and this is just more of the same. Kids aren't going to become racist because they saw a funny frog. They are going to become racist because lefties hate them for posting a picture of a frog. Right, but the solution isn’t to pretend nothing is going on. The solution is for lefties to stop hating them for posting it. You can educate without judging, but I agree stereotypically the left is extremely bad at this.
You're right of course, education is key, but i would focus the education of the dangers of racist ideology or the ideology of blaming others as the primary educational tool here, and maybe supplement that with a note about symbols and how they are used. We shouldn't pretend the problem doesn't exist, but we shouldn't give the symbols more power than they already have by designating them 'dangerous', and we certainly shouldn't focus on the symbols of the ideology instead of the content of the ideology because that's where the real danger lies.
|
On October 26 2019 01:28 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2019 00:46 Danglars wrote:On October 26 2019 00:05 Ryzel wrote: All of you saying “just don’t buy in to the bullshit, no big deal” are ignoring that statistically not everyone will do so. These are targeting a young, psychologically/emotionally vulnerable population, not you, and even if only .001% of this population exposed to it becomes radicalized enough to commit acts of murder, that’s still 10 mass shootings if they target a million people like this. Obviously I made the statistics up, but you get the idea.
It’s like saying “obviously if a strange van pulls up to a kid and says they have candy, they're lying and the kid should ignore them, no big deal. Educating people (and kids) about this situation is a waste of time.” I think the proper comparison for your second would be "obviously if a old van pulls up to a kid, statistically not every kid is going to ignore it. therefore we should ban men from buying vans. Kids are psychologically vulnerable" I think the sane people here unjustly accused at ignoring bad possibilities are subconsciously weighing other, more likely, possibilities. Like 1) the people most vocally opposed to the far right acquire a reputation as cranks that want to ban memes and censor speech and 2)[ all this free publicity about a fringe element and their occult power from memes is many times more valuable than whatever power can be gained from their internet speech. They crave the attention and want to be thought of as a growing movement that is adept at using memes to convert citizens to their cause. That's why I use the religious metaphor, because the similarity of vulnerable minds falling prey to extremist propaganda is viscerally and culturally similar to old church ladies + Show Spoiler +look up the parodies of this demographic on SNL wanting to ban sinful entertainment/whatnot because vulnerable kids will be swept up by satan's influence. I view the negative consequences from (1) and (2) as many times more sizable than vulnerable youths caught up in some white nationalist craze. Just a couple of years ago, a fringe American group had a rally on the east coast with something like ~150 people, but it turns out roughly half of them were journalists breathlessly covering the event. If the group can't get more numbers than a furry convention in a bad year, then maybe you're just making a problem worse with all the free press. There’s a lot going on in this post but I’m lazy and don’t feel like requoting bits and pieces, so you’ll have to work with me a bit. 1) I never said anything about banning symbols, I said education. So I don’t think your interpretation of my analogy is accurate. 2) I never said you and others were insane for saying what you did, and on the flip-side I’m not insane for believing what I do, so let’s leave accusations of sanity out of it mkay? 3) I don’t feel like taking too deep a dive into the use of the term “unjustly”, but suffice to say I’m not prosecuting you for a crime you didn’t commit here, I’m having a discussion. I’m not here to judge you or anyone else, so no need to feel victimized. 4) Your point 1 implies that it is reasonable to believe anyone who has an issue with use of alt-right symbolism is most likely a crank who wants to ban free speech and memes. I don’t think that’s a valid presumption; I don’t know the statistics but I’d imagine the actual number of people who want to ban free speech and memes are much smaller than the population of people with issues with alt-right symbolism. I’m willing to be proved wrong though. 5) I just don’t agree with point 2. Letting fascists communicate on the Internet unchecked seems the most problematic outcome. By discussing the symbols and what they mean it brings more attention to how they work, what they’re capable of, and how to inoculate ourselves to it; it takes away the power of their subtlety. 6) I do love me some Dana Carvey, but we’re not talking about D&D or Harry Potter bullshit. We’re talking about an actual ideology with an actual historical precedent for bad things. Watch Sound of Music or google Hitler Youth to get an idea of why “vulnerable minds falling prey to extremist propaganda” can be an actual problem. 7) I’m running out of time but basically I don’t get how the 150 person rally has any bearing on this discussion. Rallies aren’t the metric for how we determine this is a problem; I doubt many of the white nationalist shooters went to any actual rallies. They’re not a prerequisite for bad things that the group does. TLDR; your argument seems based on an idea that I (and everyone else) want to ban memes and free speech with a bit of slippery slopes thrown in. I never said that. You were being a bit unfair when you said the other side was all "don't buy into the bullshit, no big deal" and then contrasting that with education. That's why I brought a more pointed analogy than the one you opened with. The people that have more grounded worries about the far right aren't suddenly against education just because they think memes on Stormfront aren't a big problem that needs addressing. Remember, the original poster brought up "alt-right terminology and symbols," and definitely has been educated by this thread about the resiliency/apppropriation of symbols. I'm hoping education about publicizing fringe groups while wanting instead to educate people on fringe groups happens with you too. That's a very real danger.
I fully support education on publication of white nationalist's names, photos, and ideology in national press after every shooting. We have enough martyrs and celebrities from that already. Even education on not going after white privilege on lower-class whites with high rates of opiate addiction, making them feel victimized by a cosmopolitan elite.
I stand by my point that talking about memes makes the speaker look like a loon, and not a serious person concerned with that "0.001%" that gets radicalized because of Pepe the frog or whatever.
In essence, you're dismissing criticism of the "terminology and symbols" approach using motte and bailey tactics. You talked about how some miniscule fraction of people get radicalized by twisted memes, but when the absurdity gets brought up, retreat back to something good-sounding like education. I'm critical of the bailey position, of calling some symbols "alt-right terminology / symbolism," and how ineffectual and countereffective it is--not the motte retreat that you're all about education. Some of the bailey position disguised as education makes you eminently mockable, and not just by the far-right, but by normal gamers that get great laughs poking fun at the meme police. Well, I really would prefer if people adopt Sbrubbles "I see nothing wrong with it" and Fallings "[you give] the alt-right too much credit-like it's some sort of contagious disease that one must guard against with paranoid vigilance." I think that form of education is 100% what we should be doing. I hope one day you're persuaded that you've placed too much emphasis on terminology and symbols and too much belief that it's effective "Sound of Music or ... Hitler Youth" propaganda.
Act paranoid about symbols wielded by fringe groups, and you'll find very few listeners about your notion of education. I wouldn't blame any gamer more attracted to the groups putting out funny memes because of people like you going straight to Hitler and the vulnerability of youth from them.
It's a fear-based approach and easily abused by the alt-right as we've seen people run for the hills over the 'okay' symbol.
In as much the alt-right is involved in white nationalism, the actual beliefs that are terrible are fairly obvious and not tolerated (white genocide conspiracy theories or racist theories on ethnicities).
But there is far too much overlap with regular old meme/ troll culture to bother one's head about 'feels bad man'. It's just so ironic that well-intentioned attempts to combat a hateful ideology play fucking right into their hands. I say, keep educating people about just how easily abused it is.
|
Northern Ireland20727 Posts
On October 26 2019 01:48 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2019 01:32 Ryzel wrote:On October 26 2019 00:58 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 26 2019 00:05 Ryzel wrote: All of you saying “just don’t buy in to the bullshit, no big deal” are ignoring that statistically not everyone will do so. These are targeting a young, psychologically/emotionally vulnerable population, not you, and even if only .001% of this population exposed to it becomes radicalized enough to commit acts of murder, that’s still 10 mass shootings if they target a million people like this. Obviously I made the statistics up, but you get the idea.
It’s like saying “obviously if a strange van pulls up to a kid and says they have candy, they're lying and the kid should ignore them, no big deal. Educating people (and kids) about this situation is a waste of time.” What I was saying that when everyone kicks off about the ok sign or a frog it actively helps the right recruit people because it makes lefties look hysterical, stupid and unreasonable, which is exactly the plan. I've become massively frustrated with the left's ability to fight this 'culture war' and it seems to me that the far left and the far right have that Peter Pan vs Hook relationship where they can't survive without each other. They feed off each other and this is just more of the same. Kids aren't going to become racist because they saw a funny frog. They are going to become racist because lefties hate them for posting a picture of a frog. Right, but the solution isn’t to pretend nothing is going on. The solution is for lefties to stop hating them for posting it. You can educate without judging, but I agree stereotypically the left is extremely bad at this. You're right of course, education is key, but i would focus the education of the dangers of racist ideology or the ideology of blaming others as the primary educational tool here, and maybe supplement that with a note about symbols and how they are used. We shouldn't pretend the problem doesn't exist, but we shouldn't give the symbols more power than they already have by designating them 'dangerous', and we certainly shouldn't focus on the symbols of the ideology instead of the content of the ideology because that's where the real danger lies. Agreed, although I feel the problem as it exists is a difficult and intractable one. Plenty of folks I associated with on the internets over the years of a right leaning association were more intelligent and well-read folks compared to many people I run into in my day to day. Indeed the most well-read and intelligent tended to be the ones who were openly fascists, more so than the ‘merely quite right wing’ crowd.
Perhaps not enough is done societally, early enough to prevent men getting this disenfranchised in the first place and gravitating to certain political ideologies.
If I was a young woman for example there’s a visible feminist movement pushing for all sorts of things that pertain to me and people like me, which would give me some comfort feeling there’s solidarity around. For young men, there isn’t anything particularly equivalent where it feels your corner is being fought.
|
On October 26 2019 02:45 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2019 01:28 Ryzel wrote:On October 26 2019 00:46 Danglars wrote:On October 26 2019 00:05 Ryzel wrote: All of you saying “just don’t buy in to the bullshit, no big deal” are ignoring that statistically not everyone will do so. These are targeting a young, psychologically/emotionally vulnerable population, not you, and even if only .001% of this population exposed to it becomes radicalized enough to commit acts of murder, that’s still 10 mass shootings if they target a million people like this. Obviously I made the statistics up, but you get the idea.
It’s like saying “obviously if a strange van pulls up to a kid and says they have candy, they're lying and the kid should ignore them, no big deal. Educating people (and kids) about this situation is a waste of time.” I think the proper comparison for your second would be "obviously if a old van pulls up to a kid, statistically not every kid is going to ignore it. therefore we should ban men from buying vans. Kids are psychologically vulnerable" I think the sane people here unjustly accused at ignoring bad possibilities are subconsciously weighing other, more likely, possibilities. Like 1) the people most vocally opposed to the far right acquire a reputation as cranks that want to ban memes and censor speech and 2)[ all this free publicity about a fringe element and their occult power from memes is many times more valuable than whatever power can be gained from their internet speech. They crave the attention and want to be thought of as a growing movement that is adept at using memes to convert citizens to their cause. That's why I use the religious metaphor, because the similarity of vulnerable minds falling prey to extremist propaganda is viscerally and culturally similar to old church ladies + Show Spoiler +look up the parodies of this demographic on SNL wanting to ban sinful entertainment/whatnot because vulnerable kids will be swept up by satan's influence. I view the negative consequences from (1) and (2) as many times more sizable than vulnerable youths caught up in some white nationalist craze. Just a couple of years ago, a fringe American group had a rally on the east coast with something like ~150 people, but it turns out roughly half of them were journalists breathlessly covering the event. If the group can't get more numbers than a furry convention in a bad year, then maybe you're just making a problem worse with all the free press. There’s a lot going on in this post but I’m lazy and don’t feel like requoting bits and pieces, so you’ll have to work with me a bit. 1) I never said anything about banning symbols, I said education. So I don’t think your interpretation of my analogy is accurate. 2) I never said you and others were insane for saying what you did, and on the flip-side I’m not insane for believing what I do, so let’s leave accusations of sanity out of it mkay? 3) I don’t feel like taking too deep a dive into the use of the term “unjustly”, but suffice to say I’m not prosecuting you for a crime you didn’t commit here, I’m having a discussion. I’m not here to judge you or anyone else, so no need to feel victimized. 4) Your point 1 implies that it is reasonable to believe anyone who has an issue with use of alt-right symbolism is most likely a crank who wants to ban free speech and memes. I don’t think that’s a valid presumption; I don’t know the statistics but I’d imagine the actual number of people who want to ban free speech and memes are much smaller than the population of people with issues with alt-right symbolism. I’m willing to be proved wrong though. 5) I just don’t agree with point 2. Letting fascists communicate on the Internet unchecked seems the most problematic outcome. By discussing the symbols and what they mean it brings more attention to how they work, what they’re capable of, and how to inoculate ourselves to it; it takes away the power of their subtlety. 6) I do love me some Dana Carvey, but we’re not talking about D&D or Harry Potter bullshit. We’re talking about an actual ideology with an actual historical precedent for bad things. Watch Sound of Music or google Hitler Youth to get an idea of why “vulnerable minds falling prey to extremist propaganda” can be an actual problem. 7) I’m running out of time but basically I don’t get how the 150 person rally has any bearing on this discussion. Rallies aren’t the metric for how we determine this is a problem; I doubt many of the white nationalist shooters went to any actual rallies. They’re not a prerequisite for bad things that the group does. TLDR; your argument seems based on an idea that I (and everyone else) want to ban memes and free speech with a bit of slippery slopes thrown in. I never said that. You were being a bit unfair when you said the other side was all "don't buy into the bullshit, no big deal" and then contrasting that with education. That's why I brought a more pointed analogy than the one you opened with. The people that have more grounded worries about the far right aren't suddenly against education just because they think memes on Stormfront aren't a big problem that needs addressing. Remember, the original poster brought up "alt-right terminology and symbols," and definitely has been educated by this thread about the resiliency/apppropriation of symbols. I'm hoping education about publicizing fringe groups while wanting instead to educate people on fringe groups happens with you too. That's a very real danger. I fully support education on publication of white nationalist's names, photos, and ideology in national press after every shooting. We have enough martyrs and celebrities from that already. Even education on not going after white privilege on lower-class whites with high rates of opiate addiction, making them feel victimized by a cosmopolitan elite. I stand by my point that talking about memes makes the speaker look like a loon, and not a serious person concerned with that "0.001%" that gets radicalized because of Pepe the frog or whatever. In essence, you're dismissing criticism of the "terminology and symbols" approach using motte and bailey tactics. You talked about how some miniscule fraction of people get radicalized by twisted memes, but when the absurdity gets brought up, retreat back to something good-sounding like education. I'm critical of the bailey position, of calling some symbols "alt-right terminology / symbolism," and how ineffectual and countereffective it is--not the motte retreat that you're all about education. Some of the bailey position disguised as education makes you eminently mockable, and not just by the far-right, but by normal gamers that get great laughs poking fun at the meme police. Well, I really would prefer if people adopt Sbrubbles "I see nothing wrong with it" and Fallings "[you give] the alt-right too much credit-like it's some sort of contagious disease that one must guard against with paranoid vigilance." I think that form of education is 100% what we should be doing. I hope one day you're persuaded that you've placed too much emphasis on terminology and symbols and too much belief that it's effective "Sound of Music or ... Hitler Youth" propaganda. Act paranoid about symbols wielded by fringe groups, and you'll find very few listeners about your notion of education. I wouldn't blame any gamer more attracted to the groups putting out funny memes because of people like you going straight to Hitler and the vulnerability of youth from them. Show nested quote +It's a fear-based approach and easily abused by the alt-right as we've seen people run for the hills over the 'okay' symbol.
In as much the alt-right is involved in white nationalism, the actual beliefs that are terrible are fairly obvious and not tolerated (white genocide conspiracy theories or racist theories on ethnicities).
But there is far too much overlap with regular old meme/ troll culture to bother one's head about 'feels bad man'. It's just so ironic that well-intentioned attempts to combat a hateful ideology play fucking right into their hands. I say, keep educating people about just how easily abused it is.
Perhaps I should clarify what I mean by education. I don't think the symbols and memes themselves are propaganda; they obviously don't have any inherent deeper meaning. Their power as tools for the alt-right is derived from how widespread they are, allowing them to say "hey, we're just like you, we say monkaS/kek/*insert new trendy meme here* all the time too." The education component is not "you are a shitty person for saying these things, don't ever say them" or "these symbols/memes should be banned to halt their ideology" (although I know a lot of people think this and I agree it's not smart). It's "there are groups of bad people out there who will want you to join them, and they'll use these as ways to manipulate you to feel like one of them. Don't buy into it."
|
No one has become racist because someone told them not to use Pepe the frog. I'm not on the "ban Pepe" train or whatever but come the fuck on. People are mad at the left for calling people into question for being shitty after they got away with it forever and the focus on memes on the right and center is just a way of dodging having to not say or do racist shit.
|
On October 26 2019 04:43 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2019 02:45 Danglars wrote:On October 26 2019 01:28 Ryzel wrote:On October 26 2019 00:46 Danglars wrote:On October 26 2019 00:05 Ryzel wrote: All of you saying “just don’t buy in to the bullshit, no big deal” are ignoring that statistically not everyone will do so. These are targeting a young, psychologically/emotionally vulnerable population, not you, and even if only .001% of this population exposed to it becomes radicalized enough to commit acts of murder, that’s still 10 mass shootings if they target a million people like this. Obviously I made the statistics up, but you get the idea.
It’s like saying “obviously if a strange van pulls up to a kid and says they have candy, they're lying and the kid should ignore them, no big deal. Educating people (and kids) about this situation is a waste of time.” I think the proper comparison for your second would be "obviously if a old van pulls up to a kid, statistically not every kid is going to ignore it. therefore we should ban men from buying vans. Kids are psychologically vulnerable" I think the sane people here unjustly accused at ignoring bad possibilities are subconsciously weighing other, more likely, possibilities. Like 1) the people most vocally opposed to the far right acquire a reputation as cranks that want to ban memes and censor speech and 2)[ all this free publicity about a fringe element and their occult power from memes is many times more valuable than whatever power can be gained from their internet speech. They crave the attention and want to be thought of as a growing movement that is adept at using memes to convert citizens to their cause. That's why I use the religious metaphor, because the similarity of vulnerable minds falling prey to extremist propaganda is viscerally and culturally similar to old church ladies + Show Spoiler +look up the parodies of this demographic on SNL wanting to ban sinful entertainment/whatnot because vulnerable kids will be swept up by satan's influence. I view the negative consequences from (1) and (2) as many times more sizable than vulnerable youths caught up in some white nationalist craze. Just a couple of years ago, a fringe American group had a rally on the east coast with something like ~150 people, but it turns out roughly half of them were journalists breathlessly covering the event. If the group can't get more numbers than a furry convention in a bad year, then maybe you're just making a problem worse with all the free press. There’s a lot going on in this post but I’m lazy and don’t feel like requoting bits and pieces, so you’ll have to work with me a bit. 1) I never said anything about banning symbols, I said education. So I don’t think your interpretation of my analogy is accurate. 2) I never said you and others were insane for saying what you did, and on the flip-side I’m not insane for believing what I do, so let’s leave accusations of sanity out of it mkay? 3) I don’t feel like taking too deep a dive into the use of the term “unjustly”, but suffice to say I’m not prosecuting you for a crime you didn’t commit here, I’m having a discussion. I’m not here to judge you or anyone else, so no need to feel victimized. 4) Your point 1 implies that it is reasonable to believe anyone who has an issue with use of alt-right symbolism is most likely a crank who wants to ban free speech and memes. I don’t think that’s a valid presumption; I don’t know the statistics but I’d imagine the actual number of people who want to ban free speech and memes are much smaller than the population of people with issues with alt-right symbolism. I’m willing to be proved wrong though. 5) I just don’t agree with point 2. Letting fascists communicate on the Internet unchecked seems the most problematic outcome. By discussing the symbols and what they mean it brings more attention to how they work, what they’re capable of, and how to inoculate ourselves to it; it takes away the power of their subtlety. 6) I do love me some Dana Carvey, but we’re not talking about D&D or Harry Potter bullshit. We’re talking about an actual ideology with an actual historical precedent for bad things. Watch Sound of Music or google Hitler Youth to get an idea of why “vulnerable minds falling prey to extremist propaganda” can be an actual problem. 7) I’m running out of time but basically I don’t get how the 150 person rally has any bearing on this discussion. Rallies aren’t the metric for how we determine this is a problem; I doubt many of the white nationalist shooters went to any actual rallies. They’re not a prerequisite for bad things that the group does. TLDR; your argument seems based on an idea that I (and everyone else) want to ban memes and free speech with a bit of slippery slopes thrown in. I never said that. You were being a bit unfair when you said the other side was all "don't buy into the bullshit, no big deal" and then contrasting that with education. That's why I brought a more pointed analogy than the one you opened with. The people that have more grounded worries about the far right aren't suddenly against education just because they think memes on Stormfront aren't a big problem that needs addressing. Remember, the original poster brought up "alt-right terminology and symbols," and definitely has been educated by this thread about the resiliency/apppropriation of symbols. I'm hoping education about publicizing fringe groups while wanting instead to educate people on fringe groups happens with you too. That's a very real danger. I fully support education on publication of white nationalist's names, photos, and ideology in national press after every shooting. We have enough martyrs and celebrities from that already. Even education on not going after white privilege on lower-class whites with high rates of opiate addiction, making them feel victimized by a cosmopolitan elite. I stand by my point that talking about memes makes the speaker look like a loon, and not a serious person concerned with that "0.001%" that gets radicalized because of Pepe the frog or whatever. In essence, you're dismissing criticism of the "terminology and symbols" approach using motte and bailey tactics. You talked about how some miniscule fraction of people get radicalized by twisted memes, but when the absurdity gets brought up, retreat back to something good-sounding like education. I'm critical of the bailey position, of calling some symbols "alt-right terminology / symbolism," and how ineffectual and countereffective it is--not the motte retreat that you're all about education. Some of the bailey position disguised as education makes you eminently mockable, and not just by the far-right, but by normal gamers that get great laughs poking fun at the meme police. Well, I really would prefer if people adopt Sbrubbles "I see nothing wrong with it" and Fallings "[you give] the alt-right too much credit-like it's some sort of contagious disease that one must guard against with paranoid vigilance." I think that form of education is 100% what we should be doing. I hope one day you're persuaded that you've placed too much emphasis on terminology and symbols and too much belief that it's effective "Sound of Music or ... Hitler Youth" propaganda. Act paranoid about symbols wielded by fringe groups, and you'll find very few listeners about your notion of education. I wouldn't blame any gamer more attracted to the groups putting out funny memes because of people like you going straight to Hitler and the vulnerability of youth from them. It's a fear-based approach and easily abused by the alt-right as we've seen people run for the hills over the 'okay' symbol.
In as much the alt-right is involved in white nationalism, the actual beliefs that are terrible are fairly obvious and not tolerated (white genocide conspiracy theories or racist theories on ethnicities).
But there is far too much overlap with regular old meme/ troll culture to bother one's head about 'feels bad man'. It's just so ironic that well-intentioned attempts to combat a hateful ideology play fucking right into their hands. I say, keep educating people about just how easily abused it is. Perhaps I should clarify what I mean by education. I don't think the symbols and memes themselves are propaganda; they obviously don't have any inherent deeper meaning. Their power as tools for the alt-right is derived from how widespread they are, allowing them to say "hey, we're just like you, we say monkaS/kek/*insert new trendy meme here* all the time too." The education component is not "you are a shitty person for saying these things, don't ever say them" or "these symbols/memes should be banned to halt their ideology" (although I know a lot of people think this and I agree it's not smart). It's "there are groups of bad people out there who will want you to join them, and they'll use these as ways to manipulate you to feel like one of them. Don't buy into it."
It's not just that they can say they're just like us. They can also use this as a wedge against the left, when someone inevitably comes and says "Hey I noticed that the nazis use this symbol, what's up with that?" they can go "See? The left is calling all of us, all gamers, nazis, just for using this harmless symbol, aren't they deranged? We shouldn't listen to them, in fact we should probably dismiss and ostracize this whole hysterical political group."
|
On October 26 2019 04:43 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2019 02:45 Danglars wrote:On October 26 2019 01:28 Ryzel wrote:On October 26 2019 00:46 Danglars wrote:On October 26 2019 00:05 Ryzel wrote: All of you saying “just don’t buy in to the bullshit, no big deal” are ignoring that statistically not everyone will do so. These are targeting a young, psychologically/emotionally vulnerable population, not you, and even if only .001% of this population exposed to it becomes radicalized enough to commit acts of murder, that’s still 10 mass shootings if they target a million people like this. Obviously I made the statistics up, but you get the idea.
It’s like saying “obviously if a strange van pulls up to a kid and says they have candy, they're lying and the kid should ignore them, no big deal. Educating people (and kids) about this situation is a waste of time.” I think the proper comparison for your second would be "obviously if a old van pulls up to a kid, statistically not every kid is going to ignore it. therefore we should ban men from buying vans. Kids are psychologically vulnerable" I think the sane people here unjustly accused at ignoring bad possibilities are subconsciously weighing other, more likely, possibilities. Like 1) the people most vocally opposed to the far right acquire a reputation as cranks that want to ban memes and censor speech and 2)[ all this free publicity about a fringe element and their occult power from memes is many times more valuable than whatever power can be gained from their internet speech. They crave the attention and want to be thought of as a growing movement that is adept at using memes to convert citizens to their cause. That's why I use the religious metaphor, because the similarity of vulnerable minds falling prey to extremist propaganda is viscerally and culturally similar to old church ladies + Show Spoiler +look up the parodies of this demographic on SNL wanting to ban sinful entertainment/whatnot because vulnerable kids will be swept up by satan's influence. I view the negative consequences from (1) and (2) as many times more sizable than vulnerable youths caught up in some white nationalist craze. Just a couple of years ago, a fringe American group had a rally on the east coast with something like ~150 people, but it turns out roughly half of them were journalists breathlessly covering the event. If the group can't get more numbers than a furry convention in a bad year, then maybe you're just making a problem worse with all the free press. There’s a lot going on in this post but I’m lazy and don’t feel like requoting bits and pieces, so you’ll have to work with me a bit. 1) I never said anything about banning symbols, I said education. So I don’t think your interpretation of my analogy is accurate. 2) I never said you and others were insane for saying what you did, and on the flip-side I’m not insane for believing what I do, so let’s leave accusations of sanity out of it mkay? 3) I don’t feel like taking too deep a dive into the use of the term “unjustly”, but suffice to say I’m not prosecuting you for a crime you didn’t commit here, I’m having a discussion. I’m not here to judge you or anyone else, so no need to feel victimized. 4) Your point 1 implies that it is reasonable to believe anyone who has an issue with use of alt-right symbolism is most likely a crank who wants to ban free speech and memes. I don’t think that’s a valid presumption; I don’t know the statistics but I’d imagine the actual number of people who want to ban free speech and memes are much smaller than the population of people with issues with alt-right symbolism. I’m willing to be proved wrong though. 5) I just don’t agree with point 2. Letting fascists communicate on the Internet unchecked seems the most problematic outcome. By discussing the symbols and what they mean it brings more attention to how they work, what they’re capable of, and how to inoculate ourselves to it; it takes away the power of their subtlety. 6) I do love me some Dana Carvey, but we’re not talking about D&D or Harry Potter bullshit. We’re talking about an actual ideology with an actual historical precedent for bad things. Watch Sound of Music or google Hitler Youth to get an idea of why “vulnerable minds falling prey to extremist propaganda” can be an actual problem. 7) I’m running out of time but basically I don’t get how the 150 person rally has any bearing on this discussion. Rallies aren’t the metric for how we determine this is a problem; I doubt many of the white nationalist shooters went to any actual rallies. They’re not a prerequisite for bad things that the group does. TLDR; your argument seems based on an idea that I (and everyone else) want to ban memes and free speech with a bit of slippery slopes thrown in. I never said that. You were being a bit unfair when you said the other side was all "don't buy into the bullshit, no big deal" and then contrasting that with education. That's why I brought a more pointed analogy than the one you opened with. The people that have more grounded worries about the far right aren't suddenly against education just because they think memes on Stormfront aren't a big problem that needs addressing. Remember, the original poster brought up "alt-right terminology and symbols," and definitely has been educated by this thread about the resiliency/apppropriation of symbols. I'm hoping education about publicizing fringe groups while wanting instead to educate people on fringe groups happens with you too. That's a very real danger. I fully support education on publication of white nationalist's names, photos, and ideology in national press after every shooting. We have enough martyrs and celebrities from that already. Even education on not going after white privilege on lower-class whites with high rates of opiate addiction, making them feel victimized by a cosmopolitan elite. I stand by my point that talking about memes makes the speaker look like a loon, and not a serious person concerned with that "0.001%" that gets radicalized because of Pepe the frog or whatever. In essence, you're dismissing criticism of the "terminology and symbols" approach using motte and bailey tactics. You talked about how some miniscule fraction of people get radicalized by twisted memes, but when the absurdity gets brought up, retreat back to something good-sounding like education. I'm critical of the bailey position, of calling some symbols "alt-right terminology / symbolism," and how ineffectual and countereffective it is--not the motte retreat that you're all about education. Some of the bailey position disguised as education makes you eminently mockable, and not just by the far-right, but by normal gamers that get great laughs poking fun at the meme police. Well, I really would prefer if people adopt Sbrubbles "I see nothing wrong with it" and Fallings "[you give] the alt-right too much credit-like it's some sort of contagious disease that one must guard against with paranoid vigilance." I think that form of education is 100% what we should be doing. I hope one day you're persuaded that you've placed too much emphasis on terminology and symbols and too much belief that it's effective "Sound of Music or ... Hitler Youth" propaganda. Act paranoid about symbols wielded by fringe groups, and you'll find very few listeners about your notion of education. I wouldn't blame any gamer more attracted to the groups putting out funny memes because of people like you going straight to Hitler and the vulnerability of youth from them. It's a fear-based approach and easily abused by the alt-right as we've seen people run for the hills over the 'okay' symbol.
In as much the alt-right is involved in white nationalism, the actual beliefs that are terrible are fairly obvious and not tolerated (white genocide conspiracy theories or racist theories on ethnicities).
But there is far too much overlap with regular old meme/ troll culture to bother one's head about 'feels bad man'. It's just so ironic that well-intentioned attempts to combat a hateful ideology play fucking right into their hands. I say, keep educating people about just how easily abused it is. Perhaps I should clarify what I mean by education. I don't think the symbols and memes themselves are propaganda; they obviously don't have any inherent deeper meaning. Their power as tools for the alt-right is derived from how widespread they are, allowing them to say "hey, we're just like you, we say monkaS/kek/*insert new trendy meme here* all the time too." The education component is not "you are a shitty person for saying these things, don't ever say them" or "these symbols/memes should be banned to halt their ideology" (although I know a lot of people think this and I agree it's not smart). It's "there are groups of bad people out there who will want you to join them, and they'll use these as ways to manipulate you to feel like one of them. Don't buy into it." I should give you a chance to address something that's been said in the thread and that I quoted. You're talking about symbols and memes are "tools for the alt-right" with power "derived from how widespread they are." I think their "actual beliefs are fairly obvious and not tolerated." Maybe coffee houses are also "trendy" and "tools for the alt-right," since they might strike up conversations there. Democracy is a tool of the alt-right, because they get to vote for who they like, coffee-houses so they can strike up conversations, and memes so they can be cool and anti-establishment. Do you really have any differentiating factor for calling something a tool for the alt-right? I don't really see anything particular here to especially fear, and I certainly haven't heard anything convincing that distinguishes this aspect.
|
It's not really true that they are fairly obvious and not tolerated. if they were obvious this discussion would not be occuring. If their beliefs weren't tolerated, especially in USA, this discussion would not be occuring either.
|
On October 26 2019 05:59 Dangermousecatdog wrote: It's not really true that they are fairly obvious and not tolerated. if they were obvious this discussion would not be occuring. If their beliefs weren't tolerated, especially in USA, this discussion would not be occuring either.
Off the internet it's pretty much a non-issue. No one but political junkies knows about this, really, or gives a damn. It's a tempest in a teapot. All about political energy. Can this resonate with non-political junkies and get their motors running? Well, turns out the answer is no. The mainstream was exposed to all this stuff in a big way two years ago, because the media thought it might be a way to attack the president. Didn't work. Didn't resonate with the masses either way. Didn't make people like Trump more, didn't make them like him less. 'Humorous' pictures and videos and whatever had less relevance off the internet than political junkies thought might be the case.
It's a good topic if you want a how many angels can fit on the head of a pin type argument because it comes down to do you personally find it important or not. Personally I think Nazi types are a hopeless minority (this is a good thing) that were much larger in numbers and more violent in the 1980s and early 1990s. Then the federal government sat on them and now they make memes on the internet and (badly) LARP the communist-Nazi street fights of late 1920s Germany on the weekends. The older, more dangerous generation is dying off, already dead, or in federal and state prisons, and their replacements are dweebs like Richard Spencer. These are not people who represent a serious threat to the culture or political institutions of the country. The ability of individuals to perpetrate simple mayhem is always present but maybe the government should do its job, seeing as how it turns out that so many of these people that go perpetrate simple mayhem for whatever reason were already known to the government but the government didn't do its job and the opportunity to stop them was missed.
|
I'm not talking about the internet.I am tralking about "real life" issues. Call it the election of Trump and the agendas he push. Call it the nastiness of Brexit. Whatever it is, there are real life consequences of the politics that the so-called "alt-right" are pushing for. Internet memes are just a reflection and part of poltical life.
|
On October 25 2019 22:03 ShoCkeyy wrote: The alt-right term is simple, and there were plenty of others that explained it. It's people who have views of fascism, authoritarianism, and neo nazism within the conservative party. In Canada, I'd say there is a bigger problem with the NDP having members who believe in authoritarianism than there is within the Conservative party. The "Fight Back" group within the NDP is particularly bad there are others within the NDP.
I'm not too worried about "Fight Back"s hand signs though. I'm more concerned with their policies and warped view of history.
On October 26 2019 12:02 DeepElemBlues wrote: Personally I think Nazi types are a hopeless minority (this is a good thing) that were much larger in numbers and more violent in the 1980s and early 1990s. Then the federal government sat on them and now they make memes on the internet and (badly) LARP the communist-Nazi street fights of late 1920s Germany on the weekends. I wonder how serious the "Nazi" issue was in the 1990s. I do not think it was a big issue. If it were a serious issue why would a mainstream comedy show by Jerry Seinfeld called "The Soup Nazi" be so positively received. Seinfeld isn't Chappelle. He is non-political and very middle of the road. Wouldn't people be disturbed by using the word "Nazi" so much and applying it to a real life situation? Did you see mainstream comedy shows making jokes about "Desert Shield" in 1990? No, because until the US invaded "Desert Shield" was considered a very serious situation that could result in many US casualties. In conclusion, I don't think Nazism was a big concern in the 1990s.
Do you have any documentation to back up your claim about nazism in america is/was a real problem in the 1990s ?
|
On October 27 2019 07:54 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2019 22:03 ShoCkeyy wrote: The alt-right term is simple, and there were plenty of others that explained it. It's people who have views of fascism, authoritarianism, and neo nazism within the conservative party. In Canada, I'd say there is a bigger problem with the NDP having members who believe in authoritarianism than there is within the Conservative party. The "Fight Back" group within the NDP is particularly bad there are others within the NDP. I'm not too worried about "Fight Back"s hand signs though. I'm more concerned with their policies and warped view of history. Show nested quote +On October 26 2019 12:02 DeepElemBlues wrote: Personally I think Nazi types are a hopeless minority (this is a good thing) that were much larger in numbers and more violent in the 1980s and early 1990s. Then the federal government sat on them and now they make memes on the internet and (badly) LARP the communist-Nazi street fights of late 1920s Germany on the weekends. I wonder how serious the "Nazi" issue was in the 1990s. I do not think it was a big issue. If it were a serious issue why would a mainstream comedy show by Jerry Seinfeld called "The Soup Nazi" be so positively received. Seinfeld isn't Chappelle. He is non-political and very middle of the road. Wouldn't people be disturbed by using the word "Nazi" so much and applying it to a real life situation? Did you see mainstream comedy shows making jokes about "Desert Shield" in 1990? No, because until the US invaded "Desert Shield" was considered a very serious situation that could result in many US casualties. In conclusion, I don't think Nazism was a big concern in the 1990s. Do you have any documentation to back up your claim about nazism in america is/was a real problem in the 1990s ?
There is also an episode where they hijack a Nazi's leader limousine, it's prolly one of the best of the entire show. "The Limo", enjoy.
|
In general, it is interesting to see how the most popular comedy shows/acts can provide insights into the informal social norms of the day. Jerry Seinfeld said his current comedy routine is a reaction to his previous 300 shows and the audience reaction during those shows.
I wonder if a comedy show like "Hogan's Heroes" could exist today? or would too many people spaz out at the sight of a swastika or those "SS" symbols on the arm bands of some of the germans? They even humanized the german oppressors in the show.
|
The backlash or response to certain irreverent or perhaps offensive parody is tough to gauge usually. The easiest example of the latter was Chapelle's Sticks & Stones netflix special. If JimmyJRaynor went to The Atlantic's (founded 1857, circulation ~500,000) critics to see if he violated norms, he'd hear that it was basically a "temper tantrum." With the help of aggregate audience reviewers like Rotten Tomatoes, he'd hear that audiences loved it. Both Soup Nazi and Sticks and Stones were published and didn't result in a prominent crash in the participants. How can you tell if Nazi in the 1990s was more, less, or equally accepted as LGBTQ and police-involved (alleged) racial hate crimes in the 2010s? Were both totally unacceptable, but the promoter's celebrity and influence in publishing platforms sufficient to drive popular opinion? Were both totally unacceptable, but the cultural backdrop was a society actually morally backward with regards to assholes in comedy (is it a true indictment of society)? Was Garrett Martin right to say it was brave only "if you equate bravery with just acting like an asshole" and Chappelle was "thoroughly out of touch with today."
I say it's hard if you didn't live through the history in question to gauge whether the informal social norms can be inferred from success, or if it was totally against those norms and existed only because of personal celebrity, media production independence, and a quasi-asshole forgiveness card for parody or insult comedy. I could equally imagine a non-comedy context, say a documentary context, that could not give fair portrayal to social attitudes or document comedic figures. That would provide the counterargument to inferring social norms from comedy, because maybe no article was published about proposed documentaries being rejected on the basis of violating informal social norms.
The above was on the problem with comedy as a distinct genre and the trouble separating society's tolerance with comedy going against the grain with making inferences on prevailing social norms. I do hope my argument from example and hypothetical is dealt with or examined if anybody is arguing with the last part.
Let me paraphrase the OP and some others to mean, "The danger of irreverent use of anti-establishment and edgy memes is that vulnerable persons will see them as harmless fun, and become actually susceptible to fall for white-supremacist or anti-semitic ideology and movements promoting them. Serious and proper education should inform conscientious people that use of such terminology or memes aids recruitment in such organization, is actually a pernicious and real force, and should be avoided and condemned on those grounds." My paraphrase of opposition "The nature the cited ideologies are so abhorrent, that there is only a small danger of people crossing from modern-punk memes and terminology to actual belief in the ideology of some people spreading them. There is far greater danger that education in opposing these memes (for reason of fringe groups co-opting them) is counterproductive and actively plays into their hands. The fringe groups will more effectively use such education and opposition to inspire sympathy and raise their public profile, because of the meme's legitimate edgy use to make people laugh at overreactions to trolling and the cleverness in devising/applying the memes. Comedy thrives on societal sacred cows--what you're not allowed to joke about or who you can't make fun of."
I think both perspectives as I've paraphrased them are genuine perspectives, and neither (as I previously heard) intentionally ignore something real to make their argument. I'm weighing comparative dangers and social goods to arrive at my support of the latter and rejection of the former. In a different situation, or a different society, these weights would adjust ... like in the wake of a great tragedy, I'd tell others to not poke fun at the grieving community.
|
On October 28 2019 02:23 Danglars wrote: The backlash or response to certain irreverent or perhaps offensive parody is tough to gauge usually. The easiest example of the latter was Chapelle's Sticks & Stones netflix special. the difference between Seinfeld and Chapelle is that Chapelle is a niche market comedian. the Seinfeld show at the airing of the "Soup Nazi" was the #2 rated show in the USA and #1 sit-com. It was extremely popular in Canada. It was very middle of the road and very mainstream. So you have to judge each reaction differently. There was zero backlash and no boycott of Seinfeld after the "Soup Nazi" aired. People loved it and Seinfeld continued to smash ratings records long after that show aired.
On October 28 2019 02:23 Danglars wrote: I say it's hard if you didn't live through the history in question to gauge whether the informal social norms can be inferred from success, or if it was totally against those norms and existed only because of personal celebrity, media production independence, and a quasi-asshole forgiveness card for parody or insult comedy. I could equally imagine a non-comedy context, say a documentary context, that could not give fair portrayal to social attitudes or document comedic figures. Comedy offers a "guard down" emotional response that you can't get from a documentary. There are two historical events in US history that I can tell were taken very damn seriously based on zero comedy done about them at the time of their occurrence. (1) The 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis. (2) 1990 "Desert Shield" during the Iraq invasion of Kuwait.
You won't find anyone joking about how all kinds of people might die during those two events.
In my research, I did find a few years later the 1979 Iran Hostage events came up in a comedy context. However, it is interesting to note what is being joked about. Hostages dying or the first failed rescue attempt that results in US deaths didn't come up. To wit, here is SCTV's take on Iran Hostage hero Ken Taylor. For the record, US Prez Carter stated Argo is a fiction movie.
On October 28 2019 02:23 Danglars wrote: In a different situation, or a different society, these weights would adjust ... like in the wake of a great tragedy, I'd tell others to not poke fun at the grieving community. to add to this point... + Show Spoiler + They are making fun of Ken Taylor, the weak Canadian dollar, and Canadians drinking too much beer for 5 minutes. They don't joke about how the USA miscalculated during their initial rescue attempt resulting in the deaths of US military personnel. They didn't joke about the Reagan Iran-Contra deal. They stayed away from the nasty stuff. That tells me those things were politically sensitive at the time. It also tells me that in the early 1980s... when push came to shove... when it really mattered Canadians and Americans really stuck together.. they were very very strong allies to each other. Unlike today.
In general, the art of the day offers an insight into the thoughts, feelings and ideas of the citizenry. Comedy is merely 1 form of art.
|
On October 28 2019 03:01 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2019 02:23 Danglars wrote: I say it's hard if you didn't live through the history in question to gauge whether the informal social norms can be inferred from success, or if it was totally against those norms and existed only because of personal celebrity, media production independence, and a quasi-asshole forgiveness card for parody or insult comedy. I could equally imagine a non-comedy context, say a documentary context, that could not give fair portrayal to social attitudes or document comedic figures. Comedy offers a "guard down" emotional response that you can't get from a documentary. There are two historical events in US history that I can tell were taken very damn seriously based on zero comedy done about them at the time of their occurrence. (1) The 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis. (2) 1990 "Desert Shield" during the Iraq invasion of Kuwait. You won't find anyone joking about how all kinds of people might die during those two events. In my research, I did find a few years later the 1979 Iran Hostage events came up in a comedy context. However, it is interesting to note what is being joked about. Hostages dying or the first failed rescue attempt that results in US deaths didn't come up. To wit, here is SCTV's take on Iran Hostage hero Ken Taylor. For the record, US Prez Carter stated Argo is a fiction movie. How do you separate this from some separate phenomena? A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic. I wouldn't expect to find comedy making fun of McAuliffe's decision to go about the Challenger in light of it's subsequent explosion. The hostage crisis was small. Secondarily, it was evocative in terms of human empathy ... people not responsible for some actions being the primary ones to bear the consequences. Some people near a shooting of a violent criminal killed accidentally by police is a similar idea. Who does comedy on that, if not long after?
I'm not so much saying you have no point, other than not being fully convinced you can draw these conclusions from it and trust them. The main difference I see is the number of victims (adjusted for war & tragedy) and perceived culpability (also echoed in Desert Shield, unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country motivated by greed). I see them more connected than social norms, but maybe I'm explaining things through the lens of "these events and differences tell something real about the human spirit and epochal western culture" than "we can use time from event to time of comedy to reveal something about temporal societal norms." Have you self-examined the possible error of using something overdefined by many inputs to focus on just one correlation? I still have trouble subtracting the censorious attitudes of society (How much does society allow for fringe comic genius, entertainment like snuff films or hardcore pornography? How much do they expand norms for exceptional celebrity with comedic genius?) from the broader social property of actual acceptance? You do raise an interesting point.
Would you draw a similar conclusion about the social norms regarding children killed indiscriminately by school shooters, and the time period between the last occurance and Aziz Ansari's joke about Why does that mean I have to listen to you? How does that make you interesting? You didn't get shot! You pushed some fat kid in the way—and now I got to listen to you talking?! Why or why not?
Show nested quote +On October 28 2019 02:23 Danglars wrote: In a different situation, or a different society, these weights would adjust ... like in the wake of a great tragedy, I'd tell others to not poke fun at the grieving community. too add to this point... + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFnpBXdeIFM They are making fun of Ken Taylor, the weak Canadian dollar, and the Canadians drinking too much beer for 5 minutes. They don't joke about how the USA miscalculated during their initial rescue attempt resulting in the deaths of US military personnel. They didn't joke about the Reagan Iran-Contra deal. They stayed away from the nasty stuff. That tells me those things were politically sensitive at the time. In general, the art of the day offers an insight into the thoughts, feelings and ideas of the citizenry. Comedy is merely 1 form of art. I have similar thoughts to my last couple paragraphs. Art certainly shows something about society, but it's entangled in multiple layers of meaning. Tolerance vs intolerance of comedic license to approach tragedy or evil with parody, your take of it's exposure of underlying norms of the topic rather than the comedy, smaller victim counts for the category vs just a statistic of millions, the relative culpability vs sympathy of the victims and participants. How are we to know if past popularity reflected the social norms or social tolerance of irreverent comedic art? Or if past celebrities granted their viewers permission to laugh, and would have done the same for other topics but were so few that some passed them by? I experienced this with Joan River's jokes about 9/11 and the backlash she felt. She still said the jokes, but the mixed reaction betrayed part social norm, part wondering about how close is too close in time to the tragedy in general, and part waiting to hear her justification because of her reputation for talking about subjects like suicide. It said something about social norms, but I don't think the whole story is too well revealed by it.
I'm having some trouble distilling down my thoughts because I do think you have a point, but I'm troubled with a second aspect which is the morphing tolerance society has for celebrities or fringe comics saying the unsay-able. I consider the hypothesis that American society has become less tolerant over time on irreverent jokes on topics like race, Nazis, LGBTQ, and police conduct to be an arguable point and an overlapping point, no matter if you believe it to be a change for good or ill. If you understand me, let me know. My thoughts aren't well-developed on the impacts of celebrity, publisher independence (ie it's a lot easier to put things out now that there's not a dozen channels of TV & Movie), tolerance for comedy, social norms, and moral philosophy ... which in my view overlap your point.
|
On October 28 2019 03:42 Danglars wrote: How do you separate this from some separate phenomena? A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic. I wouldn't expect to find comedy making fun of McAuliffe's decision to go about the Challenger in light of it's subsequent explosion. Interesting you bring up the Shuttle explosion....
The big joke in Canada right after the shuttle explosion was someone motioning with 1 arm in a free-style swimming stroke . The person telling the joke does that motion and then asks the question : "what is this?". When the person doesn't know the answer you reply with "Its the Canadian Space Arm swimming back to shore after the Challenger exploded". The joke is in my dad's high school year book. 1 of the "bad ass rebel guys" put it in there a couple of weeks after teh CHallenger exploded.
The key is this: You would never hear that joke on a mainstream, middle of the road top-rated sit-com of the day. Like you wouldn't hear that joke on "The Cosby Show" or "Family Ties".
Top rated middle of the road comedy shows get to be top rated by being middle of the road and appealing to the most mainstream people. If that joke were told on the Cosby Show in prime time the back lash would be brutal.
|
On October 28 2019 04:46 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2019 03:42 Danglars wrote: How do you separate this from some separate phenomena? A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic. I wouldn't expect to find comedy making fun of McAuliffe's decision to go about the Challenger in light of it's subsequent explosion. Interesting you bring up the Shuttle explosion.... The big joke in Canada right after the shuttle explosion was someone motioning with 1 arm in a free-style swimming stroke . The person telling the joke does that motion and then asks the question : "what is this?". When the person doesn't know the answer you reply with "Its the Canadian Space Arm swimming back to shore after the Challenger exploded". The joke is in my dad's high school year book. 1 of the "bad ass rebel guys" put it in there a couple of weeks after teh CHallenger exploded. The key is this: You would never hear that joke on a mainstream, middle of the road top-rated sit-com of the day. Like you wouldn't hear that joke on "The Cosby Show" or "Family Ties". Top rated middle of the road comedy shows get to be top rated by being middle of the road and appealing to the most mainstream people. If that joke were told on the Cosby Show in prime time the back lash would be brutal. Interesting point. You're restricting it to the long-established mainstream, middle of the road top-rated sit-com of the day. That might just be the key, with only the filter of what the broadcasting executives fear (which might run ahead of public opinion). I'll mull that over.
|
Thanks again for your thoughtful replies. They have forced me to think more deeply about this issue.
Just to wrap this up.
I do not think Nazism was any kind of big important danger in the USA in the 1980s or early 1990s. The comedy show Hogan's Heroes ran in re-runs throughout the USA throughout the 1980s. The show was never seen as any kind of threat. The show was received as light-hearted humour. It was filled with all forms of Nazi symbolism. It is set in a Nazi prisoner of war camp. The German oppressors are humanized in every episode. In the 1990s two episodes of Seinfeld all kinds of Nazi jokes take place. Both comedy shows were mainstream and extremely politically correct for their time. Had Nazism presented a clear and present danger to the average American citizen I can't see Hogan's Heroes or Seinfeld being received as shows filled with light hearted casual humour.
I'd say the perceived biggest threat in the 1980s in the USA was the Soviet Union. It was not Nazism. I'd also say the average American was greatly embarrassed by the 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis and how Jimmy Carter badly fumbled it. Americans were also sick of the Soviets invading countries around it while Jimmy Carter sat idly by. Reagan's "Make American Great Again" campaign captured the imaginations and votes of Americans who wanted the USA to once again be perceived as a great nation. Nazism doesn't factor into any of these issues. Essentially, Nazism was a non-issue.
|
Raynor is the most American, Canadian I've ever met and my mom married a Canadian who's been here since he was 19 !
|
What timeline is this?
Hitler (the epitome of the right) was a vegetarian and had a dog which we can assume he loved. Should we avoid vegetarianism and having a dog by association now?
Where do we draw the line? Where your feelings start and end?
Please let morality guide you, not association with something else. If you already know that those people didn't use the terms out of malice, the discussion should end there.
|
It's all a big joke till USA has concentration camps locking up their citizens with the wrong skin colour separating children who mysteriously go missing.
|
On October 28 2019 16:33 JieXian wrote: What timeline is this?
Hitler (the epitome of the right) was a vegetarian and had a dog which we can assume he loved. Should we avoid vegetarianism and having a dog by association now?
Where do we draw the line? Where your feelings start and end?
Please let morality guide you, not association with something else. If you already know that those people didn't use the terms out of malice, the discussion should end there.
Oh shit fellow leftists, this one found the "Hitler was a vegetarian" line, he's onto us!
|
Time to shut down the thread boys. Vegetarian, dog loving Hitler and concentration camps.
|
On October 29 2019 02:21 Danglars wrote: Time to shut down the thread boys. Vegetarian, dog loving Hitler and concentration camps.
Except the concentration camp part is quite literally happening, but it seems you still support it.
User was warned for this post
|
On October 29 2019 02:30 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2019 02:21 Danglars wrote: Time to shut down the thread boys. Vegetarian, dog loving Hitler and concentration camps. Except the concentration camp part is quite literally happening, but it seems you still support it. For your next trick, the pair of you drop into the SC2 tournament threads with another one-two punch.
On October 28 2019 22:18 Dangermousecatdog wrote: It's all a big joke till USA has concentration camps locking up their citizens with the wrong skin colour separating children who mysteriously go missing.
On October 29 2019 02:30 hunts wrote: Except the concentration camp part is quite literally happening, but it seems you still support it. We shall discuss nothing of importance until the goddamn concentration camps disappearing children are shut down!
You two go make your own thread or blog about me and/or that topic, and stop shitting up other threads with idiotic tangents.
|
FeelsBadMan
User was warned for this post.
|
On October 29 2019 01:40 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2019 16:33 JieXian wrote: What timeline is this?
Hitler (the epitome of the right) was a vegetarian and had a dog which we can assume he loved. Should we avoid vegetarianism and having a dog by association now?
Where do we draw the line? Where your feelings start and end?
Please let morality guide you, not association with something else. If you already know that those people didn't use the terms out of malice, the discussion should end there. Oh shit fellow leftists, this one found the "Hitler was a vegetarian" line, he's onto us!
I invite you to refute the argument and not mock the analogy. Even if he wasn't a vegetarian, he slept, drank water, and ate bread. Doesn't mean we should stop sleeping, drinking water or eating bread just by association. Same thing with saying things like "feels bad man".
Hell billions of Indians are using a "reverse swastika" daily and nobody "gets offended". Why? Because we know their intent is not malicious.
|
Your arguing on the level of a third grader that tries to be edgy and smart... Hint: Being a vegetarian doesn't make you a good or bad Person, no matter what. Vegetarianism doesn't inform any of your actions outside of your diet. Flying obviously facist/racist symbols constantly most likely means that you identify with these symbols and don't have any major issue with the crimes that were comittet under them..
I don't see it as a big Problem or at least not as something new. These agitators were allways around young people. It used to be sport clubs and stuff like that, nowadays you can find tons of young people online so they use the same old tactics there - they now reach more people but at the same time are more spread out. Don't overdramatize it but be aware, not everyone that uses edgy jokes from time to time is a racist, especially during teenage years, but people that tend to do it all the time most likely have issues.
|
Northern Ireland20727 Posts
On October 29 2019 20:32 Velr wrote: Your arguing on the level of a third grader that tries to be edgy and smart... Hint: Being a vegetarian doesn't make you a good or bad Person, no matter what. Vegetarianism doesn't inform any of your actions outside of your diet. Flying obviously facist/racist symbols constantly most likely means that you identify with these symbols and don't have any major issue with the crimes that were comittet under them..
I don't see it as a big Problem or at least not as something new. These agitators were allways around young people. It used to be sport clubs and stuff like that, nowadays you can find tons of young people online so they use the same old tactics there - they now reach more people but at the same time are more spread out. Don't overdramatize it but be aware, not everyone that uses edgy jokes from time to time is a racist, especially during teenage years, but people that tend to do it all the time most likely have issues. Indeed. Everything in moderation after all.
Much of this edgy stuff only punches in certain directions, you see a lot more anti-trans, anti-women, anti-black (non-white anyway) and anti-Jew memes and jokes than other stuff, so it’s not some equal opportunity ‘we make fun of everything’ kind of deal.
I’ve had people come at me in the past with some pretty heinous ‘actual opinion’ stuff in the past because they assumed because I like offensive humour that I held certain other views.
Things are just jokes, but cumulatively I imagine they can have effects beyond that, as you said if someone is spending all their time on 4chan or something.
|
On October 29 2019 17:29 JieXian wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2019 01:40 Nebuchad wrote:On October 28 2019 16:33 JieXian wrote: What timeline is this?
Hitler (the epitome of the right) was a vegetarian and had a dog which we can assume he loved. Should we avoid vegetarianism and having a dog by association now?
Where do we draw the line? Where your feelings start and end?
Please let morality guide you, not association with something else. If you already know that those people didn't use the terms out of malice, the discussion should end there. Oh shit fellow leftists, this one found the "Hitler was a vegetarian" line, he's onto us! I invite you to refute the argument and not mock the analogy. Even if he wasn't a vegetarian, he slept, drank water, and ate bread. Doesn't mean we should stop sleeping, drinking water or eating bread just by association. Same thing with saying things like "feels bad man". Hell billions of Indians are using a "reverse swastika" daily and nobody "gets offended". Why? Because we know their intent is not malicious.
Your intervention so far doesn't contain an argument that I can refute. You said "If I said something stupid instead of what was said, it would be stupid". Yes, that is true. It doesn't serve to demonstrate anything about the quality of what was said, in one direction or another.
I had to use some snark because this was such a stereotypically bad "rational rightwing" post. It even had the cringy Shapiro reference to feelings in the middle, cause you know, we have facts and reason, and the other side just has feeeeelings, brrr.
|
On October 29 2019 02:38 Danglars wrote: We shall discuss nothing of importance until the goddamn concentration camps disappearing children are shut down!
You two go make your own thread or blog about me and/or that topic, and stop shitting up other threads with idiotic tangents. The thread is about alt-right symbolism and their propagation and their effects. It is entirely appropriate to talk about their effects, whether or not you want to admit to their links or not. It is not a coincidence that the rise and of the casual cruelty of the concentration camps coincides with the rise and spread of "alt-right" symbolism. Acceptance of the "alt-right" do have real world consequences; there is no reason to pretend it does not.
|
On October 28 2019 08:16 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
I do not think Nazism was any kind of big important danger in the USA in the 1980s or early 1990s. The comedy show Hogan's Heroes ran in re-runs throughout the USA throughout the 1980s. The show was never seen as any kind of threat. The show was received as light-hearted humour. It was filled with all forms of Nazi symbolism. It is set in a Nazi prisoner of war camp. The German oppressors are humanized in every episode. .
Hey minor tangent, but Hogans Heroes re-runs can still be found on TV in the USA, saw them on Oxygen only a few months ago.
|
I just had a look at some of the points brought up and I'll try to summarize a bit (leaving much out probably, and in no specific order):
How do cultural expressions from fringe groups show up within mainstream culture? And can the impact of these fringe groups be meaningfully measured?
The question of education and the social groups who are vulnerable to be radicalized by a bunch of memes (how big are those groups actually and aren't they stigmatized to begin with?).
What is the impact of criticism on meme-culture? The sjw who shames people for using a frog will look like an idiot, and this obviously plays into the hands of whoever is out to estrange people from the left.
How impactful actually is the Alt-right? (and can it be defined to begin with?)
To what extent is it meaningful to focus on 'symbolism' (or to designate memes as symbols to begin with, actually I agree that memes are something else from symbols) instead of at the ideologies that create / are the cause of these symbols to begin with.
There's a big question about the relation between signifier and signified: When a new signified is added to a signifier, does it change the 'original' signifier? i.e., when new groups use Pepe in an alternative way, will it affect the usage of the Pepe signifier across the board?
To continue the discussion: Earlier Danglers brought up an opposition that I will quote in full here:
"The danger of irreverent use of anti-establishment and edgy memes is that vulnerable persons will see them as harmless fun, and become actually susceptible to fall for white-supremacist or anti-semitic ideology and movements promoting them. Serious and proper education should inform conscientious people that use of such terminology or memes aids recruitment in such organization, is actually a pernicious and real force, and should be avoided and condemned on those grounds." My paraphrase of opposition "The nature the cited ideologies are so abhorrent, that there is only a small danger of people crossing from modern-punk memes and terminology to actual belief in the ideology of some people spreading them. There is far greater danger that education in opposing these memes (for reason of fringe groups co-opting them) is counterproductive and actively plays into their hands. The fringe groups will more effectively use such education and opposition to inspire sympathy and raise their public profile, because of the meme's legitimate edgy use to make people laugh at overreactions to trolling and the cleverness in devising/applying the memes. Comedy thrives on societal sacred cows--what you're not allowed to joke about or who you can't make fun of." What if this whole opposition can be seen as a political effect of the performativity of memes? Either, if left unchecked, they have the effect that vulnerable persons fall for white-supremacist or anti-semitic ideology and movements promoting them. Or, when opposed, the people opposing them will be seen as paranoid leftist sjw trying to ban frogs, with the same effect as the above.
Don't get me wrong, it might sound like I am making things bigger then they are. As was already said, we are probably talking very small groups of people operating on the fringes of the internet. But it might take us (me) to the next step of the argument.
I think the way signs (symbols / images / language) are used is not just a tool to communicate a political movement. Sign usage is political, the movement is the language. And I think what is happening, on a small scale, is a shift in the way signs are used. When a second Mecca is built on the North-Pole it will affect the meaning of the first Mecca, just by the fact there's two of them. The politics of signs is the way they shift, what can be said and what can't be said at a certain moment in time (I believe this came up in one of the videos that was suggested). What I mean when I say that memes are 'performative' is that they are not just signs referring to known/unknown meaning, but that they perform something. When I try to analyze memes, or attempt to speak about why one should be careful using them etc, I will likely look like a paranoid sjw. In that way I perform a meme in the same way that someone else can tell me FeelsBadMan afterwards.
|
On October 26 2019 05:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2019 04:43 Ryzel wrote:On October 26 2019 02:45 Danglars wrote:On October 26 2019 01:28 Ryzel wrote:On October 26 2019 00:46 Danglars wrote:On October 26 2019 00:05 Ryzel wrote: All of you saying “just don’t buy in to the bullshit, no big deal” are ignoring that statistically not everyone will do so. These are targeting a young, psychologically/emotionally vulnerable population, not you, and even if only .001% of this population exposed to it becomes radicalized enough to commit acts of murder, that’s still 10 mass shootings if they target a million people like this. Obviously I made the statistics up, but you get the idea.
It’s like saying “obviously if a strange van pulls up to a kid and says they have candy, they're lying and the kid should ignore them, no big deal. Educating people (and kids) about this situation is a waste of time.” I think the proper comparison for your second would be "obviously if a old van pulls up to a kid, statistically not every kid is going to ignore it. therefore we should ban men from buying vans. Kids are psychologically vulnerable" I think the sane people here unjustly accused at ignoring bad possibilities are subconsciously weighing other, more likely, possibilities. Like 1) the people most vocally opposed to the far right acquire a reputation as cranks that want to ban memes and censor speech and 2)[ all this free publicity about a fringe element and their occult power from memes is many times more valuable than whatever power can be gained from their internet speech. They crave the attention and want to be thought of as a growing movement that is adept at using memes to convert citizens to their cause. That's why I use the religious metaphor, because the similarity of vulnerable minds falling prey to extremist propaganda is viscerally and culturally similar to old church ladies + Show Spoiler +look up the parodies of this demographic on SNL wanting to ban sinful entertainment/whatnot because vulnerable kids will be swept up by satan's influence. I view the negative consequences from (1) and (2) as many times more sizable than vulnerable youths caught up in some white nationalist craze. Just a couple of years ago, a fringe American group had a rally on the east coast with something like ~150 people, but it turns out roughly half of them were journalists breathlessly covering the event. If the group can't get more numbers than a furry convention in a bad year, then maybe you're just making a problem worse with all the free press. There’s a lot going on in this post but I’m lazy and don’t feel like requoting bits and pieces, so you’ll have to work with me a bit. 1) I never said anything about banning symbols, I said education. So I don’t think your interpretation of my analogy is accurate. 2) I never said you and others were insane for saying what you did, and on the flip-side I’m not insane for believing what I do, so let’s leave accusations of sanity out of it mkay? 3) I don’t feel like taking too deep a dive into the use of the term “unjustly”, but suffice to say I’m not prosecuting you for a crime you didn’t commit here, I’m having a discussion. I’m not here to judge you or anyone else, so no need to feel victimized. 4) Your point 1 implies that it is reasonable to believe anyone who has an issue with use of alt-right symbolism is most likely a crank who wants to ban free speech and memes. I don’t think that’s a valid presumption; I don’t know the statistics but I’d imagine the actual number of people who want to ban free speech and memes are much smaller than the population of people with issues with alt-right symbolism. I’m willing to be proved wrong though. 5) I just don’t agree with point 2. Letting fascists communicate on the Internet unchecked seems the most problematic outcome. By discussing the symbols and what they mean it brings more attention to how they work, what they’re capable of, and how to inoculate ourselves to it; it takes away the power of their subtlety. 6) I do love me some Dana Carvey, but we’re not talking about D&D or Harry Potter bullshit. We’re talking about an actual ideology with an actual historical precedent for bad things. Watch Sound of Music or google Hitler Youth to get an idea of why “vulnerable minds falling prey to extremist propaganda” can be an actual problem. 7) I’m running out of time but basically I don’t get how the 150 person rally has any bearing on this discussion. Rallies aren’t the metric for how we determine this is a problem; I doubt many of the white nationalist shooters went to any actual rallies. They’re not a prerequisite for bad things that the group does. TLDR; your argument seems based on an idea that I (and everyone else) want to ban memes and free speech with a bit of slippery slopes thrown in. I never said that. You were being a bit unfair when you said the other side was all "don't buy into the bullshit, no big deal" and then contrasting that with education. That's why I brought a more pointed analogy than the one you opened with. The people that have more grounded worries about the far right aren't suddenly against education just because they think memes on Stormfront aren't a big problem that needs addressing. Remember, the original poster brought up "alt-right terminology and symbols," and definitely has been educated by this thread about the resiliency/apppropriation of symbols. I'm hoping education about publicizing fringe groups while wanting instead to educate people on fringe groups happens with you too. That's a very real danger. I fully support education on publication of white nationalist's names, photos, and ideology in national press after every shooting. We have enough martyrs and celebrities from that already. Even education on not going after white privilege on lower-class whites with high rates of opiate addiction, making them feel victimized by a cosmopolitan elite. I stand by my point that talking about memes makes the speaker look like a loon, and not a serious person concerned with that "0.001%" that gets radicalized because of Pepe the frog or whatever. In essence, you're dismissing criticism of the "terminology and symbols" approach using motte and bailey tactics. You talked about how some miniscule fraction of people get radicalized by twisted memes, but when the absurdity gets brought up, retreat back to something good-sounding like education. I'm critical of the bailey position, of calling some symbols "alt-right terminology / symbolism," and how ineffectual and countereffective it is--not the motte retreat that you're all about education. Some of the bailey position disguised as education makes you eminently mockable, and not just by the far-right, but by normal gamers that get great laughs poking fun at the meme police. Well, I really would prefer if people adopt Sbrubbles "I see nothing wrong with it" and Fallings "[you give] the alt-right too much credit-like it's some sort of contagious disease that one must guard against with paranoid vigilance." I think that form of education is 100% what we should be doing. I hope one day you're persuaded that you've placed too much emphasis on terminology and symbols and too much belief that it's effective "Sound of Music or ... Hitler Youth" propaganda. Act paranoid about symbols wielded by fringe groups, and you'll find very few listeners about your notion of education. I wouldn't blame any gamer more attracted to the groups putting out funny memes because of people like you going straight to Hitler and the vulnerability of youth from them. It's a fear-based approach and easily abused by the alt-right as we've seen people run for the hills over the 'okay' symbol.
In as much the alt-right is involved in white nationalism, the actual beliefs that are terrible are fairly obvious and not tolerated (white genocide conspiracy theories or racist theories on ethnicities).
But there is far too much overlap with regular old meme/ troll culture to bother one's head about 'feels bad man'. It's just so ironic that well-intentioned attempts to combat a hateful ideology play fucking right into their hands. I say, keep educating people about just how easily abused it is. Perhaps I should clarify what I mean by education. I don't think the symbols and memes themselves are propaganda; they obviously don't have any inherent deeper meaning. Their power as tools for the alt-right is derived from how widespread they are, allowing them to say "hey, we're just like you, we say monkaS/kek/*insert new trendy meme here* all the time too." The education component is not "you are a shitty person for saying these things, don't ever say them" or "these symbols/memes should be banned to halt their ideology" (although I know a lot of people think this and I agree it's not smart). It's "there are groups of bad people out there who will want you to join them, and they'll use these as ways to manipulate you to feel like one of them. Don't buy into it." I should give you a chance to address something that's been said in the thread and that I quoted. You're talking about symbols and memes are "tools for the alt-right" with power "derived from how widespread they are." I think their "actual beliefs are fairly obvious and not tolerated." Maybe coffee houses are also "trendy" and "tools for the alt-right," since they might strike up conversations there. Democracy is a tool of the alt-right, because they get to vote for who they like, coffee-houses so they can strike up conversations, and memes so they can be cool and anti-establishment. Do you really have any differentiating factor for calling something a tool for the alt-right? I don't really see anything particular here to especially fear, and I certainly haven't heard anything convincing that distinguishes this aspect.
Technically yes they can be used as tools to further their agenda, but there’s huge differences...
1) Voting is a private process and won’t result in recruitment of others.
2) Coffeehouses are going to get people of all types, and stereotypically more left-leaning, so they’re unlikely to find as common ground as they could online.
A more apt comparison would be punk rock shows in the ‘80s. You already made the comparison. Skinheads showing up, blending in with the crowd, making some friends among the edgy teen crowd, talking to them about favorite bands but “eh they’re not edgy enough, why don’t they talk about how blacks are so stupid, amirite?” Probably something more subtle than that. Over time those “friendships” develop and help color the teens views on the skinheads intense beliefs.
So imagine that, times a bajillion with how many more kids have access to memes/games/whatever. Society didn’t care back then because the counterculture population that was being targeted was super small comparatively, but now it’s quite significant.
I guess when I’m talking about tools of the alt-right, I’m referring more specifically to recruitment. And I’ve just explained the huge difference between using these tools to target the giant counterculture of young white male gamers vs going to a coffeehouse or door to door to speak about our lord and savior Hitler.
To address the quote specifically, an “alt-right recruiter” is not ever going to be upfront with their beliefs. If confronted by only a few people about what they actually believe, they’ll say “haha look at these tools, I totally trolled them.” If confronted by a large group and risk being ostracized, they’ll say “guys guys I’m obviously just kidding, calm down”. Both of these play on the insecurities of these groups.
Danglars wrote "The danger of irreverent use of anti-establishment and edgy memes is that vulnerable persons will see them as harmless fun, and become actually susceptible to fall for white-supremacist or anti-semitic ideology and movements promoting them. Serious and proper education should inform conscientious people that use of such terminology or memes aids recruitment in such organization, is actually a pernicious and real force, and should be avoided and condemned on those grounds." My paraphrase of opposition "The nature the cited ideologies are so abhorrent, that there is only a small danger of people crossing from modern-punk memes and terminology to actual belief in the ideology of some people spreading them. There is far greater danger that education in opposing these memes (for reason of fringe groups co-opting them) is counterproductive and actively plays into their hands. The fringe groups will more effectively use such education and opposition to inspire sympathy and raise their public profile, because of the meme's legitimate edgy use to make people laugh at overreactions to trolling and the cleverness in devising/applying the memes. Comedy thrives on societal sacred cows--what you're not allowed to joke about or who you can't make fun of."
I agree with some of this, but several key differences...
1) Using the memes is not an issue, they can use them all day long for all I care and I certainly can’t stop them.
2) Again, the memes themselves don’t brainwash people. They’re not going to be slowly converted to Nazism by spamming Pepe all day.
3) Using the memes doesn’t aid recruitment. The education should be less about the memes and more about how there are real groups that target them for recruitment, and pretend to be trollers just like them when they’re actually not (cause everyone knows trollers are never serious, and these recruiters definitely are).
4) The ideologies are abhorrent, but they’re never going to be openly espoused for that reason so it’s a non-issue.
5) I’m in agreement that the SJW/church lady approach is wrong and feeds into exactly what they’re looking for, which is why the education I’m describing wouldn’t tell people memes are bad and they’re bad for using them.
|
On October 30 2019 23:04 Ryzel wrote: A more apt comparison would be punk rock shows in the ‘80s. You already made the comparison. Skinheads showing up, blending in with the crowd, making some friends among the edgy teen crowd, talking to them about favorite bands but “eh they’re not edgy enough, why don’t they talk about how blacks are so stupid, amirite?” Probably something more subtle than that. Over time those “friendships” develop and help color the teens views on the skinheads intense beliefs.
So imagine that, times a bajillion with how many more kids have access to memes/games/whatever. Society didn’t care back then because the counterculture population that was being targeted was super small comparatively, but now it’s quite significant.
I guess when I’m talking about tools of the alt-right, I’m referring more specifically to recruitment. And I’ve just explained the huge difference between using these tools to target the giant counterculture of young white male gamers vs going to a coffeehouse or door to door to speak about our lord and savior Hitler.
To address the quote specifically, an “alt-right recruiter” is not ever going to be upfront with their beliefs. If confronted by only a few people about what they actually believe, they’ll say “haha look at these tools, I totally trolled them.” If confronted by a large group and risk being ostracized, they’ll say “guys guys I’m obviously just kidding, calm down”. Both of these play on the insecurities of these groups. Coffee Shops eh? Gamers in CoffeeHouses? I will have you know that donut shops were the foundation of Canadian society until the Internet Cafe was invented.
I am jewish. Let me share a personal vignette about how I dealt with a group of anti-jewish, pro-hitler people who used to hang out at the internet cafe where i used to play Starcraft:Brood War every weekend.
+ Show Spoiler + the #1 place to play Starcraft in Toronto is Net Effect Internet Cafe. It had a small group of "pro hitler" people. I'm one of many jews that hung out and played there. It has a substantial korean crowd. The original owner is korean-canadian. The current owner is black and his parents owned a coin-op arcade in the busiest street in Toronto. I'd say 10% of the customers are homosexual and this is partly because of Net Effect's proximity to Toronto's "Gay Village". So its quite a mixed crowd. We had all kinds of open debates about many subjects. It was a good time.
We all got along fine. The #1 pro hitler guy.. I convinced him that libertarianism is the way to go. I conceded his point that the elite rich are really totally fucking over the middle class. In turn I got him to concede that the class of elite rich has plenty of non-jews in it. I got him to acknowledge that the elite super rich consists of a lot more than just "the jews". Any how, he is no longer a jew-hating pro-Hitler guy. He is somewhere in the spectrum of the various libertarian groups. We still disagree on many ancillary issues.. but on the fundamentals he is now 100% reasonable.
It took him about a year to give up his pro-Hitler anti-jew ideology//politics. During that time we had many hours of debate and discussion. Although he did not change any of my fundamental views I learned a lot about anti-semitism. I learned a lot of 1930's and 1940s Germany. His perspective and facts he presented spurned some of my own research into the events around WW1 and WW2.
Many of my jewish friends bristled at my willingness to talk to this person and this prp-Hitler group. However, dialogue was exactly what he needed. He and I don't see each other very often any longer but when we do we are quite close. This incident reminds me of ex-Raptors coach Dwayne Casey having dozens of racial slurs hurled at him in school. He later turned those guys from school around into being some of his best friends. Turns out black people are ok. Turns out jews are ok. Who woulda known?
What I did at Net Effect Internet Cafe in 2005 in dealing with pro-Hitler anti-jewish people was nothing special. Plenty of racial minorities pull off this feat in their everyday lives all the time. Plenty of people who held incorrect racial stereotypes voluntarily concede that .. hey.. person XYZ is alright. No screaming , no yelling, no finger pointing, no name calling NO LABELLING!
The person whose views I changed had high enough self esteem that in the face of clear objective evidence he had the balls to change his mind. He was a rather foolishly misguided but fundamentally good person 10 years ago. He is now a good person and is no longer misguided. He now has a damn good job.. who works very hard and is starting a nice family.
Some of the people who condemned him for his views just wanted him "banned forever" from Net Effect Internet Cafe. How does this offer a path to improvement? It does not.
I think the alarm about the alt-right stuff going on is unfounded and not required. Alarm-ism only feeds into the alt-right pathology of extremism. A hysterical reaction plays right into the hands of those with extreme views. What is needed is calm, sober, rational, reasonable discussion and a little bit of self esteem from the discussion participants . In the face of a little bit of life experience,decent self esteem, and reasonable conversation the entire ideology disappears like tears in the rain.
On October 30 2019 23:04 Ryzel wrote: I guess when I’m talking about tools of the alt-right, I’m referring more specifically to recruitment. And I’ve just explained the huge difference between using these tools to target the giant counterculture of young white male gamers vs going to a coffeehouse or door to door to speak about our lord and savior Hitler.
meh, Hitler is just a guy. Please, don't get overly excited about him because it feeds into the hysteria and you risk getting swept up in the tornado of silliness.
Now, discussing the forces at play that allowed a master manipulator to seduce a good and decent citizenry into doing really horrific stuff and/or turning a blind eye towards many horrific acts... Now that is a fascinating discussion. Hitler himself... meh.. the guy bores me.
|
On October 30 2019 17:24 Pistolen-Luuk wrote: I just had a look at some of the points brought up and I'll try to summarize a bit (leaving much out probably, and in no specific order):
How do cultural expressions from fringe groups show up within mainstream culture? And can the impact of these fringe groups be meaningfully measured?
The question of education and the social groups who are vulnerable to be radicalized by a bunch of memes (how big are those groups actually and aren't they stigmatized to begin with?).
What is the impact of criticism on meme-culture? The sjw who shames people for using a frog will look like an idiot, and this obviously plays into the hands of whoever is out to estrange people from the left.
How impactful actually is the Alt-right? (and can it be defined to begin with?)
To what extent is it meaningful to focus on 'symbolism' (or to designate memes as symbols to begin with, actually I agree that memes are something else from symbols) instead of at the ideologies that create / are the cause of these symbols to begin with.
There's a big question about the relation between signifier and signified: When a new signified is added to a signifier, does it change the 'original' signifier? i.e., when new groups use Pepe in an alternative way, will it affect the usage of the Pepe signifier across the board? These questions were on the whole handled, many of which were rejected by posters for reasons they stated. Maybe you can give your perspective and answers to the common objections to it.
To continue the discussion: Earlier Danglers brought up an opposition that I will quote in full here: Show nested quote +"The danger of irreverent use of anti-establishment and edgy memes is that vulnerable persons will see them as harmless fun, and become actually susceptible to fall for white-supremacist or anti-semitic ideology and movements promoting them. Serious and proper education should inform conscientious people that use of such terminology or memes aids recruitment in such organization, is actually a pernicious and real force, and should be avoided and condemned on those grounds." My paraphrase of opposition "The nature the cited ideologies are so abhorrent, that there is only a small danger of people crossing from modern-punk memes and terminology to actual belief in the ideology of some people spreading them. There is far greater danger that education in opposing these memes (for reason of fringe groups co-opting them) is counterproductive and actively plays into their hands. The fringe groups will more effectively use such education and opposition to inspire sympathy and raise their public profile, because of the meme's legitimate edgy use to make people laugh at overreactions to trolling and the cleverness in devising/applying the memes. Comedy thrives on societal sacred cows--what you're not allowed to joke about or who you can't make fun of." What if this whole opposition can be seen as a political effect of the performativity of memes? Either, if left unchecked, they have the effect that vulnerable persons fall for white-supremacist or anti-semitic ideology and movements promoting them. Or, when opposed, the people opposing them will be seen as paranoid leftist sjw trying to ban frogs, with the same effect as the above. Don't get me wrong, it might sound like I am making things bigger then they are. As was already said, we are probably talking very small groups of people operating on the fringes of the internet. But it might take us (me) to the next step of the argument. I think the way signs (symbols / images / language) are used is not just a tool to communicate a political movement. Sign usage is political, the movement is the language. And I think what is happening, on a small scale, is a shift in the way signs are used. When a second Mecca is built on the North-Pole it will affect the meaning of the first Mecca, just by the fact there's two of them. The politics of signs is the way they shift, what can be said and what can't be said at a certain moment in time (I believe this came up in one of the videos that was suggested). What I mean when I say that memes are 'performative' is that they are not just signs referring to known/unknown meaning, but that they perform something. When I try to analyze memes, or attempt to speak about why one should be careful using them etc, I will likely look like a paranoid sjw. In that way I perform a meme in the same way that someone else can tell me FeelsBadMan afterwards. You're partly there when you explain the opposition using performativity, but there's still a rational problem explaining potential threat of "vulnerable persons" (to use the same rather patronizing epithet) actually able to make the jump from memes to literal white supremacy and Jew-hate. I still say that stands as a fucking huge gap, and not one to be brushed under the rug with some kind of "Well, not me, but I know of some other practical sub-humans that are so stupid that they're half a dozen memes away from yelling that Jews control international banking."
I should say symbols (in which I include memes as a subset) have a political element. It's an obvious rebellion against a political and cultural and social norm of polite speech. It's today internet aided iteration of youth rebellion, but with less of a fashion and music element than the 60s. Then, as now, adults and young people happier with the status quo (there are things you can't say, jokes you can't make, and that's a good thing) shake their heads at one another and say, "Kids these days have no respect." Then a smaller contingent goes the next step to say, "And this is bad for kids these days because now they're easy prey for the alt-right."
JimmyJRaynor brought this up in the related context of mainstream TV comedians. The 80s and 90s had shows like Hogan's Heroes that literally made jokes about Nazis and humanized the actors playing German oppressors. Oh, the poor vulnerable youths of that time that then fell into the hands of underground white supremacist clubs, because they were poor and vulnerable and seeing the TV tell them that Nazis weren't so bad in a comedy show was all it took! I think TV shows like that are right approach in dealing with the "problem." Rob it of power by not moaning about some pathetically small fringe (and respond to my posts on this subject early if you think it's a contentious claim). Show it's fine to make irreverent memes on the subject, because nobody actually thinks there's great harm in nasty jokes in a democratic society. Toleration will make people grow out of thinking the worst ones are even funny.
|
There is a pretty big gulf between parody and use of symbols (even subtextual parody) based on their meanings and the use of symbols ignorantly or without acknowledgement of their associations and meanings. The first requires the understanding of an idea, and a negative attitude towards it. The latter is another question entirely.
The writers of Hogan's Heroes knew what Nazis were (and didn't want children to become them).
The Soup Nazi in Seinfeld is a laughable character who is thin-skinned and a fascist-no one walks away wanting to be the Soup Nazi (at least, Jerry didn't intend such).
The Great Dictator shows Hitler as a fool and an idiot-nobody thinks better of Hitler or the Nazis after watching it, despite it being full of symbols.
And even intentionality often isn't enough! American History X is an inspiration to plenty of neonazis, after all.
But nobody is posting FeelsBadMan or PepeHands to make fun of or demean the alt-right (or if they are, it's probably <0.1% of the uses). Without that intentionality, the symbols are being used out of ignorance. This means that the chances use demeans the ideology are considerably less, and the chances use has no effect or spreads the ideology are considerably higher. Moreover, it becomes a convenient way to dodge responsibility when the symbols *are* being used to call to or signal to the ideology-"everyone else uses these Pepes, I didn't realize this one with Jewish stars in the background was extra bad."
Whether it's worth intervening to deal with this is another question. I try to avoid using those symbols myself. I don't call out people who use the symbols without understanding their associations. I try to call out people when the symbols are stacked with others. But ultimately trying to fight this battle just bogs you down in fighting with people you don't need to fight with or in arguments that are 100% in bad faith.
|
Northern Ireland20727 Posts
As an aside, interesting discussion with many good points made by various posters. Why I come to TL and largely eschew the rest of the outside world.
I was confused as to my stance on this and associated matters to begin with and now feel more confused than before, in the good ‘hm I need to ponder this some more’ way.
|
On October 31 2019 02:14 TheTenthDoc wrote: The writers of Hogan's Heroes knew what Nazis were (and didn't want children to become them).
The backdrop was this : we've conquered the Nazis and now our new threat is the communists. So now we can all point and laugh at the Nazis. Notice there were no 60s, 70s, or 80s comedy shows about how cute and funny those Communists in the U.S.S.R. are. Nazis are cute and funny and pathetic all at the same time.
If the writers had a fear of what their children might become.. .they were far more concerned about Communism than Nazi-ism. This is why Hogan's Heroes was received as light-hearted, silly comedy. Nazi-ism was seen by north americans as no problem whatsoever.
As of 1990, the USA has conquered the Nazis and the Communists. The USA ran out of enemies. Bret Sperry, the creator of the C&C series and inventor of the term "RTS", predicted the USA would over-state the threat of terrorism and use that as their new 'enemy'.
Whether or not the USA is over-stating the threat of terrorism remains a topic of debate to this day.
|
The stuff about Pepe being alt right, I've seen plenty of Pepes shown by Hong Kongers during their ongoing protests.Posters etc.Are Hong Kong protesters in HK classed as alt-right?
|
Northern Ireland20727 Posts
On November 01 2019 23:34 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: The stuff about Pepe being alt right, I've seen plenty of Pepes shown by Hong Kongers during their ongoing protests.Posters etc.Are Hong Kong protesters in HK classed as alt-right? Well no, have you read the thread because I’m pretty sure this sort of point was addressed already?
|
On November 01 2019 23:34 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: The stuff about Pepe being alt right, I've seen plenty of Pepes shown by Hong Kongers during their ongoing protests.Posters etc.Are Hong Kong protesters in HK classed as alt-right? It was less people saying there’s no legitimate use, and more questioning or asserting the dangers of use as it relates to alt-right. Even as I’ve taken a position on it, I view them as separate issues with one not implying the other.
|
On November 01 2019 23:34 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: The stuff about Pepe being alt right, I've seen plenty of Pepes shown by Hong Kongers during their ongoing protests.Posters etc.Are Hong Kong protesters in HK classed as alt-right?
I don't think anyone in this thread has made this claim. The OP question was "should more thought be put in to using these symbols/memes now that an association with the alt-right has developed". Majority response is "nah not really, just 'cause alt-right is getting media hype for using it doesn't mean they own it", which is true. Conversation shifted a bit toward alt-right using memes/symbols as a way to blend into the gamer group and recruit, other posters responded with "people are crazy for trying to ban them and limit their use" despite no one in the thread suggesting it, etc.
|
On November 02 2019 02:22 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2019 23:34 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: The stuff about Pepe being alt right, I've seen plenty of Pepes shown by Hong Kongers during their ongoing protests.Posters etc.Are Hong Kong protesters in HK classed as alt-right? I don't think anyone in this thread has made this claim. The OP question was "should more thought be put in to using these symbols/memes now that an association with the alt-right has developed". Majority response is "nah not really, just 'cause alt-right is getting media hype for using it doesn't mean they own it", which is true. Conversation shifted a bit toward alt-right using memes/symbols as a way to blend into the gamer group and recruit, other posters responded with "people are crazy for trying to ban them and limit their use" despite no one in the thread suggesting it, etc. That’s one way to frame it. The other way is to read the strange ownership present in OP’s “ I regularly see and hear alt-right terminology and symbols used in the SC2 community” as asserting characterization of them into the alt-right sphere as prior to thinking about their use.
The other framing is also “Yet I do feel there is a lack of resistance or criticism on this” as OP wants to think about them as something to be resisted or criticized, rather than just to think about terminology as disconnected or connected to the alt-right.
In that way, all this “other posters responded ... despite no one in the thread suggesting it” looks like behaving in a deliberately dense manner to the subject. It’s simultaneously encouraging discussion of the subject, while also derailing natural discussion of stuff like characterization, susceptibility, and action. “Nobody ever suggested” is usually latter 2010s phrasing for either “I missed or didn’t understand the evolution of arguments and the points made” or “I want to dismiss or end thoughts and arguments that I don’t like.”
I’m frankly proud of the several pages of discussion as part of this community. I think the clear choice for people wanting discussion is to think twice before discounting alleged deviations from the topic. The bad actors or misinformed actors literally show themselves if you pay close enough attention and are willing to reread a couple pages in context.
|
The other framing is also “Yet I do feel there is a lack of resistance or criticism on this” as OP wants to think about them as something to be resisted or criticized, rather than just to think about terminology as disconnected or connected to the alt-right. If people like the OP didn't get so worked up about it then there wouldn't be half as much of it. Of course with the ease that many people are offended these days this could be applied to pretty much everything, not just a cartoon frog.
|
At first I thought that this thread is a joke... Now I'm worried.
|
On November 02 2019 13:53 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +The other framing is also “Yet I do feel there is a lack of resistance or criticism on this” as OP wants to think about them as something to be resisted or criticized, rather than just to think about terminology as disconnected or connected to the alt-right. If people like the OP didn't get so worked up about it then there wouldn't be half as much of it. Of course with the ease that many people are offended these days this could be applied to pretty much everything, not just a cartoon frog.
The problem when it comes to nazis trying to coopt gamer language in order to recruit is that leftists react too harshly against it sure is a take.
|
On November 02 2019 13:53 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +The other framing is also “Yet I do feel there is a lack of resistance or criticism on this” as OP wants to think about them as something to be resisted or criticized, rather than just to think about terminology as disconnected or connected to the alt-right. If people like the OP didn't get so worked up about it then there wouldn't be half as much of it. Of course with the ease that many people are offended these days this could be applied to pretty much everything, not just a cartoon frog. There is a great book about the new generation of perpetually offended youth. "The Coddling Of The American Mind" .... "America - Home of the Anxious and the Fragile"
Here is the "right wing" view of this book. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/
Here is the "left wing" view of this book. + Show Spoiler +
Children are far more over protected compared to previous generations. Adult interference in the lives of children is at an all time high in rich 1st world countries. This leads to children unable to deal with basic life challenges. Every time someone calls them a bad name too many in the new generation of youth goes unhinged. Also, they go looking for new "bad words" when they aren't hearing enough of the standard "bad words".
These terrible words and the terrible horrible awful people who say them ... are their explanation/excuse for why they can't , as young adults , handle the basic challenges of life.
On November 02 2019 20:59 Pr0wler wrote: At first I thought that this thread is a joke... Now I'm worried. I'm not worried.
|
Yes in my experience conservatives never get offended about anything. It's unbelievable, you can bend the knee for a protest and they don't say a word, they would never do something like burn their Nikes or toss their coffee machine because they don't like an advertisement choice or get offended by a movie about them being hunted by elites so much that the movie gets cancelled. It's good that they escaped the coddling that is plaguing the left.
This is the first layer of a response but you also need to add that talking about the rise of the far right is not something that you do because you're offended, it's something that you do because you're afraid. The far right is dangerous, it actively makes the world a worst place. Looking for steps to counter them when they try and recruit young gamers is a good and rational thing to do. A lot of your core beliefs develop when you're a teen, deprogramming people is very hard.
And of course, the last layer is to remember that people like Jimmy and Nettles are basically far right, or so far right adjacent that the difference doesn't particularly matter. I don't know whether they realize or not that the right gets offended at seeing a brown woman play a mermaid in a movie because that's white genocide and that this reality makes their complaining about the left's offense ridiculous. Maybe they don't. But if they did, it wouldn't change a thing about how they discuss this.
|
On November 02 2019 22:04 Nebuchad wrote: And of course, the last layer is to remember that people like Jimmy and Nettles are basically far right, or so far right adjacent that the difference doesn't particularly matter. I don't know whether they realize or not that the right gets offended at seeing a brown woman play a mermaid in a movie because that's white genocide and that this reality makes their complaining about the left's offense ridiculous. Maybe they don't. But if they did, it wouldn't change a thing about how they discuss this. check the author of "The Coddling of the American Mind". He is a hard core left winger who probably knows 10,000 times more about the state of US colleges than you do.
check my entries in the Canada Politics thread. I think Bob Rae of the NDP did a great job leading Ontario from 1990 and 1995. In the thread I also claim Jean Chretien is the best Prime Minister Canada has had in the past 50 years.
The stupidest thing an Ontario Premier ever did that ended up wrecking the province was privatize Ontario Hydro. When it was run by the government, Ontario had the lowest hydro prices in North America; working at Ontario Hydro paid very well and offered a great working environment.
so, ya. whatever man.
|
How does the author being a leftwinger change the argument in any way?
|
On November 02 2019 22:04 Nebuchad wrote: Yes in my experience conservatives never get offended about anything. It's unbelievable, you can bend the knee for a protest and they don't say a word, they would never do something like burn their Nikes or toss their coffee machine because they don't like an advertisement choice or get offended by a movie about them being hunted by elites so much that the movie gets cancelled. It's good that they escaped the coddling that is plaguing the left.
This is the first layer of a response but you also need to add that talking about the rise of the far right is not something that you do because you're offended, it's something that you do because you're afraid. The far right is dangerous, it actively makes the world a worst place. Looking for steps to counter them when they try and recruit young gamers is a good and rational thing to do. A lot of your core beliefs develop when you're a teen, deprogramming people is very hard.
And of course, the last layer is to remember that people like Jimmy and Nettles are basically far right, or so far right adjacent that the difference doesn't particularly matter. I don't know whether they realize or not that the right gets offended at seeing a brown woman play a mermaid in a movie because that's white genocide and that this reality makes their complaining about the left's offense ridiculous. Maybe they don't. But if they did, it wouldn't change a thing about how they discuss this. Lol JimmyJRaynor far-right or far-right adjacent? I wouldn’t talk about de-programming teens, if your programming results in such a laughable conclusion.
|
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.
|
Norway28262 Posts
I mean I think the critique in the 'Agenda with Steve Paikin' (presented as the 'left wing view') video JJR linked above is really spot on. (To be fair, I didn't watch it all, but from how far I have gotten. ) 'Free play' is absolutely fantastic for children's development and there's a growing trend in the west that kids have less time for that because so much of their time is spent doing adult-organized (and adult-supervised) activities. Granted, I haven't been a teacher for that long, so I can't comment on trends going back decades, but I do have a feeling that too many kids these days ask adults to resolve some conflict that back when I was a kid myself, we would have resolved without any adult interference.
So even though I normally don't agree much with JJR on politics, I don't really have an issue with this particular point. (Although I also think there's an element on his behalf of projecting his own personality as an ideal for other people, but most of us are prolly fairly guilty of that. )
|
Canada5565 Posts
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.
|
On November 03 2019 01:42 Liquid`Drone wrote: I mean I think the critique in the 'Agenda with Steve Paikin' (presented as the 'left wing view') video JJR linked above is really spot on. (To be fair, I didn't watch it all, but from how far I have gotten. ) 'Free play' is absolutely fantastic for children's development and there's a growing trend in the west that kids have less time for that because so much of their time is spent doing adult-organized (and adult-supervised) activities. Granted, I haven't been a teacher for that long, so I can't comment on trends going back decades, but I do have a feeling that too many kids these days ask adults to resolve some conflict that back when I was a kid myself, we would have resolved without any adult interference.
So even though I normally don't agree much with JJR on politics, I don't really have an issue with this particular point. (Although I also think there's an element on his behalf of projecting his own personality as an ideal for other people, but most of us are prolly fairly guilty of that. )
If it's the study that I remember some of the argumentation was very meh. It could be another one tho. I don't particularly care when this kind of analysis serves to describe why the left (or minorities) take issue with the alt-right. You know, back in my day people weren't so sensitive so they wouldn't bitch when nazis were infiltrating their communities. This is nonsense. You can show that conservatives are and have always been very sensitive about their identity, you can show that being wary of the alt-right and its endeavors is perfectly rational, it's not based on being triggered or being too coddled as a child, and finally it's worth pointing out that there is ideological similarities between the people pushing this nonsense and the people we're discussing, which colors the way they argue. This all stands regardless of the quality of the study or the politics of its author.
|
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.
|
Norway28262 Posts
I think it's more of a 'worry about the big issues that really matter and don't alienate people that could be political supporters through labeling them x due to mistakes they use when expressing themselves that may or may not be genuine mistakes'. I thought Obama was pretty spot on when he recently said "This idea of purity, and you're never compromised, and you're always politically woke, and all that stuff, you should get over that quickly," Obama said. "The world is messy. There are ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws."
I might not really understand how minorities feel when they encounter offensive language or signalling. (I think this really differs based on which individual you ask though, 'minorities' aren't uniform in how they respond to this stuff). I do however think we've made pretty massive strides in the past couple decades, positively so, with regard to 'general woke-ness'. From my parent's generation, I've heard even radical leftists use 'negro', whereas now, I experience that this is ostracizing even among fairly apolitical centrists. I agree it's not good enough, etc. But it's not the most important political fight of our generation, and I hate seeing would-be leftists who think the growing wealth inequality, climate change and capitalist exploitation are really big problems end up being turned to the right because at least the right doesn't insult them because they shared a pepe meme.
I'd like to expand but I gotta go now.
|
Oh ok we're not talking about the same thing at all. I agree with all this (I've become a pretty big fan of Vaush recently btw). From what I read I think OP would agree too.
Edit: should add that Obama was full of shit there. Purity tests are dumb when you're questioning someone's leftism because he used a slightly inconsiderate turn of phrase while he discussed the abolition of social hierarchies. It's different if you're questioning someone's leftism because you think they're a liberal, someone with a different ideology. Framing opposition to liberal ideas from the left as "a purity test" is a talking point, it's in the same range as "unity". He knows that.
|
Maybe we should be asking why gamers are especially susceptible to nazi propaganda. Maybe games are emotionally, morally, and socially stunting too many young men. Maybe games are the problem.
|
Northern Ireland20727 Posts
On November 03 2019 09:36 IgnE wrote: Maybe we should be asking why gamers are especially susceptible to nazi propaganda. Maybe games are emotionally, morally, and socially stunting too many young men. Maybe games are the problem. Haha this did get a good chuckle!
In seriousness though I’d draw a distinction between people who play games, and ‘gamers’, people who have that ‘this is my identity’ thing, often in lieu of other stuff.
The latter crowd are probably susceptible to all sorts of influences, the former really not so much.
I mean it’s not just gaming it’s basically anything, you have fans of a property, and you have the fandom, you have people who like metal music, and you have ‘metallers’ etc etc.
Anyone who identifies that keenly with things is prime ground for ‘silly SJWs are ruining your hobby/identity’
|
On October 22 2019 21:10 Pistolen-Luuk wrote: Yet I do feel there is a lack of resistance or criticism on this. Shouldn't there be some thought around using the 'feels bad man' or 'grug wojak' as a twitter portrait?
I don't think there should be.
In fact, after reading many of the responses in this thread, I will make an effort to use such memes more often.
feelsgoodman
|
On November 03 2019 10:12 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2019 09:36 IgnE wrote: Maybe we should be asking why gamers are especially susceptible to nazi propaganda. Maybe games are emotionally, morally, and socially stunting too many young men. Maybe games are the problem. Haha this did get a good chuckle! In seriousness though I’d draw a distinction between people who play games, and ‘gamers’, people who have that ‘this is my identity’ thing, often in lieu of other stuff. The latter crowd are probably susceptible to all sorts of influences, the former really not so much. I mean it’s not just gaming it’s basically anything, you have fans of a property, and you have the fandom, you have people who like metal music, and you have ‘metallers’ etc etc. Anyone who identifies that keenly with things is prime ground for ‘silly SJWs are ruining your hobby/identity’
No I disagree. There have been plenty of productive, socially well-adjusted people who are sports fans for decades and decades before computer games. Games, on the other hand, encourage a withdrawal from society (apathy towards works, towards hobbies that are not virtual, towards meeting new people, etc.) in a way that fandom does not.
|
On November 03 2019 16:24 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2019 10:12 Wombat_NI wrote:On November 03 2019 09:36 IgnE wrote: Maybe we should be asking why gamers are especially susceptible to nazi propaganda. Maybe games are emotionally, morally, and socially stunting too many young men. Maybe games are the problem. Haha this did get a good chuckle! In seriousness though I’d draw a distinction between people who play games, and ‘gamers’, people who have that ‘this is my identity’ thing, often in lieu of other stuff. The latter crowd are probably susceptible to all sorts of influences, the former really not so much. I mean it’s not just gaming it’s basically anything, you have fans of a property, and you have the fandom, you have people who like metal music, and you have ‘metallers’ etc etc. Anyone who identifies that keenly with things is prime ground for ‘silly SJWs are ruining your hobby/identity’ No I disagree. There have been plenty of productive, socially well-adjusted people who are sports fans for decades and decades before computer games. Games, on the other hand, encourage a withdrawal from society (apathy towards works, towards hobbies that are not virtual, towards meeting new people, etc.) in a way that fandom does not.
Could you please elaborate on why you think this is the case? Given that so many games are multiplayer, online, and becoming more popular and normalized, I would think that communities and friendships are likely to form around playing and enjoying games. Furthermore, I don't see why enjoying a virtual game implies that we can't enjoy real life anymore.
|
On November 03 2019 09:36 IgnE wrote: Maybe we should be asking why gamers are especially susceptible to nazi propaganda. Maybe games are emotionally, morally, and socially stunting too many young men. Maybe games are the problem. this line of thinking is worthy of deeper exploration. I look at it more deeply later in this post. Thanks for bringing it up.
On November 03 2019 16:24 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2019 10:12 Wombat_NI wrote:On November 03 2019 09:36 IgnE wrote: Maybe we should be asking why gamers are especially susceptible to nazi propaganda. Maybe games are emotionally, morally, and socially stunting too many young men. Maybe games are the problem. Haha this did get a good chuckle! In seriousness though I’d draw a distinction between people who play games, and ‘gamers’, people who have that ‘this is my identity’ thing, often in lieu of other stuff. The latter crowd are probably susceptible to all sorts of influences, the former really not so much. I mean it’s not just gaming it’s basically anything, you have fans of a property, and you have the fandom, you have people who like metal music, and you have ‘metallers’ etc etc. Anyone who identifies that keenly with things is prime ground for ‘silly SJWs are ruining your hobby/identity’ No I disagree. There have been plenty of productive, socially well-adjusted people who are sports fans for decades and decades before computer games. Games, on the other hand, encourage a withdrawal from society (apathy towards works, towards hobbies that are not virtual, towards meeting new people, etc.) in a way that fandom does not. going deeper. What influences a person to make these pathological life choices? To always be alone with their PC. I'd say its a lack of self esteem. So you have someone with little life experience and low self esteem ... a prime target for any crazy ideology.
There will always be crazy political and philosophical ideologies out there. The best preventative measure against them is a strong mind and strong self esteem. An ounce of prevention... is worth a pound of cure.
My favourite way to play Brood War and SC2 was always to go to a really good internet cafe and play 2v2s. The yelling and screaming and trash talking was the best. The name I was given by the Call of Duty//Planetside guys was "David Goldensteinberg". They were making fun of my jewish background and my love of Jerry Seinfeld, Andy Kaufman, Barry Scheck, and Ayn Rand. The games were great, however, we also socialized in a real world physical environment.
Good Times.
|
In reaction to difficulties to define the alt right, Angela Nagle has some useful preliminary definitions to go by in her book "Kill all normies: Online Culture wars from 4chan and tumblr to Trump and the alt-right", I am sure there are many more definitions out there but it seems pretty concise.
Page 15
the alt-right term was used in its own online circles to include only a new wave of overtly white segregationist and white nationalist movements and subcultures, typified by spokespeople like Richard Spencer, who has called for a US white ethno-state and a pan-national white Empire modeled on some approximation of the Roman Empire. After that she goes into a list of other niche 'movements' like rightist anti-egalitarianism, the 4chan 8chan stuff on /pol/ etc and masculinist and neo masculinist anti-feminist online subcultures, that start feeding into this initial group I mentioned above until she ends up with a definition of how the alt-right came the be understood more recently. Note that both definitions are post Trump. Page 21
What we now call the alt-right is really this collection of lots of separate tendencies that grew semi-independently but which were joined under the banner of a bursting forth of anti-PC cultural politics through the culture wars of recent years.The irreverent trolling style associated with 4chan grew in popularity in response to the expanding identity politics of more feminine spaces like Tumblr. This, itself, spilled over eventually into ‘real life’ in the ramping up of campus politics around safe spaces and trigger warnings,‘gamergate’ and many other battles.
I am having some thought about my initial position in reaction to Danglars post earlier. But yes as can has already been observed from my language in the opening post it's somewhere in between a position that wants (or already assumes) to be critical and an interest in the symbolic aspect of this. I work in the art-world, where people are supposed to be be educated on symbols, images etc. At the moment I see the art world as a place that is marginalized / elitist depending on ones point of view. Either way, the (political) use of imagery within alt-right circles is very interesting, and very little is taken on board from this. Nagle whom I mention above even suggests seeing meme usage as a new avant-garde, supposing that 'avant-garde' is a new and radical way of using visual language. I personally think that the power of memes comes from the fact that they are both produced and consumed at the same time. If you think that from writing or drawing (notation), through printing (reproduction) it adds a new layer of immediate consumption/alteration/redistribution.
|
Oh look another debate between neurotic “No Fun Allowed”-authoritarians and those less hysterically unreasonable
|
On November 04 2019 03:10 crnm95 wrote: Oh look another debate between neurotic “No Fun Allowed”-authoritarians and those less hysterically unreasonable
I think the subject is a bit more nuanced than that though, considering dog-whistling is a very real thing, politically and culturally.
|
Not to conflate alt-right with meme usage btw. Actually an early meme was made by artist David Horvicz in 2009. If you google 241543903 you'll see people sticking their heads in freezers.
|
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. from your link. `the “alt-right” generally rejects Christianity and free market/capitalist policies as universalist and destructive of the West. `
The far-right or alt-right guys that i knew didn't offer a fully functional social system to replace the current one. All they had were polemics. So they reject the free market and capitalism without offering an alternative. This makes the whole thing untenable. At least the Communists offer an alternative system. At least the Communists offer a coherent alternative.
Its impossible to take these alt-right guys seriously when they don't offer a coherent alternative and they just complain about everything being wrong.
|
Yes that's an important point that there's never an alternative or goal offered.
|
The alt-right doesn't reject christianity.
The system of the alt right is fascism. You have a social hierarchy, but instead of it being based on the pretense of a meritocracy like liberalism, it's based on identity traits. By virtue of having an identity that the fascists like, you get to be on top of society, regardless of your individual skills.
It won't be a fully free market cause you have to do national preference and some forms of discrimination but capitalism is compatible with that; you don't really need to change the system, just tweak it a little.
|
Northern Ireland20727 Posts
On November 03 2019 16:24 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2019 10:12 Wombat_NI wrote:On November 03 2019 09:36 IgnE wrote: Maybe we should be asking why gamers are especially susceptible to nazi propaganda. Maybe games are emotionally, morally, and socially stunting too many young men. Maybe games are the problem. Haha this did get a good chuckle! In seriousness though I’d draw a distinction between people who play games, and ‘gamers’, people who have that ‘this is my identity’ thing, often in lieu of other stuff. The latter crowd are probably susceptible to all sorts of influences, the former really not so much. I mean it’s not just gaming it’s basically anything, you have fans of a property, and you have the fandom, you have people who like metal music, and you have ‘metallers’ etc etc. Anyone who identifies that keenly with things is prime ground for ‘silly SJWs are ruining your hobby/identity’ No I disagree. There have been plenty of productive, socially well-adjusted people who are sports fans for decades and decades before computer games. Games, on the other hand, encourage a withdrawal from society (apathy towards works, towards hobbies that are not virtual, towards meeting new people, etc.) in a way that fandom does not. I was more making the point that there’s having a hobby, and there’s having it form part of your identity and how you see yourself, nothing positive or negative about the particular activities themselves.
Any as per your point yes it is a hobby that can be detrimental for the ways you mentioned. On the other hand plenty of people have bad social skills, anxiety and all sorts and can find themselves less isolated than they would otherwise through activities like gaming.
|
On November 03 2019 16:24 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2019 10:12 Wombat_NI wrote:On November 03 2019 09:36 IgnE wrote: Maybe we should be asking why gamers are especially susceptible to nazi propaganda. Maybe games are emotionally, morally, and socially stunting too many young men. Maybe games are the problem. Haha this did get a good chuckle! In seriousness though I’d draw a distinction between people who play games, and ‘gamers’, people who have that ‘this is my identity’ thing, often in lieu of other stuff. The latter crowd are probably susceptible to all sorts of influences, the former really not so much. I mean it’s not just gaming it’s basically anything, you have fans of a property, and you have the fandom, you have people who like metal music, and you have ‘metallers’ etc etc. Anyone who identifies that keenly with things is prime ground for ‘silly SJWs are ruining your hobby/identity’ No I disagree. There have been plenty of productive, socially well-adjusted people who are sports fans for decades and decades before computer games. Games, on the other hand, encourage a withdrawal from society (apathy towards works, towards hobbies that are not virtual, towards meeting new people, etc.) in a way that fandom does not.
You are very right. Games are a "problem" and have quiet an impact on the direction in which society goes. I think games play an important role in the individualization of society in general. It is no longer awkward and boring to sit in your room alone,now you have something to do. You no longer need other people to give your life meaning,the game provides all your emotional needs,your highs and your lows.
|
Rejecting Christianity is absolutely not one of the tenets of the alt-right, and there is plenty of overlap between Christians and alt-righters.
|
Norway28262 Posts
The alt-right's relationship with Christianity is one of the areas where there's significant internal disagreement. I know people I'd define as alt-right who are big Dawkins fans and who are if anything aggressively atheist. But sometimes it feels like it's just a way of making their opposition towards Islam/muslims not be race related, and rather that it's an opposition to all religious influence, and sometimes they focus a lot on the importance of Christianity in shaping western society. There's also some groups that are into the crusades and stuff like that.
|
Canada5565 Posts
On November 03 2019 02:57 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +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 Show nested quote +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. 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.
|
On November 04 2019 03:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 03:10 crnm95 wrote: Oh look another debate between neurotic “No Fun Allowed”-authoritarians and those less hysterically unreasonable I think the subject is a bit more nuanced than that though, considering dog-whistling is a very real thing, politically and culturally. I didnt believe but I just opened up TwitchChat thereby exposing myself to Pepe memes.
YOU WERE RIGHT!!! I AM NOW AN ALT-RIGHT FASCIST!!! PepeHands
User was banned for this post.
|
On November 04 2019 05:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Rejecting Christianity is absolutely not one of the tenets of the alt-right, and there is plenty of overlap between Christians and alt-righters. the Alt-righers i know ... most are atheists and blame christianity for all kinds of stuff. This aligns with Gray's research which I got from another poster's link. This also aligns with others who've done in depth research into the movement. You, otoh, claim rejecting christianity "is absolutely not one of tenets" of this movement.
This is just one example of how ill defined this "alt-right" is. I asked these guys how the monetary system is supposed to work in this amazing new world. They had no coherent answers. I asked about the foundation of the legal system. Again, no coherent answers.
So ya, its hard to take these guys seriously. I suggested they get some expert lawyers, expert economists and expert accountants into their little "movement". To their credit they agreed they need to do that.
I suspect the far righties, far leftiies, communists and alt-righters all draw from the same pool of low self esteem, zero life experience, socially maladjusted, angry young people.
There will always be crazy ideologies floating around. I wouldn't get too excited about this latest wave of stupidity. There is another wave coming next decade just as there was every previous decade.
The best preventative measure against the crazy incoherent ideologies is strong children who are raised by strong families.
|
On November 04 2019 05:32 Xxio wrote:Show nested quote +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. I also agree with the connection between true alt-right proponents and antifa-associates in taking nuanced truths too far in a direction. You can take the Murray point too far right and come out in favor of white ethnic enclaves, white pride marches, anti-trade/globalism. The thinking errs on oversimplicity. Similarly, on the left, you can go too far in the "everything but white males deserve celebration, so shut up you oppressors," and come out in favor of beating up journalists, shutting down marches, and silencing dissent to save society. This isn't really a novel thought of mine, it's been said a million times by others since Trump's election.
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.
|
Northern Ireland20727 Posts
On November 04 2019 05:14 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2019 16:24 IgnE wrote:On November 03 2019 10:12 Wombat_NI wrote:On November 03 2019 09:36 IgnE wrote: Maybe we should be asking why gamers are especially susceptible to nazi propaganda. Maybe games are emotionally, morally, and socially stunting too many young men. Maybe games are the problem. Haha this did get a good chuckle! In seriousness though I’d draw a distinction between people who play games, and ‘gamers’, people who have that ‘this is my identity’ thing, often in lieu of other stuff. The latter crowd are probably susceptible to all sorts of influences, the former really not so much. I mean it’s not just gaming it’s basically anything, you have fans of a property, and you have the fandom, you have people who like metal music, and you have ‘metallers’ etc etc. Anyone who identifies that keenly with things is prime ground for ‘silly SJWs are ruining your hobby/identity’ No I disagree. There have been plenty of productive, socially well-adjusted people who are sports fans for decades and decades before computer games. Games, on the other hand, encourage a withdrawal from society (apathy towards works, towards hobbies that are not virtual, towards meeting new people, etc.) in a way that fandom does not. You are very right. Games are a "problem" and have quiet an impact on the direction in which society goes. I think games play an important role in the individualization of society in general. It is no longer awkward and boring to sit in your room alone,now you have something to do. You no longer need other people to give your life meaning,the game provides all your emotional needs,your highs and your lows. I’d personally view it as a symptom than a cause.
Aside from a decline in community social hubs like churches, there’s been an expansion of the expectations of capitalism too.
24/7 convenience living requires workers to service it, and social lives suffer as a consequence. Plus the rather disposable nature of zero hours contracts, non-fixed hours etc.
I’ve had periods where I had tons of free time but was a complete social recluse. Night shifts do not dovetail well with having any kind of social life, so I played a lot of games as I had fuck all else to do. Now I’m on a schedule similar to my friends I basically only game with my kid when he’s over to visit.
People, especially older people like to complain about the youth being on their phones and a lack of community cohesion, but they’re completely oblivious to their culpability in this state of affairs.
|
On November 04 2019 05:32 Xxio wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On November 04 2019 05:34 crnm95 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 03:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2019 03:10 crnm95 wrote: Oh look another debate between neurotic “No Fun Allowed”-authoritarians and those less hysterically unreasonable I think the subject is a bit more nuanced than that though, considering dog-whistling is a very real thing, politically and culturally. I didnt believe but I just opened up TwitchChat thereby exposing myself to Pepe memes. YOU WERE RIGHT!!! I AM NOW AN ALT-RIGHT FASCIST!!! PepeHands
No of course not. But we now perceive leftwingers to be shrill idiots who complain about nothing, and this is making us less likely to hear them out. They keep us from just enjoying our games and our community, fucking social justice warriors, I just want to beat some protosses ffs. Let's ostracize them, so that we don't have to hear from their nonsense again. And this other dude also, I know he's been a gamer for years but he seemed to agree with the leftist dude, probably should remove him as well, probably undercover. Also this nazi dude, he uses the same symbols as us, he is part of our community. He is humanized. Is he really a nazi? He could be an ironic nazi, isn't that a funny meme, after all who is a nazi? Those ideas are atrocious, universally condemned, no one is a nazi really. Remember how hysterical the left is? I bet they called him a nazi because they're hysterical, I bet they called him a nazi because they think everyone right of Stalin is a nazi. His ideas are probably not as bad as they say, he could be just a tradcath that is being maligned. I suddenly know a lot about the subtle differences between far right political ideologies, I wonder how that came to happen. The left is the real enemy, even if we don't agree on everything we could probably work together. Also he raised a good point about cultures the other day, and since we've chased all the leftists from the community because they were hysterical, nobody answered. If nobody answered I see no reason to assume that he was wrong there. That's interesting.
|
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.
|
On November 04 2019 06:55 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 05:34 crnm95 wrote:On November 04 2019 03:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2019 03:10 crnm95 wrote: Oh look another debate between neurotic “No Fun Allowed”-authoritarians and those less hysterically unreasonable I think the subject is a bit more nuanced than that though, considering dog-whistling is a very real thing, politically and culturally. I didnt believe but I just opened up TwitchChat thereby exposing myself to Pepe memes. YOU WERE RIGHT!!! I AM NOW AN ALT-RIGHT FASCIST!!! PepeHands No of course not. But we now perceive leftwingers to be shrill idiots who complain about nothing, and this is making us less likely to hear them out. They keep us from just enjoying our games and our community, fucking social justice warriors, I just want to beat some protosses ffs. Let's ostracize them, so that we don't have to hear from their nonsense again. And this other dude also, I know he's been a gamer for years but he seemed to agree with the leftist dude, probably should remove him as well, probably undercover. Also this nazi dude, he uses the same symbols as us, he is part of our community. He is humanized. Is he really a nazi? He could be an ironic nazi, isn't that a funny meme, after all who is a nazi? Those ideas are atrocious, universally condemned, no one is a nazi really. Remember how hysterical the left is? I bet they called him a nazi because they're hysterical, I bet they called him a nazi because they think everyone right of Stalin is a nazi. His ideas are probably not as bad as they say, he could be just a tradcath that is being maligned. I suddenly know a lot about the subtle differences between far right political ideologies, I wonder how that came to happen. The left is the real enemy, even if we don't agree on everything we could probably work together. Also he raised a good point about cultures the other day, and since we've chased all the leftists from the community because they were hysterical, nobody answered. If nobody answered I see no reason to assume that he was wrong there. That's interesting. Telling that you seem to think this is a left/right issue and not an authoritarian (such as -you guessed it!- nazis) vs freedom issue.
|
On November 04 2019 07:07 CoupdeBoule wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 06:55 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 05:34 crnm95 wrote:On November 04 2019 03:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2019 03:10 crnm95 wrote: Oh look another debate between neurotic “No Fun Allowed”-authoritarians and those less hysterically unreasonable I think the subject is a bit more nuanced than that though, considering dog-whistling is a very real thing, politically and culturally. I didnt believe but I just opened up TwitchChat thereby exposing myself to Pepe memes. YOU WERE RIGHT!!! I AM NOW AN ALT-RIGHT FASCIST!!! PepeHands No of course not. But we now perceive leftwingers to be shrill idiots who complain about nothing, and this is making us less likely to hear them out. They keep us from just enjoying our games and our community, fucking social justice warriors, I just want to beat some protosses ffs. Let's ostracize them, so that we don't have to hear from their nonsense again. And this other dude also, I know he's been a gamer for years but he seemed to agree with the leftist dude, probably should remove him as well, probably undercover. Also this nazi dude, he uses the same symbols as us, he is part of our community. He is humanized. Is he really a nazi? He could be an ironic nazi, isn't that a funny meme, after all who is a nazi? Those ideas are atrocious, universally condemned, no one is a nazi really. Remember how hysterical the left is? I bet they called him a nazi because they're hysterical, I bet they called him a nazi because they think everyone right of Stalin is a nazi. His ideas are probably not as bad as they say, he could be just a tradcath that is being maligned. I suddenly know a lot about the subtle differences between far right political ideologies, I wonder how that came to happen. The left is the real enemy, even if we don't agree on everything we could probably work together. Also he raised a good point about cultures the other day, and since we've chased all the leftists from the community because they were hysterical, nobody answered. If nobody answered I see no reason to assume that he was wrong there. That's interesting. Telling that you seem to think this is a left/right issue and not an authoritarian (such as -you guessed it!- nazis) vs freedom issue.
Yes of course. Nazism isn't only defined by its authoritarianism, it's also a fascist ideology, and therefore reactionary and rightwing. You will always recruit nazis through social views first, and then tell them that the authoritarianism is necessary to save the nation from all the bad people, progress, and the jews.
|
Canada10904 Posts
On November 04 2019 06:47 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 05:32 Xxio wrote:On November 03 2019 02:57 Danglars wrote:On November 02 2019 23:58 Nebuchad wrote: It's okay Danglars we just have a difference in opinions about Jimmy and I know you respect diversity of thought.
Who is and isn't far right is the least interesting question ever though. Far right parties get 25 to 45% of the vote in all the west and nobody is ever far right when you talk to them. I just need to know you're serious when you called JimmyJRaynor basically far right, or so far right adjacent that the difference doesn't particularly matter Then you're well underestimating the 25-45% of far right parties. Taking JJR as somebody basically far right, I'd say far right parties number in the 60%+ range. This wouldn't be the first time I thought your characterizations are profoundly silly. On November 03 2019 01:43 Xxio wrote:I searched for an objective description of the alt-right and found this article by Oxford Research Group: https://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/blog/the-alt-right-an-introduction-part-i. I'm glad for the dry, academic analysis. Does anyone have good resources for understanding what the alt-right is? They seem kind of like the antifa of the other side of the spectrum, both being militant and amorphous. First things first: many people mean "alt-right" in purely terms of political games. Label your opposition alt-right, act outraged or shocked that normal people support them or that they're allowed a voice on TV and events, and (hopefully) reap more political power. Secondly, more people won't investigate their views or policies because they're this alt-right boogeyman unworthy of much attention. Now this discussion can continue after removing the alt-right-as-political-weapon, because there are some real people in the world holding views that are accurately described as alt-right. From the article, thoughts and where I stand on them: - A key defining trait of the “alt-right” is identitarianism, focused specifically on supporting the interests of “White/European” populations. This is pretty foundational. If you can't see some overt kind of racial or ethnic component, they're almost always not alt-right. Maybe they instead have a far-right view on immigration or protectionist view on trade or far-right view on patriotic unity (say, criminalization of flag-burning)
- The “alt-right” also specifically rejects universalism, be it in the form of classical liberalism, religious universalism (such as Christianity), or modern globalisation and neoliberalism. I'd phrase the religious aspect as more of a lack of religious tolerance. The others are good descriptors.
- [T]he “alt-right” view the decline in Western societies as related to the downplaying of masculinity and the increased dominance of feminine forms of interaction and reasoning. Alt-right people do not celebrate the easing of gender roles. This one is not as powerful as an identification, since many groups may trace social dissatisfaction, like not finding a mate or being unsatisfied in relationships, back to confusion after a decline in gender norms.
- The “alt-right” also rejects what is usually referred to as “cultural Marxism,” which refers to what could be called “New Left” forms of progressivism that maintain a Marxist-style of argumentation but replaces the proletariat with various “marginalized” populations. This heavily overlaps with traditional conservatives and constitutional conservatives in the states, as well as many reactionary non-ideological groups spanning political labels. It's definitely part of the alt-right too.
- [Opposition to] Gramscian elements of these “New Left” movements, where an emphasis on metapolitics and gaining cultural hegemony plays a significant role. You'll hear this group whinge about the cultural dominance of the left in media institutions all the time.
- The “alt-right” often turns more to the far past, be it the “classical” virtues of ancient Rome and (pre-Socratic) Greece, or to the pagan myths of pre-Christian European society. Again, tons of overlap from other groups, but true for the alt-right in particular. Strong sense of classical virtues against more barbaric or decadent vices of others.
- [Belief that] people have a general preference for “like” populations, which is a dynamic originating via evolution.
- [Belief that] All other groups except Whites practice explicit race-consciousness in their activities, and thus it is unjust to require universalism from Whites while permitting (or even promoting) race-consciousness for all others. Very much overlapping many other groups. Here, from liberal-left and gay cultural critic Douglas Murray:
Whereas black studies celebrates black writers and black history, and gay studies brings out gay figures from history and pushes them to the fore, “whiteness studies” is “committed to disrupting racism by problematizing whiteness,” according to Syracuse University professor Barbara Applebaum, who wrote Oxford’s definition. This is to be done “as a corrective.”
Defining an entire group of people, their attitudes, pitfalls and moral associations, based solely on their racial characteristics is itself a fairly good demonstration of racism. For “whiteness” to be “problematized” white people must be shown to be a problem. And not only on some academic, abstract level but in the practical day-to-day business of judging other people. Once again, an overlapping concern with many critics from all political persuasions, right left and center. But alt-right people really hammer on wanting a positive white group identity, and ground it on other racial identities and cultural heritages.
Thanks for writing it out like that. A lot of it looks fine to me. Of course there are people in that grouping who, in my opinion, take it too far - just as there are people who take leftist positions too far. It seems to me that antifa, communists, anarchists and so on on the far left are given the benefit of the doubt, the bad actors are usually ignored, and there is assumption of good will. The opposite lens is cast on the alt-right or any right wing initiative. Maybe it comes down to perceived intent outweighing actual results and behavior. I think the Douglas Murray quote makes a very good point. Overall, I wish people would think much more about culture and much less about race. Antifa is good. You'll find that we hear less about violence from the left not only because the left is less violent, but also because we generally hear less from the left altogether, radical or otherwise. The radicalism from the right is given an undue importance in the discourse, and then it's blamed and criticized, because it's irrational and morally reprehensible. This creates an enemy for liberalism that liberalism is very obviously superior to, and that's part of a strategy. I doubt that the left is less violent- I suspect it's just when the right gets violent, they're more scary. But I've seen those videos with antifa whipping out collapsible batons and striking unarmed people in the streets. Makes for entertaining youtube videos, but doesn't play so well elsewhere.
|
On November 04 2019 06:47 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 05:32 Xxio wrote:On November 03 2019 02:57 Danglars wrote:On November 02 2019 23:58 Nebuchad wrote: It's okay Danglars we just have a difference in opinions about Jimmy and I know you respect diversity of thought.
Who is and isn't far right is the least interesting question ever though. Far right parties get 25 to 45% of the vote in all the west and nobody is ever far right when you talk to them. I just need to know you're serious when you called JimmyJRaynor basically far right, or so far right adjacent that the difference doesn't particularly matter Then you're well underestimating the 25-45% of far right parties. Taking JJR as somebody basically far right, I'd say far right parties number in the 60%+ range. This wouldn't be the first time I thought your characterizations are profoundly silly. On November 03 2019 01:43 Xxio wrote:I searched for an objective description of the alt-right and found this article by Oxford Research Group: https://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/blog/the-alt-right-an-introduction-part-i. I'm glad for the dry, academic analysis. Does anyone have good resources for understanding what the alt-right is? They seem kind of like the antifa of the other side of the spectrum, both being militant and amorphous. First things first: many people mean "alt-right" in purely terms of political games. Label your opposition alt-right, act outraged or shocked that normal people support them or that they're allowed a voice on TV and events, and (hopefully) reap more political power. Secondly, more people won't investigate their views or policies because they're this alt-right boogeyman unworthy of much attention. Now this discussion can continue after removing the alt-right-as-political-weapon, because there are some real people in the world holding views that are accurately described as alt-right. From the article, thoughts and where I stand on them: - A key defining trait of the “alt-right” is identitarianism, focused specifically on supporting the interests of “White/European” populations. This is pretty foundational. If you can't see some overt kind of racial or ethnic component, they're almost always not alt-right. Maybe they instead have a far-right view on immigration or protectionist view on trade or far-right view on patriotic unity (say, criminalization of flag-burning)
- The “alt-right” also specifically rejects universalism, be it in the form of classical liberalism, religious universalism (such as Christianity), or modern globalisation and neoliberalism. I'd phrase the religious aspect as more of a lack of religious tolerance. The others are good descriptors.
- [T]he “alt-right” view the decline in Western societies as related to the downplaying of masculinity and the increased dominance of feminine forms of interaction and reasoning. Alt-right people do not celebrate the easing of gender roles. This one is not as powerful as an identification, since many groups may trace social dissatisfaction, like not finding a mate or being unsatisfied in relationships, back to confusion after a decline in gender norms.
- The “alt-right” also rejects what is usually referred to as “cultural Marxism,” which refers to what could be called “New Left” forms of progressivism that maintain a Marxist-style of argumentation but replaces the proletariat with various “marginalized” populations. This heavily overlaps with traditional conservatives and constitutional conservatives in the states, as well as many reactionary non-ideological groups spanning political labels. It's definitely part of the alt-right too.
- [Opposition to] Gramscian elements of these “New Left” movements, where an emphasis on metapolitics and gaining cultural hegemony plays a significant role. You'll hear this group whinge about the cultural dominance of the left in media institutions all the time.
- The “alt-right” often turns more to the far past, be it the “classical” virtues of ancient Rome and (pre-Socratic) Greece, or to the pagan myths of pre-Christian European society. Again, tons of overlap from other groups, but true for the alt-right in particular. Strong sense of classical virtues against more barbaric or decadent vices of others.
- [Belief that] people have a general preference for “like” populations, which is a dynamic originating via evolution.
- [Belief that] All other groups except Whites practice explicit race-consciousness in their activities, and thus it is unjust to require universalism from Whites while permitting (or even promoting) race-consciousness for all others. Very much overlapping many other groups. Here, from liberal-left and gay cultural critic Douglas Murray:
Whereas black studies celebrates black writers and black history, and gay studies brings out gay figures from history and pushes them to the fore, “whiteness studies” is “committed to disrupting racism by problematizing whiteness,” according to Syracuse University professor Barbara Applebaum, who wrote Oxford’s definition. This is to be done “as a corrective.”
Defining an entire group of people, their attitudes, pitfalls and moral associations, based solely on their racial characteristics is itself a fairly good demonstration of racism. For “whiteness” to be “problematized” white people must be shown to be a problem. And not only on some academic, abstract level but in the practical day-to-day business of judging other people. Once again, an overlapping concern with many critics from all political persuasions, right left and center. But alt-right people really hammer on wanting a positive white group identity, and ground it on other racial identities and cultural heritages.
Thanks for writing it out like that. A lot of it looks fine to me. Of course there are people in that grouping who, in my opinion, take it too far - just as there are people who take leftist positions too far. It seems to me that antifa, communists, anarchists and so on on the far left are given the benefit of the doubt, the bad actors are usually ignored, and there is assumption of good will. The opposite lens is cast on the alt-right or any right wing initiative. Maybe it comes down to perceived intent outweighing actual results and behavior. I think the Douglas Murray quote makes a very good point. Overall, I wish people would think much more about culture and much less about race. Antifa is good. You'll find that we hear less about violence from the left not only because the left is less violent, but also because we generally hear less from the left altogether, radical or otherwise. The radicalism from the right is given an undue importance in the discourse, and then it's blamed and criticized, because it's irrational and morally reprehensible. This creates an enemy for liberalism that liberalism is very obviously superior to, and that's part of a strategy.
Antifa is not good. At least not in the U.S. And my post is going to be about the situation in the U.S. since that's all I know.
I'm not going to make the discussion about violence from right vs left a dick measuring contest. But the left does commit acts of belligerence and violence which, in fact, to me, seems like the violence from the left is a lot more widespread and out in the open especially in the liberal citadels of the U.S. Politicians like Hillary Clinton and Maxine Waters straight up openly incite violence towards Republicans. Meanwhile a lot of the right wing political violence occurs at the hands of lone wolves who are supported by literally zero Republican/right wing politicians, for example.
On November 04 2019 06:55 Nebuchad wrote: I bet they called him a nazi because they're hysterical, I bet they called him a nazi because they think everyone right of Stalin is a nazi.
There is so much truth to this though. It doesn't take much for many leftists to label someone as a "nazi" nowadays. Droves of leftists in the U.S. think Trump and/or most of his supporters are Nazis....lol
I've been called a Nazi myself multiple times for expressing my disdain for Hillary, telling people I prefer Trump over Hillary, etc, during the time around the 2016 election. I am a registered libertarian, didn't vote for either candidate, and my parents are from Afghanistan, but some fanatical leftists in NYC think I'm a Nazi because I don't fall in line with their thinking lmfao
|
On November 04 2019 07:13 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 07:07 CoupdeBoule wrote:On November 04 2019 06:55 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 05:34 crnm95 wrote:On November 04 2019 03:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2019 03:10 crnm95 wrote: Oh look another debate between neurotic “No Fun Allowed”-authoritarians and those less hysterically unreasonable I think the subject is a bit more nuanced than that though, considering dog-whistling is a very real thing, politically and culturally. I didnt believe but I just opened up TwitchChat thereby exposing myself to Pepe memes. YOU WERE RIGHT!!! I AM NOW AN ALT-RIGHT FASCIST!!! PepeHands No of course not. But we now perceive leftwingers to be shrill idiots who complain about nothing, and this is making us less likely to hear them out. They keep us from just enjoying our games and our community, fucking social justice warriors, I just want to beat some protosses ffs. Let's ostracize them, so that we don't have to hear from their nonsense again. And this other dude also, I know he's been a gamer for years but he seemed to agree with the leftist dude, probably should remove him as well, probably undercover. Also this nazi dude, he uses the same symbols as us, he is part of our community. He is humanized. Is he really a nazi? He could be an ironic nazi, isn't that a funny meme, after all who is a nazi? Those ideas are atrocious, universally condemned, no one is a nazi really. Remember how hysterical the left is? I bet they called him a nazi because they're hysterical, I bet they called him a nazi because they think everyone right of Stalin is a nazi. His ideas are probably not as bad as they say, he could be just a tradcath that is being maligned. I suddenly know a lot about the subtle differences between far right political ideologies, I wonder how that came to happen. The left is the real enemy, even if we don't agree on everything we could probably work together. Also he raised a good point about cultures the other day, and since we've chased all the leftists from the community because they were hysterical, nobody answered. If nobody answered I see no reason to assume that he was wrong there. That's interesting. Telling that you seem to think this is a left/right issue and not an authoritarian (such as -you guessed it!- nazis) vs freedom issue. Yes of course. Nazism isn't only defined by its authoritarianism, it's also a fascist ideology, and therefore reactionary and rightwing. You will always recruit nazis through social views first, and then tell them that the authoritarianism is necessary to save the nation from all the bad people, progress, and the jews. You mind walking me through how you define fascism? (Offtopic but im really curious after reading what you wrote)
As for people falling prey to dangerous ideology and extremism, Im more of a believer in “pray for broader shoulders, not lighter burdens” - lets lay out to people why something leads nowhere good instead of going after people being silly just because some alt-right crazies decided to try to claim some of the perfectly innocent symbols.
|
Northern Ireland20727 Posts
On November 04 2019 07:41 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 06:47 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 05:32 Xxio wrote:On November 03 2019 02:57 Danglars wrote:On November 02 2019 23:58 Nebuchad wrote: It's okay Danglars we just have a difference in opinions about Jimmy and I know you respect diversity of thought.
Who is and isn't far right is the least interesting question ever though. Far right parties get 25 to 45% of the vote in all the west and nobody is ever far right when you talk to them. I just need to know you're serious when you called JimmyJRaynor basically far right, or so far right adjacent that the difference doesn't particularly matter Then you're well underestimating the 25-45% of far right parties. Taking JJR as somebody basically far right, I'd say far right parties number in the 60%+ range. This wouldn't be the first time I thought your characterizations are profoundly silly. On November 03 2019 01:43 Xxio wrote:I searched for an objective description of the alt-right and found this article by Oxford Research Group: https://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/blog/the-alt-right-an-introduction-part-i. I'm glad for the dry, academic analysis. Does anyone have good resources for understanding what the alt-right is? They seem kind of like the antifa of the other side of the spectrum, both being militant and amorphous. First things first: many people mean "alt-right" in purely terms of political games. Label your opposition alt-right, act outraged or shocked that normal people support them or that they're allowed a voice on TV and events, and (hopefully) reap more political power. Secondly, more people won't investigate their views or policies because they're this alt-right boogeyman unworthy of much attention. Now this discussion can continue after removing the alt-right-as-political-weapon, because there are some real people in the world holding views that are accurately described as alt-right. From the article, thoughts and where I stand on them: - A key defining trait of the “alt-right” is identitarianism, focused specifically on supporting the interests of “White/European” populations. This is pretty foundational. If you can't see some overt kind of racial or ethnic component, they're almost always not alt-right. Maybe they instead have a far-right view on immigration or protectionist view on trade or far-right view on patriotic unity (say, criminalization of flag-burning)
- The “alt-right” also specifically rejects universalism, be it in the form of classical liberalism, religious universalism (such as Christianity), or modern globalisation and neoliberalism. I'd phrase the religious aspect as more of a lack of religious tolerance. The others are good descriptors.
- [T]he “alt-right” view the decline in Western societies as related to the downplaying of masculinity and the increased dominance of feminine forms of interaction and reasoning. Alt-right people do not celebrate the easing of gender roles. This one is not as powerful as an identification, since many groups may trace social dissatisfaction, like not finding a mate or being unsatisfied in relationships, back to confusion after a decline in gender norms.
- The “alt-right” also rejects what is usually referred to as “cultural Marxism,” which refers to what could be called “New Left” forms of progressivism that maintain a Marxist-style of argumentation but replaces the proletariat with various “marginalized” populations. This heavily overlaps with traditional conservatives and constitutional conservatives in the states, as well as many reactionary non-ideological groups spanning political labels. It's definitely part of the alt-right too.
- [Opposition to] Gramscian elements of these “New Left” movements, where an emphasis on metapolitics and gaining cultural hegemony plays a significant role. You'll hear this group whinge about the cultural dominance of the left in media institutions all the time.
- The “alt-right” often turns more to the far past, be it the “classical” virtues of ancient Rome and (pre-Socratic) Greece, or to the pagan myths of pre-Christian European society. Again, tons of overlap from other groups, but true for the alt-right in particular. Strong sense of classical virtues against more barbaric or decadent vices of others.
- [Belief that] people have a general preference for “like” populations, which is a dynamic originating via evolution.
- [Belief that] All other groups except Whites practice explicit race-consciousness in their activities, and thus it is unjust to require universalism from Whites while permitting (or even promoting) race-consciousness for all others. Very much overlapping many other groups. Here, from liberal-left and gay cultural critic Douglas Murray:
Whereas black studies celebrates black writers and black history, and gay studies brings out gay figures from history and pushes them to the fore, “whiteness studies” is “committed to disrupting racism by problematizing whiteness,” according to Syracuse University professor Barbara Applebaum, who wrote Oxford’s definition. This is to be done “as a corrective.”
Defining an entire group of people, their attitudes, pitfalls and moral associations, based solely on their racial characteristics is itself a fairly good demonstration of racism. For “whiteness” to be “problematized” white people must be shown to be a problem. And not only on some academic, abstract level but in the practical day-to-day business of judging other people. Once again, an overlapping concern with many critics from all political persuasions, right left and center. But alt-right people really hammer on wanting a positive white group identity, and ground it on other racial identities and cultural heritages.
Thanks for writing it out like that. A lot of it looks fine to me. Of course there are people in that grouping who, in my opinion, take it too far - just as there are people who take leftist positions too far. It seems to me that antifa, communists, anarchists and so on on the far left are given the benefit of the doubt, the bad actors are usually ignored, and there is assumption of good will. The opposite lens is cast on the alt-right or any right wing initiative. Maybe it comes down to perceived intent outweighing actual results and behavior. I think the Douglas Murray quote makes a very good point. Overall, I wish people would think much more about culture and much less about race. Antifa is good. You'll find that we hear less about violence from the left not only because the left is less violent, but also because we generally hear less from the left altogether, radical or otherwise. The radicalism from the right is given an undue importance in the discourse, and then it's blamed and criticized, because it's irrational and morally reprehensible. This creates an enemy for liberalism that liberalism is very obviously superior to, and that's part of a strategy. Antifa is not good. At least not in the U.S. And my post is going to be about the situation in the U.S. since that's all I know. I'm not going to make the discussion about violence from right vs left a dick measuring contest. But the left does commit acts of belligerence and violence which, in fact, to me, seems like the violence from the left is a lot more widespread and out in the open especially in the liberal citadels of the U.S. Politicians like Hillary Clinton and Maxine Waters straight up openly incite violence towards Republicans. Meanwhile a lot of the right wing political violence occurs at the hands of lone wolves who are supported by literally zero Republican/right wing politicians, for example. Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 06:55 Nebuchad wrote: I bet they called him a nazi because they're hysterical, I bet they called him a nazi because they think everyone right of Stalin is a nazi. There is so much truth to this though. It doesn't take much for many leftists to label someone as a "nazi" nowadays. Droves of leftists in the U.S. think Trump and/or most of his supporters are Nazis....lol I've been called a Nazi myself multiple times for expressing my disdain for Hillary, telling people I prefer Trump over Hillary, etc, during the time around the 2016 election. I am a registered libertarian, didn't vote for either candidate, and my parents are from Afghanistan, but some fanatical leftists in NYC think I'm a Nazi because I don't fall in line with their thinking lmfao The right have state apparatus to perpetuate violence with, they don’t particularly need civilian agitants like the left does.
But yes people throw around the Nazi term far too loosely for sure, that said a lot of people do hold lowkey racist views and should be challenged on them. Not saying you are one such individual of course! but the left is damned if they do damned if they don’t sometimes.
|
Northern Ireland20727 Posts
On November 04 2019 07:45 CoupdeBoule wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 07:13 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 07:07 CoupdeBoule wrote:On November 04 2019 06:55 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 05:34 crnm95 wrote:On November 04 2019 03:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2019 03:10 crnm95 wrote: Oh look another debate between neurotic “No Fun Allowed”-authoritarians and those less hysterically unreasonable I think the subject is a bit more nuanced than that though, considering dog-whistling is a very real thing, politically and culturally. I didnt believe but I just opened up TwitchChat thereby exposing myself to Pepe memes. YOU WERE RIGHT!!! I AM NOW AN ALT-RIGHT FASCIST!!! PepeHands No of course not. But we now perceive leftwingers to be shrill idiots who complain about nothing, and this is making us less likely to hear them out. They keep us from just enjoying our games and our community, fucking social justice warriors, I just want to beat some protosses ffs. Let's ostracize them, so that we don't have to hear from their nonsense again. And this other dude also, I know he's been a gamer for years but he seemed to agree with the leftist dude, probably should remove him as well, probably undercover. Also this nazi dude, he uses the same symbols as us, he is part of our community. He is humanized. Is he really a nazi? He could be an ironic nazi, isn't that a funny meme, after all who is a nazi? Those ideas are atrocious, universally condemned, no one is a nazi really. Remember how hysterical the left is? I bet they called him a nazi because they're hysterical, I bet they called him a nazi because they think everyone right of Stalin is a nazi. His ideas are probably not as bad as they say, he could be just a tradcath that is being maligned. I suddenly know a lot about the subtle differences between far right political ideologies, I wonder how that came to happen. The left is the real enemy, even if we don't agree on everything we could probably work together. Also he raised a good point about cultures the other day, and since we've chased all the leftists from the community because they were hysterical, nobody answered. If nobody answered I see no reason to assume that he was wrong there. That's interesting. Telling that you seem to think this is a left/right issue and not an authoritarian (such as -you guessed it!- nazis) vs freedom issue. Yes of course. Nazism isn't only defined by its authoritarianism, it's also a fascist ideology, and therefore reactionary and rightwing. You will always recruit nazis through social views first, and then tell them that the authoritarianism is necessary to save the nation from all the bad people, progress, and the jews. You mind walking me through how you define fascism? (Offtopic but im really curious after reading what you wrote) As for people falling prey to dangerous ideology and extremism, Im more of a believer in “pray for broader shoulders, not lighter burdens” - lets lay out to people why something leads nowhere good instead of going after people being silly just because some alt-right crazies decided to try to claim some of the perfectly innocent symbols. They know exactly where it goes, they want to get there, in some form anyway.
It’s extremely hard to fix folks who end up in such a place, it’s easier by far but more complicated to address them early in the ‘disenfranchised from society’ phase.
|
On November 04 2019 07:45 CoupdeBoule wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 07:13 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 07:07 CoupdeBoule wrote:On November 04 2019 06:55 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 05:34 crnm95 wrote:On November 04 2019 03:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2019 03:10 crnm95 wrote: Oh look another debate between neurotic “No Fun Allowed”-authoritarians and those less hysterically unreasonable I think the subject is a bit more nuanced than that though, considering dog-whistling is a very real thing, politically and culturally. I didnt believe but I just opened up TwitchChat thereby exposing myself to Pepe memes. YOU WERE RIGHT!!! I AM NOW AN ALT-RIGHT FASCIST!!! PepeHands No of course not. But we now perceive leftwingers to be shrill idiots who complain about nothing, and this is making us less likely to hear them out. They keep us from just enjoying our games and our community, fucking social justice warriors, I just want to beat some protosses ffs. Let's ostracize them, so that we don't have to hear from their nonsense again. And this other dude also, I know he's been a gamer for years but he seemed to agree with the leftist dude, probably should remove him as well, probably undercover. Also this nazi dude, he uses the same symbols as us, he is part of our community. He is humanized. Is he really a nazi? He could be an ironic nazi, isn't that a funny meme, after all who is a nazi? Those ideas are atrocious, universally condemned, no one is a nazi really. Remember how hysterical the left is? I bet they called him a nazi because they're hysterical, I bet they called him a nazi because they think everyone right of Stalin is a nazi. His ideas are probably not as bad as they say, he could be just a tradcath that is being maligned. I suddenly know a lot about the subtle differences between far right political ideologies, I wonder how that came to happen. The left is the real enemy, even if we don't agree on everything we could probably work together. Also he raised a good point about cultures the other day, and since we've chased all the leftists from the community because they were hysterical, nobody answered. If nobody answered I see no reason to assume that he was wrong there. That's interesting. Telling that you seem to think this is a left/right issue and not an authoritarian (such as -you guessed it!- nazis) vs freedom issue. Yes of course. Nazism isn't only defined by its authoritarianism, it's also a fascist ideology, and therefore reactionary and rightwing. You will always recruit nazis through social views first, and then tell them that the authoritarianism is necessary to save the nation from all the bad people, progress, and the jews. You mind walking me through how you define fascism? (Offtopic but im really curious after reading what you wrote) As for people falling prey to dangerous ideology and extremism, Im more of a believer in “pray for broader shoulders, not lighter burdens” - lets lay out to people why something leads nowhere good instead of going after people being silly just because some alt-right crazies decided to try to claim some of the perfectly innocent symbols.
Think of all political ideologies as they relate to social hierarchies.
Leftwing ideologies think social hierarchies are bad, and should be eliminated or reduced. Rightwing ideologies think social hierarchies are either a necessary evil or a good thing, and that they should be maintained or increased.
The main social hierarchy today is capitalism. From that starting point:
Far right is when you want a radical change in society, so that there is an increased level of importance for social hierarchies compared to liberal capitalism. There is a helpful line that we use to define the limit where you stop being rightwing and start being far right: in liberalism, you are (supposed to be) where you are in society because of the amount of effort you've put into where you are (american dream, meritocracy, all that bullshit). In the far right, there is some element of your identity that becomes relevant to where you are in the social hierarchy. It can be anything; religion in theocracies, race in nazism, it can even be something really vague like tradition or culture in the far right forms of conservatism. Note that even our liberal center right systems generally retain some far right elements because your identity typically has some influence on where you are likely to be in society - this is where privilege comes in, but also more generally you're better off as a citizen than as an immigrant in every liberal country as far as I know, that was the whole point of having those immigration waves in the first place.
The ideal society for the far right is one where there is a rigid social hierarchy, where "you and the people you like", however defined, are on top, and the others are second class citizens, below you. They are to be exploited and discriminated against.
Fascism ostensibly has "the nation" as the people they like, but it also borrows from the traditional social hierarchies in that man > woman, straight > queer, cis > trans, white > black (in the first world). It recognizes that authoritarianism is necessary to create the society that it wants, so it is also authoritarian.
Fascism isn't very distinct from other far right ideologies in how it functions, but it's distinct in its propaganda, and that's due to the propaganda of WW2 mostly. Like all far right ideologies, fascism is intellectually bankrupt and definitionally irrational, in that it posits an ideal society that isn't based on any kind of rational analysis of the world, just on what you feel good about and what you feel bad about. But fascism has embraced this irrationality and uses it to posit a mythical worldview. The modern world is plagued by degeneracy, there was a specific time in the somewhat distant past where the world was good and moral and it is crucial that we come back to that point no matter the means. It's kind of an epic tale, with grandiose fights and crusades that other far right ideologies don't necessarily have. Which makes it both more attractive to people with far right inclinations, and arguably more dangerous, as the mythology creates a concrete goal and a sense of urgency that you don't find in, for example, traditional religious conservatism.
|
On November 04 2019 07:41 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 06:47 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 05:32 Xxio wrote:On November 03 2019 02:57 Danglars wrote:On November 02 2019 23:58 Nebuchad wrote: It's okay Danglars we just have a difference in opinions about Jimmy and I know you respect diversity of thought.
Who is and isn't far right is the least interesting question ever though. Far right parties get 25 to 45% of the vote in all the west and nobody is ever far right when you talk to them. I just need to know you're serious when you called JimmyJRaynor basically far right, or so far right adjacent that the difference doesn't particularly matter Then you're well underestimating the 25-45% of far right parties. Taking JJR as somebody basically far right, I'd say far right parties number in the 60%+ range. This wouldn't be the first time I thought your characterizations are profoundly silly. On November 03 2019 01:43 Xxio wrote:I searched for an objective description of the alt-right and found this article by Oxford Research Group: https://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/blog/the-alt-right-an-introduction-part-i. I'm glad for the dry, academic analysis. Does anyone have good resources for understanding what the alt-right is? They seem kind of like the antifa of the other side of the spectrum, both being militant and amorphous. First things first: many people mean "alt-right" in purely terms of political games. Label your opposition alt-right, act outraged or shocked that normal people support them or that they're allowed a voice on TV and events, and (hopefully) reap more political power. Secondly, more people won't investigate their views or policies because they're this alt-right boogeyman unworthy of much attention. Now this discussion can continue after removing the alt-right-as-political-weapon, because there are some real people in the world holding views that are accurately described as alt-right. From the article, thoughts and where I stand on them: - A key defining trait of the “alt-right” is identitarianism, focused specifically on supporting the interests of “White/European” populations. This is pretty foundational. If you can't see some overt kind of racial or ethnic component, they're almost always not alt-right. Maybe they instead have a far-right view on immigration or protectionist view on trade or far-right view on patriotic unity (say, criminalization of flag-burning)
- The “alt-right” also specifically rejects universalism, be it in the form of classical liberalism, religious universalism (such as Christianity), or modern globalisation and neoliberalism. I'd phrase the religious aspect as more of a lack of religious tolerance. The others are good descriptors.
- [T]he “alt-right” view the decline in Western societies as related to the downplaying of masculinity and the increased dominance of feminine forms of interaction and reasoning. Alt-right people do not celebrate the easing of gender roles. This one is not as powerful as an identification, since many groups may trace social dissatisfaction, like not finding a mate or being unsatisfied in relationships, back to confusion after a decline in gender norms.
- The “alt-right” also rejects what is usually referred to as “cultural Marxism,” which refers to what could be called “New Left” forms of progressivism that maintain a Marxist-style of argumentation but replaces the proletariat with various “marginalized” populations. This heavily overlaps with traditional conservatives and constitutional conservatives in the states, as well as many reactionary non-ideological groups spanning political labels. It's definitely part of the alt-right too.
- [Opposition to] Gramscian elements of these “New Left” movements, where an emphasis on metapolitics and gaining cultural hegemony plays a significant role. You'll hear this group whinge about the cultural dominance of the left in media institutions all the time.
- The “alt-right” often turns more to the far past, be it the “classical” virtues of ancient Rome and (pre-Socratic) Greece, or to the pagan myths of pre-Christian European society. Again, tons of overlap from other groups, but true for the alt-right in particular. Strong sense of classical virtues against more barbaric or decadent vices of others.
- [Belief that] people have a general preference for “like” populations, which is a dynamic originating via evolution.
- [Belief that] All other groups except Whites practice explicit race-consciousness in their activities, and thus it is unjust to require universalism from Whites while permitting (or even promoting) race-consciousness for all others. Very much overlapping many other groups. Here, from liberal-left and gay cultural critic Douglas Murray:
Whereas black studies celebrates black writers and black history, and gay studies brings out gay figures from history and pushes them to the fore, “whiteness studies” is “committed to disrupting racism by problematizing whiteness,” according to Syracuse University professor Barbara Applebaum, who wrote Oxford’s definition. This is to be done “as a corrective.”
Defining an entire group of people, their attitudes, pitfalls and moral associations, based solely on their racial characteristics is itself a fairly good demonstration of racism. For “whiteness” to be “problematized” white people must be shown to be a problem. And not only on some academic, abstract level but in the practical day-to-day business of judging other people. Once again, an overlapping concern with many critics from all political persuasions, right left and center. But alt-right people really hammer on wanting a positive white group identity, and ground it on other racial identities and cultural heritages.
Thanks for writing it out like that. A lot of it looks fine to me. Of course there are people in that grouping who, in my opinion, take it too far - just as there are people who take leftist positions too far. It seems to me that antifa, communists, anarchists and so on on the far left are given the benefit of the doubt, the bad actors are usually ignored, and there is assumption of good will. The opposite lens is cast on the alt-right or any right wing initiative. Maybe it comes down to perceived intent outweighing actual results and behavior. I think the Douglas Murray quote makes a very good point. Overall, I wish people would think much more about culture and much less about race. Antifa is good. You'll find that we hear less about violence from the left not only because the left is less violent, but also because we generally hear less from the left altogether, radical or otherwise. The radicalism from the right is given an undue importance in the discourse, and then it's blamed and criticized, because it's irrational and morally reprehensible. This creates an enemy for liberalism that liberalism is very obviously superior to, and that's part of a strategy. Antifa is not good. At least not in the U.S. And my post is going to be about the situation in the U.S. since that's all I know. I'm not going to make the discussion about violence from right vs left a dick measuring contest. But the left does commit acts of belligerence and violence which, in fact, to me, seems like the violence from the left is a lot more widespread and out in the open especially in the liberal citadels of the U.S. Politicians like Hillary Clinton and Maxine Waters straight up openly incite violence towards Republicans. Meanwhile a lot of the right wing political violence occurs at the hands of lone wolves who are supported by literally zero Republican/right wing politicians, for example. Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 06:55 Nebuchad wrote: I bet they called him a nazi because they're hysterical, I bet they called him a nazi because they think everyone right of Stalin is a nazi. There is so much truth to this though. It doesn't take much for many leftists to label someone as a "nazi" nowadays. Droves of leftists in the U.S. think Trump and/or most of his supporters are Nazis....lol I've been called a Nazi myself multiple times for expressing my disdain for Hillary, telling people I prefer Trump over Hillary, etc, during the time around the 2016 election. I am a registered libertarian, didn't vote for either candidate, and my parents are from Afghanistan, but some fanatical leftists in NYC think I'm a Nazi because I don't fall in line with their thinking lmfao
Every ideology commits violence, all the time. Some people just like to pretend that the violence associated to their ideology isn't really violence, it's something else, or that it's not really associated to their ideology, there is some nuance that allows them to escape. I wasn't trying to say that the left was inherently less violent than the right, just that now, in this very moment, it is the right that is more violent. Understandably so, as the right occupies a larger presence than the left on the political scales of the world right now.
You mention that Hillary Clinton and Maxine Waters, major political figures (of liberalism not of the left, but hey whatever), incite violence against the right, while on the right it's just on the fringes. And yet we can observe in the real US of A that there is a lot more rightwing violence and rightwing terrorism than there is from the left. Considering the setup that you have offered, this seems like a major contradiction. Any insight on how to fix it?
Libertarian socialism is the only intellectually coherent form of libertarianism, and Trump is... well I don't know if he's smart enough to have an ideology but he definitely has at least a handful of prominent fascists in his administration, Stephen Miller and the like, so yeah, I'll shrug at that. Thanks for illustrating the power of the mechanism that I described though.
|
On November 04 2019 09:22 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 07:41 BerserkSword wrote:On November 04 2019 06:47 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 05:32 Xxio wrote:On November 03 2019 02:57 Danglars wrote:On November 02 2019 23:58 Nebuchad wrote: It's okay Danglars we just have a difference in opinions about Jimmy and I know you respect diversity of thought.
Who is and isn't far right is the least interesting question ever though. Far right parties get 25 to 45% of the vote in all the west and nobody is ever far right when you talk to them. I just need to know you're serious when you called JimmyJRaynor basically far right, or so far right adjacent that the difference doesn't particularly matter Then you're well underestimating the 25-45% of far right parties. Taking JJR as somebody basically far right, I'd say far right parties number in the 60%+ range. This wouldn't be the first time I thought your characterizations are profoundly silly. On November 03 2019 01:43 Xxio wrote:I searched for an objective description of the alt-right and found this article by Oxford Research Group: https://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/blog/the-alt-right-an-introduction-part-i. I'm glad for the dry, academic analysis. Does anyone have good resources for understanding what the alt-right is? They seem kind of like the antifa of the other side of the spectrum, both being militant and amorphous. First things first: many people mean "alt-right" in purely terms of political games. Label your opposition alt-right, act outraged or shocked that normal people support them or that they're allowed a voice on TV and events, and (hopefully) reap more political power. Secondly, more people won't investigate their views or policies because they're this alt-right boogeyman unworthy of much attention. Now this discussion can continue after removing the alt-right-as-political-weapon, because there are some real people in the world holding views that are accurately described as alt-right. From the article, thoughts and where I stand on them: - A key defining trait of the “alt-right” is identitarianism, focused specifically on supporting the interests of “White/European” populations. This is pretty foundational. If you can't see some overt kind of racial or ethnic component, they're almost always not alt-right. Maybe they instead have a far-right view on immigration or protectionist view on trade or far-right view on patriotic unity (say, criminalization of flag-burning)
- The “alt-right” also specifically rejects universalism, be it in the form of classical liberalism, religious universalism (such as Christianity), or modern globalisation and neoliberalism. I'd phrase the religious aspect as more of a lack of religious tolerance. The others are good descriptors.
- [T]he “alt-right” view the decline in Western societies as related to the downplaying of masculinity and the increased dominance of feminine forms of interaction and reasoning. Alt-right people do not celebrate the easing of gender roles. This one is not as powerful as an identification, since many groups may trace social dissatisfaction, like not finding a mate or being unsatisfied in relationships, back to confusion after a decline in gender norms.
- The “alt-right” also rejects what is usually referred to as “cultural Marxism,” which refers to what could be called “New Left” forms of progressivism that maintain a Marxist-style of argumentation but replaces the proletariat with various “marginalized” populations. This heavily overlaps with traditional conservatives and constitutional conservatives in the states, as well as many reactionary non-ideological groups spanning political labels. It's definitely part of the alt-right too.
- [Opposition to] Gramscian elements of these “New Left” movements, where an emphasis on metapolitics and gaining cultural hegemony plays a significant role. You'll hear this group whinge about the cultural dominance of the left in media institutions all the time.
- The “alt-right” often turns more to the far past, be it the “classical” virtues of ancient Rome and (pre-Socratic) Greece, or to the pagan myths of pre-Christian European society. Again, tons of overlap from other groups, but true for the alt-right in particular. Strong sense of classical virtues against more barbaric or decadent vices of others.
- [Belief that] people have a general preference for “like” populations, which is a dynamic originating via evolution.
- [Belief that] All other groups except Whites practice explicit race-consciousness in their activities, and thus it is unjust to require universalism from Whites while permitting (or even promoting) race-consciousness for all others. Very much overlapping many other groups. Here, from liberal-left and gay cultural critic Douglas Murray:
Whereas black studies celebrates black writers and black history, and gay studies brings out gay figures from history and pushes them to the fore, “whiteness studies” is “committed to disrupting racism by problematizing whiteness,” according to Syracuse University professor Barbara Applebaum, who wrote Oxford’s definition. This is to be done “as a corrective.”
Defining an entire group of people, their attitudes, pitfalls and moral associations, based solely on their racial characteristics is itself a fairly good demonstration of racism. For “whiteness” to be “problematized” white people must be shown to be a problem. And not only on some academic, abstract level but in the practical day-to-day business of judging other people. Once again, an overlapping concern with many critics from all political persuasions, right left and center. But alt-right people really hammer on wanting a positive white group identity, and ground it on other racial identities and cultural heritages.
Thanks for writing it out like that. A lot of it looks fine to me. Of course there are people in that grouping who, in my opinion, take it too far - just as there are people who take leftist positions too far. It seems to me that antifa, communists, anarchists and so on on the far left are given the benefit of the doubt, the bad actors are usually ignored, and there is assumption of good will. The opposite lens is cast on the alt-right or any right wing initiative. Maybe it comes down to perceived intent outweighing actual results and behavior. I think the Douglas Murray quote makes a very good point. Overall, I wish people would think much more about culture and much less about race. Antifa is good. You'll find that we hear less about violence from the left not only because the left is less violent, but also because we generally hear less from the left altogether, radical or otherwise. The radicalism from the right is given an undue importance in the discourse, and then it's blamed and criticized, because it's irrational and morally reprehensible. This creates an enemy for liberalism that liberalism is very obviously superior to, and that's part of a strategy. Antifa is not good. At least not in the U.S. And my post is going to be about the situation in the U.S. since that's all I know. I'm not going to make the discussion about violence from right vs left a dick measuring contest. But the left does commit acts of belligerence and violence which, in fact, to me, seems like the violence from the left is a lot more widespread and out in the open especially in the liberal citadels of the U.S. Politicians like Hillary Clinton and Maxine Waters straight up openly incite violence towards Republicans. Meanwhile a lot of the right wing political violence occurs at the hands of lone wolves who are supported by literally zero Republican/right wing politicians, for example. On November 04 2019 06:55 Nebuchad wrote: I bet they called him a nazi because they're hysterical, I bet they called him a nazi because they think everyone right of Stalin is a nazi. There is so much truth to this though. It doesn't take much for many leftists to label someone as a "nazi" nowadays. Droves of leftists in the U.S. think Trump and/or most of his supporters are Nazis....lol I've been called a Nazi myself multiple times for expressing my disdain for Hillary, telling people I prefer Trump over Hillary, etc, during the time around the 2016 election. I am a registered libertarian, didn't vote for either candidate, and my parents are from Afghanistan, but some fanatical leftists in NYC think I'm a Nazi because I don't fall in line with their thinking lmfao Every ideology commits violence, all the time. Some people just like to pretend that the violence associated to their ideology isn't really violence, it's something else, or that it's not really associated to their ideology, there is some nuance that allows them to escape. I wasn't trying to say that the left was inherently less violent than the right, just that now, in this very moment, it is the right that is more violent. Understandably so, as the right occupies a larger presence than the left on the political scales of the world right now. You mention that Hillary Clinton and Maxine Waters, major political figures (of liberalism not of the left, but hey whatever), incite violence against the right, while on the right it's just on the fringes. And yet we can observe in the real US of A that there is a lot more rightwing violence and rightwing terrorism than there is from the left. Considering the setup that you have offered, this seems like a major contradiction. Any insight on how to fix it? Libertarian socialism is the only intellectually coherent form of libertarianism, and Trump is... well I don't know if he's smart enough to have an ideology but he definitely has at least a handful of prominent fascists in his administration, Stephen Miller and the like, so yeah, I'll shrug at that. Thanks for illustrating the power of the mechanism that I described though. meh, if you want a clear picture of how a libertarian functions in the world check out 2 books by Nathaniel Branden.
1. Taking Responsibility : Self Reliance and the Accountable Life. 2. The Six Pillars of Self Esteem.
You'll notice nothing in there about violence.
I'm guessing you know about as much about libertarianism as you do Bob Rae.
On November 04 2019 09:03 Nebuchad wrote: there was a specific time in the somewhat distant past where the world was good and moral and it is crucial that we come back to that point no matter the means. It's kind of an epic tale, with grandiose fights and crusades that other far right ideologies don't necessarily have. Which makes it both more attractive to people with far right inclinations, and arguably more dangerous, as the mythology creates a concrete goal and a sense of urgency that you don't find in, for example, traditional religious conservatism.
when in the "somewhat distant past" was the world "good and moral" ? you're speaking about the entire planet? so China, Madagascar, Canada, and Argentina were all simultaneously.. ."good and moral" ?
|
I have asked ten different libertarians so far why they aren't a libertarian socialist and none of them provided a satisfactory answer, feel free to be the eleventh.
On November 04 2019 09:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote: when in the "somewhat distant past" was the world "good and moral" ? you're speaking about the entire planet? so China, Madagascar, Canada, and Argentina were all simultaneously.. ."good and moral" ?
Probably varies depending on people but I'd have to guess feudalism or something. When we didn't have individualism, human rights and all that crap, and people stuck together with their communities.
|
Northern Ireland20727 Posts
On November 04 2019 09:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 09:22 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 07:41 BerserkSword wrote:On November 04 2019 06:47 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 05:32 Xxio wrote:On November 03 2019 02:57 Danglars wrote:On November 02 2019 23:58 Nebuchad wrote: It's okay Danglars we just have a difference in opinions about Jimmy and I know you respect diversity of thought.
Who is and isn't far right is the least interesting question ever though. Far right parties get 25 to 45% of the vote in all the west and nobody is ever far right when you talk to them. I just need to know you're serious when you called JimmyJRaynor basically far right, or so far right adjacent that the difference doesn't particularly matter Then you're well underestimating the 25-45% of far right parties. Taking JJR as somebody basically far right, I'd say far right parties number in the 60%+ range. This wouldn't be the first time I thought your characterizations are profoundly silly. On November 03 2019 01:43 Xxio wrote:I searched for an objective description of the alt-right and found this article by Oxford Research Group: https://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/blog/the-alt-right-an-introduction-part-i. I'm glad for the dry, academic analysis. Does anyone have good resources for understanding what the alt-right is? They seem kind of like the antifa of the other side of the spectrum, both being militant and amorphous. First things first: many people mean "alt-right" in purely terms of political games. Label your opposition alt-right, act outraged or shocked that normal people support them or that they're allowed a voice on TV and events, and (hopefully) reap more political power. Secondly, more people won't investigate their views or policies because they're this alt-right boogeyman unworthy of much attention. Now this discussion can continue after removing the alt-right-as-political-weapon, because there are some real people in the world holding views that are accurately described as alt-right. From the article, thoughts and where I stand on them: - A key defining trait of the “alt-right” is identitarianism, focused specifically on supporting the interests of “White/European” populations. This is pretty foundational. If you can't see some overt kind of racial or ethnic component, they're almost always not alt-right. Maybe they instead have a far-right view on immigration or protectionist view on trade or far-right view on patriotic unity (say, criminalization of flag-burning)
- The “alt-right” also specifically rejects universalism, be it in the form of classical liberalism, religious universalism (such as Christianity), or modern globalisation and neoliberalism. I'd phrase the religious aspect as more of a lack of religious tolerance. The others are good descriptors.
- [T]he “alt-right” view the decline in Western societies as related to the downplaying of masculinity and the increased dominance of feminine forms of interaction and reasoning. Alt-right people do not celebrate the easing of gender roles. This one is not as powerful as an identification, since many groups may trace social dissatisfaction, like not finding a mate or being unsatisfied in relationships, back to confusion after a decline in gender norms.
- The “alt-right” also rejects what is usually referred to as “cultural Marxism,” which refers to what could be called “New Left” forms of progressivism that maintain a Marxist-style of argumentation but replaces the proletariat with various “marginalized” populations. This heavily overlaps with traditional conservatives and constitutional conservatives in the states, as well as many reactionary non-ideological groups spanning political labels. It's definitely part of the alt-right too.
- [Opposition to] Gramscian elements of these “New Left” movements, where an emphasis on metapolitics and gaining cultural hegemony plays a significant role. You'll hear this group whinge about the cultural dominance of the left in media institutions all the time.
- The “alt-right” often turns more to the far past, be it the “classical” virtues of ancient Rome and (pre-Socratic) Greece, or to the pagan myths of pre-Christian European society. Again, tons of overlap from other groups, but true for the alt-right in particular. Strong sense of classical virtues against more barbaric or decadent vices of others.
- [Belief that] people have a general preference for “like” populations, which is a dynamic originating via evolution.
- [Belief that] All other groups except Whites practice explicit race-consciousness in their activities, and thus it is unjust to require universalism from Whites while permitting (or even promoting) race-consciousness for all others. Very much overlapping many other groups. Here, from liberal-left and gay cultural critic Douglas Murray:
Whereas black studies celebrates black writers and black history, and gay studies brings out gay figures from history and pushes them to the fore, “whiteness studies” is “committed to disrupting racism by problematizing whiteness,” according to Syracuse University professor Barbara Applebaum, who wrote Oxford’s definition. This is to be done “as a corrective.”
Defining an entire group of people, their attitudes, pitfalls and moral associations, based solely on their racial characteristics is itself a fairly good demonstration of racism. For “whiteness” to be “problematized” white people must be shown to be a problem. And not only on some academic, abstract level but in the practical day-to-day business of judging other people. Once again, an overlapping concern with many critics from all political persuasions, right left and center. But alt-right people really hammer on wanting a positive white group identity, and ground it on other racial identities and cultural heritages.
Thanks for writing it out like that. A lot of it looks fine to me. Of course there are people in that grouping who, in my opinion, take it too far - just as there are people who take leftist positions too far. It seems to me that antifa, communists, anarchists and so on on the far left are given the benefit of the doubt, the bad actors are usually ignored, and there is assumption of good will. The opposite lens is cast on the alt-right or any right wing initiative. Maybe it comes down to perceived intent outweighing actual results and behavior. I think the Douglas Murray quote makes a very good point. Overall, I wish people would think much more about culture and much less about race. Antifa is good. You'll find that we hear less about violence from the left not only because the left is less violent, but also because we generally hear less from the left altogether, radical or otherwise. The radicalism from the right is given an undue importance in the discourse, and then it's blamed and criticized, because it's irrational and morally reprehensible. This creates an enemy for liberalism that liberalism is very obviously superior to, and that's part of a strategy. Antifa is not good. At least not in the U.S. And my post is going to be about the situation in the U.S. since that's all I know. I'm not going to make the discussion about violence from right vs left a dick measuring contest. But the left does commit acts of belligerence and violence which, in fact, to me, seems like the violence from the left is a lot more widespread and out in the open especially in the liberal citadels of the U.S. Politicians like Hillary Clinton and Maxine Waters straight up openly incite violence towards Republicans. Meanwhile a lot of the right wing political violence occurs at the hands of lone wolves who are supported by literally zero Republican/right wing politicians, for example. On November 04 2019 06:55 Nebuchad wrote: I bet they called him a nazi because they're hysterical, I bet they called him a nazi because they think everyone right of Stalin is a nazi. There is so much truth to this though. It doesn't take much for many leftists to label someone as a "nazi" nowadays. Droves of leftists in the U.S. think Trump and/or most of his supporters are Nazis....lol I've been called a Nazi myself multiple times for expressing my disdain for Hillary, telling people I prefer Trump over Hillary, etc, during the time around the 2016 election. I am a registered libertarian, didn't vote for either candidate, and my parents are from Afghanistan, but some fanatical leftists in NYC think I'm a Nazi because I don't fall in line with their thinking lmfao Every ideology commits violence, all the time. Some people just like to pretend that the violence associated to their ideology isn't really violence, it's something else, or that it's not really associated to their ideology, there is some nuance that allows them to escape. I wasn't trying to say that the left was inherently less violent than the right, just that now, in this very moment, it is the right that is more violent. Understandably so, as the right occupies a larger presence than the left on the political scales of the world right now. You mention that Hillary Clinton and Maxine Waters, major political figures (of liberalism not of the left, but hey whatever), incite violence against the right, while on the right it's just on the fringes. And yet we can observe in the real US of A that there is a lot more rightwing violence and rightwing terrorism than there is from the left. Considering the setup that you have offered, this seems like a major contradiction. Any insight on how to fix it? Libertarian socialism is the only intellectually coherent form of libertarianism, and Trump is... well I don't know if he's smart enough to have an ideology but he definitely has at least a handful of prominent fascists in his administration, Stephen Miller and the like, so yeah, I'll shrug at that. Thanks for illustrating the power of the mechanism that I described though. meh, if you want a clear picture of how a libertarian functions in the world check out 2 books by Nathaniel Branden. 1. Taking Responsibility : Self Reliance and the Accountable Life. 2. The Six Pillars of Self Esteem. You'll notice nothing in there about violence. I'm guessing you know about as much about libertarianism as you do Bob Rae. Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 09:03 Nebuchad wrote: there was a specific time in the somewhat distant past where the world was good and moral and it is crucial that we come back to that point no matter the means. It's kind of an epic tale, with grandiose fights and crusades that other far right ideologies don't necessarily have. Which makes it both more attractive to people with far right inclinations, and arguably more dangerous, as the mythology creates a concrete goal and a sense of urgency that you don't find in, for example, traditional religious conservatism. when in the "somewhat distant past" was the world "good and moral" ? you're speaking about the entire planet? so China, Madagascar, Canada, and Argentina were all simultaneously.. ."good and moral" ? I’m not particular innately ideologically opposed to libertarianism, but I’ve heard it said that the only real adherents to the idea are the people with the luxury to be libertarian in the first place.
The other cohort are just life’s failures who think they’d do well in a total free market free for all and it’s ‘SJWs’ and affirmative action that’s holding them back.
|
On November 04 2019 10:02 Wombat_NI wrote: I’m not particular innately ideologically opposed to libertarianism, but I’ve heard it said that the only real adherents to the idea are the people with the luxury to be libertarian in the first place.
My gf is libertarian. She had 5 step fathers. It included 1 who walked around the house threatening to kill the children while loading and unloading a shot gun talking about the various soldiers he killed in Vietnam. I won't get into what 2 of the other step fathers did. She had a brutal childhood.
She left home at 16 and paid for her own university education. She obtained an MBA from UVA five years ago.
I would not say she had the 'luxury' to be libertarian... I'd say it was a survival strategy.
On November 04 2019 09:51 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 09:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote: when in the "somewhat distant past" was the world "good and moral" ? you're speaking about the entire planet? so China, Madagascar, Canada, and Argentina were all simultaneously.. ."good and moral" ? Probably varies depending on people but I'd have to guess feudalism or something. When we didn't have individualism, human rights and all that crap, and people stuck together with their communities. So you aren't providing a specific time period. ok got it.
On November 04 2019 09:51 Nebuchad wrote:I have asked ten different libertarians so far why they aren't a libertarian socialist and none of them provided a satisfactory answer, feel free to be the eleventh. LOL, you never asked me. anyhow, i'm not a anarchist. physical force and its threats should be banned from human relations and its up to the state to enforce this to the best of its ability.
|
On November 04 2019 10:09 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 10:02 Wombat_NI wrote: I’m not particular innately ideologically opposed to libertarianism, but I’ve heard it said that the only real adherents to the idea are the people with the luxury to be libertarian in the first place.
My gf is libertarian. She had 5 step fathers. It included 1 who walked around the house threatening to kill the children while loading and unloading a shot gun talking about the various soldiers he killed in Vietnam. I won't get into what 2 of the other step fathers did. She had a brutal childhood. She left home at 16 and paid for her own university education. She obtained an MBA from UVA five years ago. I would not say she had the 'luxury' to be libertarian... I'd say it was a survival strategy. Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 09:51 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 09:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote: when in the "somewhat distant past" was the world "good and moral" ? you're speaking about the entire planet? so China, Madagascar, Canada, and Argentina were all simultaneously.. ."good and moral" ? Probably varies depending on people but I'd have to guess feudalism or something. When we didn't have individualism, human rights and all that crap, and people stuck together with their communities. So you aren't providing a specific time period. ok got it.
It functions as a myth, not as a historical period.
|
Northern Ireland20727 Posts
On November 04 2019 10:09 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 10:02 Wombat_NI wrote: I’m not particular innately ideologically opposed to libertarianism, but I’ve heard it said that the only real adherents to the idea are the people with the luxury to be libertarian in the first place.
My gf is libertarian. She had 5 step fathers. It included 1 who walked around the house threatening to kill the children while loading and unloading a shot gun talking about the various soldiers he killed in Vietnam. I won't get into what 2 of the other step fathers did. She had a brutal childhood. She left home at 16 and paid for her own university education. She obtained an MBA from UVA five years ago. I would not say she had the 'luxury' to be libertarian... I'd say it was a survival strategy. Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 09:51 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 09:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote: when in the "somewhat distant past" was the world "good and moral" ? you're speaking about the entire planet? so China, Madagascar, Canada, and Argentina were all simultaneously.. ."good and moral" ? Probably varies depending on people but I'd have to guess feudalism or something. When we didn't have individualism, human rights and all that crap, and people stuck together with their communities. So you aren't providing a specific time period. ok got it. While fair play to your girlfriend for negotiating a tough start to life, she could have basically any political worldview and negotiate something like that.
While not theoretically, in practice it tends to be a fundamentally selfish ideology for fundamentally selfish people who refuse to countenance that their own achievements were made possible by wider society.
Not in all cases of course I’ve met plenty of decent ones in my time, but most libertarians I’ve ever encountered are selfish wankers from privileged backgrounds who are doing well for themselves.
|
On November 04 2019 10:18 Wombat_NI wrote: While fair play to your girlfriend for negotiating a tough start to life, she could have basically any political worldview and negotiate something like that.
I disagree. She could easily wander around blaming her mom for everything bad in her life. Instead, she chose to take responsibility for her situation and get herself out of it. Then she chose to painstakingly build a life for herself. Taking responsibility for your self and your life in a fundamental tenant of libertarianism. The socialist view of her plight is "the government needs to step in and make this poor helpless child's life better".
On November 04 2019 10:18 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 10:09 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 04 2019 10:02 Wombat_NI wrote: I’m not particular innately ideologically opposed to libertarianism, but I’ve heard it said that the only real adherents to the idea are the people with the luxury to be libertarian in the first place.
My gf is libertarian. She had 5 step fathers. It included 1 who walked around the house threatening to kill the children while loading and unloading a shot gun talking about the various soldiers he killed in Vietnam. I won't get into what 2 of the other step fathers did. She had a brutal childhood. She left home at 16 and paid for her own university education. She obtained an MBA from UVA five years ago. I would not say she had the 'luxury' to be libertarian... I'd say it was a survival strategy. On November 04 2019 09:51 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 09:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote: when in the "somewhat distant past" was the world "good and moral" ? you're speaking about the entire planet? so China, Madagascar, Canada, and Argentina were all simultaneously.. ."good and moral" ? Probably varies depending on people but I'd have to guess feudalism or something. When we didn't have individualism, human rights and all that crap, and people stuck together with their communities. So you aren't providing a specific time period. ok got it. While fair play to your girlfriend for negotiating a tough start to life, she could have basically any political worldview and negotiate something like that. While not theoretically, in practice it tends to be a fundamentally selfish ideology for fundamentally selfish people who refuse to countenance that their own achievements were made possible by wider society. Not in all cases of course I’ve met plenty of decent ones in my time, but most libertarians I’ve ever encountered are selfish wankers from privileged backgrounds who are doing well for themselves. Yes, you make a good point. Many libertarians who advertise they are libertarians are self absorbed, self righteous jerks. They've got lots of quick smart ass answers for everything. My gf doesn't advertise it. She lives it.
Check out Nathaniel Branden's books. This is how a libertarian functions in the real world. An important aspect of strengthening one's own self esteem is nurturing the self esteem of others. Any one who ignores this fact of human life is stunting their path towards self actualization
|
On November 04 2019 10:23 JimmyJRaynor wrote: I disagree. She could easily wander around blaming her mom for everything bad in her life. Instead, she chose to take responsibility for her situation and get herself out of it. Then she chose to painstakingly build a life for herself. Taking responsibility for your self and your life in a fundamental tenant of libertarianism. The socialist view of her plight is "the government needs to step in and make this poor helpless child's life better".
Can't wait til you ask her why she isn't a libertarian socialist then
|
On November 04 2019 10:46 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 10:23 JimmyJRaynor wrote: I disagree. She could easily wander around blaming her mom for everything bad in her life. Instead, she chose to take responsibility for her situation and get herself out of it. Then she chose to painstakingly build a life for herself. Taking responsibility for your self and your life in a fundamental tenant of libertarianism. The socialist view of her plight is "the government needs to step in and make this poor helpless child's life better".
Can't wait til you ask her why she isn't a libertarian socialist then same reason i'm not. which i've already posted.
|
On November 04 2019 10:48 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 10:46 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 10:23 JimmyJRaynor wrote: I disagree. She could easily wander around blaming her mom for everything bad in her life. Instead, she chose to take responsibility for her situation and get herself out of it. Then she chose to painstakingly build a life for herself. Taking responsibility for your self and your life in a fundamental tenant of libertarianism. The socialist view of her plight is "the government needs to step in and make this poor helpless child's life better".
Can't wait til you ask her why she isn't a libertarian socialist then same reason i'm not. which i've already posted.
This? "LOL, you never asked me. anyhow, i'm not a anarchist. physical force and its threats should be banned from human relations and its up to the state to enforce this to the best of its ability."
This distinguishes between libertarianism and anarchism (or anarchocapitalism), not between libertarian socialism and libertarian capitalism. You can want "as little state as possible" in libertarianism and you can want "as little state as possible" in libertarian socialism.
Here is the issue that you'll run into, in my mind. Libertarianism is at the core about maximizing liberty. More government equals less liberty for individuals. Okay, that makes sense. But more exploitation also equals less liberty for individuals, I don't think you're going to deny that. So for the same reason an individual who primarily focuses on liberty should strive for minimal government intervention, they should also strive for the least exploitative economic system. Otherwise you run into these weird contradictions where taxation is theft but wage labour and capitalistic profit are a-okay for some reason.
|
We really need to be on the look-out for these alt-right symbols wherever they may turn up. I started looking at memes like Pepe the frog and such, and now I'm alt-right and my room is covered in Nazi regalia. I never knew this could happen to me. I never wanted this. We need to be more vigilant.
User was warned for this post.
|
Canada5565 Posts
On November 04 2019 06:47 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 05:32 Xxio wrote:On November 03 2019 02:57 Danglars wrote:On November 02 2019 23:58 Nebuchad wrote: It's okay Danglars we just have a difference in opinions about Jimmy and I know you respect diversity of thought.
Who is and isn't far right is the least interesting question ever though. Far right parties get 25 to 45% of the vote in all the west and nobody is ever far right when you talk to them. I just need to know you're serious when you called JimmyJRaynor basically far right, or so far right adjacent that the difference doesn't particularly matter Then you're well underestimating the 25-45% of far right parties. Taking JJR as somebody basically far right, I'd say far right parties number in the 60%+ range. This wouldn't be the first time I thought your characterizations are profoundly silly. On November 03 2019 01:43 Xxio wrote:I searched for an objective description of the alt-right and found this article by Oxford Research Group: https://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/blog/the-alt-right-an-introduction-part-i. I'm glad for the dry, academic analysis. Does anyone have good resources for understanding what the alt-right is? They seem kind of like the antifa of the other side of the spectrum, both being militant and amorphous. First things first: many people mean "alt-right" in purely terms of political games. Label your opposition alt-right, act outraged or shocked that normal people support them or that they're allowed a voice on TV and events, and (hopefully) reap more political power. Secondly, more people won't investigate their views or policies because they're this alt-right boogeyman unworthy of much attention. Now this discussion can continue after removing the alt-right-as-political-weapon, because there are some real people in the world holding views that are accurately described as alt-right. From the article, thoughts and where I stand on them: - A key defining trait of the “alt-right” is identitarianism, focused specifically on supporting the interests of “White/European” populations. This is pretty foundational. If you can't see some overt kind of racial or ethnic component, they're almost always not alt-right. Maybe they instead have a far-right view on immigration or protectionist view on trade or far-right view on patriotic unity (say, criminalization of flag-burning)
- The “alt-right” also specifically rejects universalism, be it in the form of classical liberalism, religious universalism (such as Christianity), or modern globalisation and neoliberalism. I'd phrase the religious aspect as more of a lack of religious tolerance. The others are good descriptors.
- [T]he “alt-right” view the decline in Western societies as related to the downplaying of masculinity and the increased dominance of feminine forms of interaction and reasoning. Alt-right people do not celebrate the easing of gender roles. This one is not as powerful as an identification, since many groups may trace social dissatisfaction, like not finding a mate or being unsatisfied in relationships, back to confusion after a decline in gender norms.
- The “alt-right” also rejects what is usually referred to as “cultural Marxism,” which refers to what could be called “New Left” forms of progressivism that maintain a Marxist-style of argumentation but replaces the proletariat with various “marginalized” populations. This heavily overlaps with traditional conservatives and constitutional conservatives in the states, as well as many reactionary non-ideological groups spanning political labels. It's definitely part of the alt-right too.
- [Opposition to] Gramscian elements of these “New Left” movements, where an emphasis on metapolitics and gaining cultural hegemony plays a significant role. You'll hear this group whinge about the cultural dominance of the left in media institutions all the time.
- The “alt-right” often turns more to the far past, be it the “classical” virtues of ancient Rome and (pre-Socratic) Greece, or to the pagan myths of pre-Christian European society. Again, tons of overlap from other groups, but true for the alt-right in particular. Strong sense of classical virtues against more barbaric or decadent vices of others.
- [Belief that] people have a general preference for “like” populations, which is a dynamic originating via evolution.
- [Belief that] All other groups except Whites practice explicit race-consciousness in their activities, and thus it is unjust to require universalism from Whites while permitting (or even promoting) race-consciousness for all others. Very much overlapping many other groups. Here, from liberal-left and gay cultural critic Douglas Murray:
Whereas black studies celebrates black writers and black history, and gay studies brings out gay figures from history and pushes them to the fore, “whiteness studies” is “committed to disrupting racism by problematizing whiteness,” according to Syracuse University professor Barbara Applebaum, who wrote Oxford’s definition. This is to be done “as a corrective.”
Defining an entire group of people, their attitudes, pitfalls and moral associations, based solely on their racial characteristics is itself a fairly good demonstration of racism. For “whiteness” to be “problematized” white people must be shown to be a problem. And not only on some academic, abstract level but in the practical day-to-day business of judging other people. Once again, an overlapping concern with many critics from all political persuasions, right left and center. But alt-right people really hammer on wanting a positive white group identity, and ground it on other racial identities and cultural heritages.
Thanks for writing it out like that. A lot of it looks fine to me. Of course there are people in that grouping who, in my opinion, take it too far - just as there are people who take leftist positions too far. It seems to me that antifa, communists, anarchists and so on on the far left are given the benefit of the doubt, the bad actors are usually ignored, and there is assumption of good will. The opposite lens is cast on the alt-right or any right wing initiative. Maybe it comes down to perceived intent outweighing actual results and behavior. I think the Douglas Murray quote makes a very good point. Overall, I wish people would think much more about culture and much less about race. Antifa is good. You'll find that we hear less about violence from the left not only because the left is less violent, but also because we generally hear less from the left altogether, radical or otherwise. The radicalism from the right is given an undue importance in the discourse, and then it's blamed and criticized, because it's irrational and morally reprehensible. This creates an enemy for liberalism that liberalism is very obviously superior to, and that's part of a strategy. Not Portland antifa (firebomber included), and not the ones I've come across. I had the pleasure to attend a university free speech event they protested against and disrupted. While they claim good intent, their behavior reveals them as militant totalitarians.
|
On November 04 2019 12:47 Xxio wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 06:47 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 05:32 Xxio wrote:On November 03 2019 02:57 Danglars wrote:On November 02 2019 23:58 Nebuchad wrote: It's okay Danglars we just have a difference in opinions about Jimmy and I know you respect diversity of thought.
Who is and isn't far right is the least interesting question ever though. Far right parties get 25 to 45% of the vote in all the west and nobody is ever far right when you talk to them. I just need to know you're serious when you called JimmyJRaynor basically far right, or so far right adjacent that the difference doesn't particularly matter Then you're well underestimating the 25-45% of far right parties. Taking JJR as somebody basically far right, I'd say far right parties number in the 60%+ range. This wouldn't be the first time I thought your characterizations are profoundly silly. On November 03 2019 01:43 Xxio wrote:I searched for an objective description of the alt-right and found this article by Oxford Research Group: https://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/blog/the-alt-right-an-introduction-part-i. I'm glad for the dry, academic analysis. Does anyone have good resources for understanding what the alt-right is? They seem kind of like the antifa of the other side of the spectrum, both being militant and amorphous. First things first: many people mean "alt-right" in purely terms of political games. Label your opposition alt-right, act outraged or shocked that normal people support them or that they're allowed a voice on TV and events, and (hopefully) reap more political power. Secondly, more people won't investigate their views or policies because they're this alt-right boogeyman unworthy of much attention. Now this discussion can continue after removing the alt-right-as-political-weapon, because there are some real people in the world holding views that are accurately described as alt-right. From the article, thoughts and where I stand on them: - A key defining trait of the “alt-right” is identitarianism, focused specifically on supporting the interests of “White/European” populations. This is pretty foundational. If you can't see some overt kind of racial or ethnic component, they're almost always not alt-right. Maybe they instead have a far-right view on immigration or protectionist view on trade or far-right view on patriotic unity (say, criminalization of flag-burning)
- The “alt-right” also specifically rejects universalism, be it in the form of classical liberalism, religious universalism (such as Christianity), or modern globalisation and neoliberalism. I'd phrase the religious aspect as more of a lack of religious tolerance. The others are good descriptors.
- [T]he “alt-right” view the decline in Western societies as related to the downplaying of masculinity and the increased dominance of feminine forms of interaction and reasoning. Alt-right people do not celebrate the easing of gender roles. This one is not as powerful as an identification, since many groups may trace social dissatisfaction, like not finding a mate or being unsatisfied in relationships, back to confusion after a decline in gender norms.
- The “alt-right” also rejects what is usually referred to as “cultural Marxism,” which refers to what could be called “New Left” forms of progressivism that maintain a Marxist-style of argumentation but replaces the proletariat with various “marginalized” populations. This heavily overlaps with traditional conservatives and constitutional conservatives in the states, as well as many reactionary non-ideological groups spanning political labels. It's definitely part of the alt-right too.
- [Opposition to] Gramscian elements of these “New Left” movements, where an emphasis on metapolitics and gaining cultural hegemony plays a significant role. You'll hear this group whinge about the cultural dominance of the left in media institutions all the time.
- The “alt-right” often turns more to the far past, be it the “classical” virtues of ancient Rome and (pre-Socratic) Greece, or to the pagan myths of pre-Christian European society. Again, tons of overlap from other groups, but true for the alt-right in particular. Strong sense of classical virtues against more barbaric or decadent vices of others.
- [Belief that] people have a general preference for “like” populations, which is a dynamic originating via evolution.
- [Belief that] All other groups except Whites practice explicit race-consciousness in their activities, and thus it is unjust to require universalism from Whites while permitting (or even promoting) race-consciousness for all others. Very much overlapping many other groups. Here, from liberal-left and gay cultural critic Douglas Murray:
Whereas black studies celebrates black writers and black history, and gay studies brings out gay figures from history and pushes them to the fore, “whiteness studies” is “committed to disrupting racism by problematizing whiteness,” according to Syracuse University professor Barbara Applebaum, who wrote Oxford’s definition. This is to be done “as a corrective.”
Defining an entire group of people, their attitudes, pitfalls and moral associations, based solely on their racial characteristics is itself a fairly good demonstration of racism. For “whiteness” to be “problematized” white people must be shown to be a problem. And not only on some academic, abstract level but in the practical day-to-day business of judging other people. Once again, an overlapping concern with many critics from all political persuasions, right left and center. But alt-right people really hammer on wanting a positive white group identity, and ground it on other racial identities and cultural heritages.
Thanks for writing it out like that. A lot of it looks fine to me. Of course there are people in that grouping who, in my opinion, take it too far - just as there are people who take leftist positions too far. It seems to me that antifa, communists, anarchists and so on on the far left are given the benefit of the doubt, the bad actors are usually ignored, and there is assumption of good will. The opposite lens is cast on the alt-right or any right wing initiative. Maybe it comes down to perceived intent outweighing actual results and behavior. I think the Douglas Murray quote makes a very good point. Overall, I wish people would think much more about culture and much less about race. Antifa is good. You'll find that we hear less about violence from the left not only because the left is less violent, but also because we generally hear less from the left altogether, radical or otherwise. The radicalism from the right is given an undue importance in the discourse, and then it's blamed and criticized, because it's irrational and morally reprehensible. This creates an enemy for liberalism that liberalism is very obviously superior to, and that's part of a strategy. Not Portland antifa (firebomber included), and not the ones I've come across. I had the pleasure to attend a university free speech event they protested against and disrupted. While they claim good intent, their behavior reveals them as militant totalitarians.
Yes Portland antifa is extremely good, no the behavior of the militants at your university free speech event didn't reveal them as militant totalitarians, and furthermore, yawn.
|
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 Ireland20727 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.
|
The same thing can be said about the right, and Charlottesville.
|
Can we add communists to the poll? To make it fair towards equal genocidal ideologies.
Edit: I think "censored" and "ridiculed" should be different items on the poll, I don't think the government should be censoring people but we should def be ridiculing them.
|
Want to answer both 3 and 4 I guess? Feels like 3 is stronger than 4 so I'm going with 3.
Edit: for those unfamiliar with my complete position, it's that we should use state violence against them, and in cases where this isn't happening like in the US, then we rely on Antifa and the likes.
Second edit: there were some polls here that disappeared, we're not just talking into the void x)
|
Northern Ireland20727 Posts
I don’t think Antifa can really be accused of hypocrisy on their application of violence as they’re pretty damn open about it being an option.
One can think it’s wrong certainly, but it’s hardly hypocritical for the ‘punch a fascist’ crowd to punch fascists.
|
On November 04 2019 09:51 Nebuchad wrote:I have asked ten different libertarians so far why they aren't a libertarian socialist and none of them provided a satisfactory answer, feel free to be the eleventh. Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 09:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote: when in the "somewhat distant past" was the world "good and moral" ? you're speaking about the entire planet? so China, Madagascar, Canada, and Argentina were all simultaneously.. ."good and moral" ? Probably varies depending on people but I'd have to guess feudalism or something. When we didn't have individualism, human rights and all that crap, and people stuck together with their communities.
On November 05 2019 02:34 Nebuchad wrote: Want to answer both 3 and 4 I guess? Feels like 3 is stronger than 4 so I'm going with 3.
Edit: for those unfamiliar with my complete position, it's that we should use state violence against them, and in cases where this isn't happening like in the US, then we rely on Antifa and the likes.
Second edit: there were some polls here that disappeared, we're not just talking into the void x) i think a contributing factor in you not getting detailed responses to your questions is you make ridiculous claims and broad sweeping over generalizations about the entire planet. When pressed for precise details you do not provide them.
as to your last detailed question to me about libertarianism... i'm a David Kelley "fact and value" Libertarian. The state enforces to the best of its a ability a ban on force in human relationship; the state also protects its citizens from outside invaders. the state funds these activities via taxation. The question of whether or not physical force or its threat occurred in any one particular instance is an open question for a court of law to decide should it go that far.
I didn't go much deeper than David Kelley's perspective and analysis though. I'm a software craftsman//engineer.. I'm not a full time philosopher. If you wish to delve deeper into it I'd recommend checking out Leonard Piekoff's rebuttal.
|
On November 05 2019 03:25 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 09:51 Nebuchad wrote:I have asked ten different libertarians so far why they aren't a libertarian socialist and none of them provided a satisfactory answer, feel free to be the eleventh. On November 04 2019 09:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote: when in the "somewhat distant past" was the world "good and moral" ? you're speaking about the entire planet? so China, Madagascar, Canada, and Argentina were all simultaneously.. ."good and moral" ? Probably varies depending on people but I'd have to guess feudalism or something. When we didn't have individualism, human rights and all that crap, and people stuck together with their communities. Show nested quote +On November 05 2019 02:34 Nebuchad wrote: Want to answer both 3 and 4 I guess? Feels like 3 is stronger than 4 so I'm going with 3.
Edit: for those unfamiliar with my complete position, it's that we should use state violence against them, and in cases where this isn't happening like in the US, then we rely on Antifa and the likes.
Second edit: there were some polls here that disappeared, we're not just talking into the void x) i think a contributing factor in you not getting detailed responses to your questions is you make ridiculous claims and broad sweeping over generalizations about the entire planet. when pressed for precise details you do not provide them. as to your last detailed question to me about libertarianism... i'm a David Kelley "fact and value" Libertarian. The state enforces to the best of its a ability a ban on force in human relationship; the state also protects its citizens from outside invaders. the state funds these activities via taxation. I didn't go much deeper than David Kelley's perspective and analysis though. I'm a software craftsman//engineer.. I'm not a full time philosopher.
Let me know what answer you think I haven't provided and I'll give it to you. You don't have to be this grandiose about it.
As I already pointed out in my last answer, the distinction that you bring up helps you distinguish between libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism, but it's useless when it comes to distinguishing between libertarian socialism and libertarian capitalism.
|
Its in my previous posts.
You also didn't resolve how supporting Bob Rae, Hazel Mccallion and Jean Chretien makes me alt-right. These are some great leaders and great thinkers , btw.
On November 05 2019 03:29 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2019 03:25 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 04 2019 09:51 Nebuchad wrote:I have asked ten different libertarians so far why they aren't a libertarian socialist and none of them provided a satisfactory answer, feel free to be the eleventh. On November 04 2019 09:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote: when in the "somewhat distant past" was the world "good and moral" ? you're speaking about the entire planet? so China, Madagascar, Canada, and Argentina were all simultaneously.. ."good and moral" ? Probably varies depending on people but I'd have to guess feudalism or something. When we didn't have individualism, human rights and all that crap, and people stuck together with their communities. On November 05 2019 02:34 Nebuchad wrote: Want to answer both 3 and 4 I guess? Feels like 3 is stronger than 4 so I'm going with 3.
Edit: for those unfamiliar with my complete position, it's that we should use state violence against them, and in cases where this isn't happening like in the US, then we rely on Antifa and the likes.
Second edit: there were some polls here that disappeared, we're not just talking into the void x) i think a contributing factor in you not getting detailed responses to your questions is you make ridiculous claims and broad sweeping over generalizations about the entire planet. when pressed for precise details you do not provide them. as to your last detailed question to me about libertarianism... i'm a David Kelley "fact and value" Libertarian. The state enforces to the best of its a ability a ban on force in human relationship; the state also protects its citizens from outside invaders. the state funds these activities via taxation. I didn't go much deeper than David Kelley's perspective and analysis though. I'm a software craftsman//engineer.. I'm not a full time philosopher. Let me know what answer you think I haven't provided and I'll give it to you. You don't have to be this grandiose about it. As I already pointed out in my last answer, the distinction that you bring up helps you distinguish between libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism, but it's useless when it comes to distinguishing between libertarian socialism and libertarian capitalism. again.. check out the debate between David Kelley and Leonard Piekoff.
http://www.peikoff.com/essays_and_articles/fact-and-value/
this is way off topic. if you want to delve into this further PM me.
|
|
On November 05 2019 03:33 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Its in my previous posts. You also didn't resolve how supporting Bob Rae, Hazel Mccallion and Jean Chretien makes me alt-right. These are some great leaders and great thinkers , btw. Show nested quote +On November 05 2019 03:29 Nebuchad wrote:On November 05 2019 03:25 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 04 2019 09:51 Nebuchad wrote:I have asked ten different libertarians so far why they aren't a libertarian socialist and none of them provided a satisfactory answer, feel free to be the eleventh. On November 04 2019 09:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote: when in the "somewhat distant past" was the world "good and moral" ? you're speaking about the entire planet? so China, Madagascar, Canada, and Argentina were all simultaneously.. ."good and moral" ? Probably varies depending on people but I'd have to guess feudalism or something. When we didn't have individualism, human rights and all that crap, and people stuck together with their communities. On November 05 2019 02:34 Nebuchad wrote: Want to answer both 3 and 4 I guess? Feels like 3 is stronger than 4 so I'm going with 3.
Edit: for those unfamiliar with my complete position, it's that we should use state violence against them, and in cases where this isn't happening like in the US, then we rely on Antifa and the likes.
Second edit: there were some polls here that disappeared, we're not just talking into the void x) i think a contributing factor in you not getting detailed responses to your questions is you make ridiculous claims and broad sweeping over generalizations about the entire planet. when pressed for precise details you do not provide them. as to your last detailed question to me about libertarianism... i'm a David Kelley "fact and value" Libertarian. The state enforces to the best of its a ability a ban on force in human relationship; the state also protects its citizens from outside invaders. the state funds these activities via taxation. I didn't go much deeper than David Kelley's perspective and analysis though. I'm a software craftsman//engineer.. I'm not a full time philosopher. Let me know what answer you think I haven't provided and I'll give it to you. You don't have to be this grandiose about it. As I already pointed out in my last answer, the distinction that you bring up helps you distinguish between libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism, but it's useless when it comes to distinguishing between libertarian socialism and libertarian capitalism. again.. check out the debate between David Kelley and Leonard Piekoff. this is way off topic. if you want to delve into this further PM me.
It's not in your previous post, and I never said you were alt-right. I will definitely PM you though.
|
Canada5565 Posts
On November 05 2019 03:34 Ryzel wrote: Odd, I didn't delete those posts/polls and I didn't get a message explaining what was wrong about them. If a mod could see this and help explain to me via PM and delete this post I'd appreciate it! Check the public note at the top of the thread.
|
On November 05 2019 03:38 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2019 03:33 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Its in my previous posts. You also didn't resolve how supporting Bob Rae, Hazel Mccallion and Jean Chretien makes me alt-right. These are some great leaders and great thinkers , btw. On November 05 2019 03:29 Nebuchad wrote:On November 05 2019 03:25 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 04 2019 09:51 Nebuchad wrote:I have asked ten different libertarians so far why they aren't a libertarian socialist and none of them provided a satisfactory answer, feel free to be the eleventh. On November 04 2019 09:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote: when in the "somewhat distant past" was the world "good and moral" ? you're speaking about the entire planet? so China, Madagascar, Canada, and Argentina were all simultaneously.. ."good and moral" ? Probably varies depending on people but I'd have to guess feudalism or something. When we didn't have individualism, human rights and all that crap, and people stuck together with their communities. On November 05 2019 02:34 Nebuchad wrote: Want to answer both 3 and 4 I guess? Feels like 3 is stronger than 4 so I'm going with 3.
Edit: for those unfamiliar with my complete position, it's that we should use state violence against them, and in cases where this isn't happening like in the US, then we rely on Antifa and the likes.
Second edit: there were some polls here that disappeared, we're not just talking into the void x) True! i stand corrected. here is what you said. On November 02 2019 22:04 Nebuchad wrote: And of course, the last layer is to remember that people like Jimmy and Nettles are basically far right, or so far right adjacent that the difference doesn't particularly matter. Care to explain how supporting Bob Rae, Jean Chretien, and Hazel Mccallion makes me far right? Thanks for the PM. I'll answer it fully when I have time. i think a contributing factor in you not getting detailed responses to your questions is you make ridiculous claims and broad sweeping over generalizations about the entire planet. when pressed for precise details you do not provide them. as to your last detailed question to me about libertarianism... i'm a David Kelley "fact and value" Libertarian. The state enforces to the best of its a ability a ban on force in human relationship; the state also protects its citizens from outside invaders. the state funds these activities via taxation. I didn't go much deeper than David Kelley's perspective and analysis though. I'm a software craftsman//engineer.. I'm not a full time philosopher. Let me know what answer you think I haven't provided and I'll give it to you. You don't have to be this grandiose about it. As I already pointed out in my last answer, the distinction that you bring up helps you distinguish between libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism, but it's useless when it comes to distinguishing between libertarian socialism and libertarian capitalism. again.. check out the debate between David Kelley and Leonard Piekoff. this is way off topic. if you want to delve into this further PM me. It's not in your previous post, and I never said you were alt-right. I will definitely PM you though. True! I stand corrected. Here is what you said.
On November 02 2019 22:04 Nebuchad wrote: And of course, the last layer is to remember that people like Jimmy and Nettles are basically far right, or so far right adjacent that the difference doesn't particularly matter. Can you explain how supporting Bob Rae, Hazel Mccallion, and Jean Chretien makes me "far right"? How does opposing the privatization of "Ontario Hydro" make me "far right"?
I'll provide a full response to your PM when I have time.
|
On November 05 2019 03:48 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Can you explain how supporting Bob Rae, Hazel Mccallion, and Jean Chretien makes me "far right"? How does opposing the privatization of "Ontario Hydro" make me "far right"?
It doesn't. Maybe I was wrong. I just based my impression on basically every post that I've ever read from you on this site.
|
On November 05 2019 03:53 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2019 03:48 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Can you explain how supporting Bob Rae, Hazel Mccallion, and Jean Chretien makes me "far right"? How does opposing the privatization of "Ontario Hydro" make me "far right"?
It doesn't. Maybe I was wrong. I just based my impression on basically every post that I've ever read from you on this site. fair enough sir. check out the Starcraft threads. I'm wrong there all the time. off topic. + Show Spoiler +I'm pragmatic. If there were some other jurisdiction in North America that had lower hydro prices and the great working conditions of "Ontario Hydro" then I'd be in favour of examining and possibly emulating that superior private model. However, Ontario Hydro offered the lowest electricity rates in North America. Privatizing Ontario Hydro was a bad move. If there were some right wing guy as brilliant as Bob Rae... I'd trumpet his praises. I can count on one hand the # of Canadians with the legal smarts, political experience, and street smarts of Bob Rae. So, I support Rae even if he doesn't hold every core belief I hold. Viewpoints like this got me kicked out of the local Objectivism club.
|
On November 05 2019 03:33 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Its in my previous posts. You also didn't resolve how supporting Bob Rae, Hazel Mccallion and Jean Chretien makes me alt-right. These are some great leaders and great thinkers , btw. Show nested quote +On November 05 2019 03:29 Nebuchad wrote:On November 05 2019 03:25 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 04 2019 09:51 Nebuchad wrote:I have asked ten different libertarians so far why they aren't a libertarian socialist and none of them provided a satisfactory answer, feel free to be the eleventh. On November 04 2019 09:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote: when in the "somewhat distant past" was the world "good and moral" ? you're speaking about the entire planet? so China, Madagascar, Canada, and Argentina were all simultaneously.. ."good and moral" ? Probably varies depending on people but I'd have to guess feudalism or something. When we didn't have individualism, human rights and all that crap, and people stuck together with their communities. On November 05 2019 02:34 Nebuchad wrote: Want to answer both 3 and 4 I guess? Feels like 3 is stronger than 4 so I'm going with 3.
Edit: for those unfamiliar with my complete position, it's that we should use state violence against them, and in cases where this isn't happening like in the US, then we rely on Antifa and the likes.
Second edit: there were some polls here that disappeared, we're not just talking into the void x) i think a contributing factor in you not getting detailed responses to your questions is you make ridiculous claims and broad sweeping over generalizations about the entire planet. when pressed for precise details you do not provide them. as to your last detailed question to me about libertarianism... i'm a David Kelley "fact and value" Libertarian. The state enforces to the best of its a ability a ban on force in human relationship; the state also protects its citizens from outside invaders. the state funds these activities via taxation. I didn't go much deeper than David Kelley's perspective and analysis though. I'm a software craftsman//engineer.. I'm not a full time philosopher. Let me know what answer you think I haven't provided and I'll give it to you. You don't have to be this grandiose about it. As I already pointed out in my last answer, the distinction that you bring up helps you distinguish between libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism, but it's useless when it comes to distinguishing between libertarian socialism and libertarian capitalism. again.. check out the debate between David Kelley and Leonard Piekoff. http://www.peikoff.com/essays_and_articles/fact-and-value/this is way off topic. if you want to delve into this further PM me.
come on jimmyj you owe it to yourself, non-philosopher though you are, to get past this objectivism stuff
|
Canada10904 Posts
I don't think it can be demonstrated that Andy Ngo was looking to beaten up to play the victim. Isn't that literal victim blaming? Now if he was coming in, armed to the teeth or challenging people to a fight- well all right, I'd say he's looking for a scrap. As it was, he deliberately did not bring a helmet because he did not want to look like he was looking for a scrap.
On November 05 2019 00:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote: 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. Who in this thread is alt right?
|
On November 05 2019 10:23 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2019 03:33 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Its in my previous posts. You also didn't resolve how supporting Bob Rae, Hazel Mccallion and Jean Chretien makes me alt-right. These are some great leaders and great thinkers , btw. On November 05 2019 03:29 Nebuchad wrote:On November 05 2019 03:25 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 04 2019 09:51 Nebuchad wrote:I have asked ten different libertarians so far why they aren't a libertarian socialist and none of them provided a satisfactory answer, feel free to be the eleventh. On November 04 2019 09:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote: when in the "somewhat distant past" was the world "good and moral" ? you're speaking about the entire planet? so China, Madagascar, Canada, and Argentina were all simultaneously.. ."good and moral" ? Probably varies depending on people but I'd have to guess feudalism or something. When we didn't have individualism, human rights and all that crap, and people stuck together with their communities. On November 05 2019 02:34 Nebuchad wrote: Want to answer both 3 and 4 I guess? Feels like 3 is stronger than 4 so I'm going with 3.
Edit: for those unfamiliar with my complete position, it's that we should use state violence against them, and in cases where this isn't happening like in the US, then we rely on Antifa and the likes.
Second edit: there were some polls here that disappeared, we're not just talking into the void x) i think a contributing factor in you not getting detailed responses to your questions is you make ridiculous claims and broad sweeping over generalizations about the entire planet. when pressed for precise details you do not provide them. as to your last detailed question to me about libertarianism... i'm a David Kelley "fact and value" Libertarian. The state enforces to the best of its a ability a ban on force in human relationship; the state also protects its citizens from outside invaders. the state funds these activities via taxation. I didn't go much deeper than David Kelley's perspective and analysis though. I'm a software craftsman//engineer.. I'm not a full time philosopher. Let me know what answer you think I haven't provided and I'll give it to you. You don't have to be this grandiose about it. As I already pointed out in my last answer, the distinction that you bring up helps you distinguish between libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism, but it's useless when it comes to distinguishing between libertarian socialism and libertarian capitalism. again.. check out the debate between David Kelley and Leonard Piekoff. http://www.peikoff.com/essays_and_articles/fact-and-value/this is way off topic. if you want to delve into this further PM me. come on jimmyj you owe it to yourself, non-philosopher though you are, to get past this objectivism stuff If you are bored please read the spoilered section of my post above yours. I was kicked out of the objectivism club for supporting Bob Rae along with thinking David Kelley was correct and Leonard Piekoff was wrong.. I'd describe myself as a "David Kelley libertarian" .. not an objectivist. As far as Objectivism goes.. I'd say Ayn Rand is a literary genius and an important 20th century intellectual.
|
Canada10904 Posts
Literary genius? Oh goodness. Atlas Shrugged at least I thought the best descriptor by someone else is far too little story spread over far too many pages.
For myself, I thought it was an essay, slumming as a novel in disguise, but doing an awfully poor job at it. (Particularly with that 50! pages speech. Talk about abandoning any pretense of story and launching straight into didactics.)
|
On November 05 2019 11:24 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2019 10:23 IgnE wrote:On November 05 2019 03:33 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Its in my previous posts. You also didn't resolve how supporting Bob Rae, Hazel Mccallion and Jean Chretien makes me alt-right. These are some great leaders and great thinkers , btw. On November 05 2019 03:29 Nebuchad wrote:On November 05 2019 03:25 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 04 2019 09:51 Nebuchad wrote:I have asked ten different libertarians so far why they aren't a libertarian socialist and none of them provided a satisfactory answer, feel free to be the eleventh. On November 04 2019 09:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote: when in the "somewhat distant past" was the world "good and moral" ? you're speaking about the entire planet? so China, Madagascar, Canada, and Argentina were all simultaneously.. ."good and moral" ? Probably varies depending on people but I'd have to guess feudalism or something. When we didn't have individualism, human rights and all that crap, and people stuck together with their communities. On November 05 2019 02:34 Nebuchad wrote: Want to answer both 3 and 4 I guess? Feels like 3 is stronger than 4 so I'm going with 3.
Edit: for those unfamiliar with my complete position, it's that we should use state violence against them, and in cases where this isn't happening like in the US, then we rely on Antifa and the likes.
Second edit: there were some polls here that disappeared, we're not just talking into the void x) i think a contributing factor in you not getting detailed responses to your questions is you make ridiculous claims and broad sweeping over generalizations about the entire planet. when pressed for precise details you do not provide them. as to your last detailed question to me about libertarianism... i'm a David Kelley "fact and value" Libertarian. The state enforces to the best of its a ability a ban on force in human relationship; the state also protects its citizens from outside invaders. the state funds these activities via taxation. I didn't go much deeper than David Kelley's perspective and analysis though. I'm a software craftsman//engineer.. I'm not a full time philosopher. Let me know what answer you think I haven't provided and I'll give it to you. You don't have to be this grandiose about it. As I already pointed out in my last answer, the distinction that you bring up helps you distinguish between libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism, but it's useless when it comes to distinguishing between libertarian socialism and libertarian capitalism. again.. check out the debate between David Kelley and Leonard Piekoff. http://www.peikoff.com/essays_and_articles/fact-and-value/this is way off topic. if you want to delve into this further PM me. come on jimmyj you owe it to yourself, non-philosopher though you are, to get past this objectivism stuff If you are bored please read the spoilered section of my post above yours. I was kicked out of the objectivism club for supporting Bob Rae along with thinking David Kelley was correct and Leonard Piekoff was wrong.. I'd describe myself as a "David Kelley libertarian" .. not an objectivist. As far as Objectivism goes.. I'd say Ayn Rand is a literary genius and an important 20th century intellectual.
well 1) why did you link to a 100 page tract by Piekoff about why Kelley is wrong? and 2) even so, this looks suspiciously like objectivists arguing amongst themselves
do you or dont you believe that values are discoverable facts about the world?
|
On November 05 2019 11:24 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2019 10:23 IgnE wrote:On November 05 2019 03:33 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Its in my previous posts. You also didn't resolve how supporting Bob Rae, Hazel Mccallion and Jean Chretien makes me alt-right. These are some great leaders and great thinkers , btw. On November 05 2019 03:29 Nebuchad wrote:On November 05 2019 03:25 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 04 2019 09:51 Nebuchad wrote:I have asked ten different libertarians so far why they aren't a libertarian socialist and none of them provided a satisfactory answer, feel free to be the eleventh. On November 04 2019 09:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote: when in the "somewhat distant past" was the world "good and moral" ? you're speaking about the entire planet? so China, Madagascar, Canada, and Argentina were all simultaneously.. ."good and moral" ? Probably varies depending on people but I'd have to guess feudalism or something. When we didn't have individualism, human rights and all that crap, and people stuck together with their communities. On November 05 2019 02:34 Nebuchad wrote: Want to answer both 3 and 4 I guess? Feels like 3 is stronger than 4 so I'm going with 3.
Edit: for those unfamiliar with my complete position, it's that we should use state violence against them, and in cases where this isn't happening like in the US, then we rely on Antifa and the likes.
Second edit: there were some polls here that disappeared, we're not just talking into the void x) i think a contributing factor in you not getting detailed responses to your questions is you make ridiculous claims and broad sweeping over generalizations about the entire planet. when pressed for precise details you do not provide them. as to your last detailed question to me about libertarianism... i'm a David Kelley "fact and value" Libertarian. The state enforces to the best of its a ability a ban on force in human relationship; the state also protects its citizens from outside invaders. the state funds these activities via taxation. I didn't go much deeper than David Kelley's perspective and analysis though. I'm a software craftsman//engineer.. I'm not a full time philosopher. Let me know what answer you think I haven't provided and I'll give it to you. You don't have to be this grandiose about it. As I already pointed out in my last answer, the distinction that you bring up helps you distinguish between libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism, but it's useless when it comes to distinguishing between libertarian socialism and libertarian capitalism. again.. check out the debate between David Kelley and Leonard Piekoff. http://www.peikoff.com/essays_and_articles/fact-and-value/this is way off topic. if you want to delve into this further PM me. come on jimmyj you owe it to yourself, non-philosopher though you are, to get past this objectivism stuff If you are bored please read the spoilered section of my post above yours. I was kicked out of the objectivism club for supporting Bob Rae along with thinking David Kelley was correct and Leonard Piekoff was wrong.. I'd describe myself as a "David Kelley libertarian" .. not an objectivist. As far as Objectivism goes.. I'd say Ayn Rand is a literary genius and an important 20th century intellectual.
On November 05 2019 11:40 Falling wrote: Literary genius? Oh goodness. Atlas Shrugged at least I thought the best descriptor by someone else is far too little story spread over far too many pages.
For myself, I thought it was an essay, slumming as a novel in disguise, but doing an awfully poor job at it. (Particularly with that 50! pages speech. Talk about abandoning any pretense of story and launching straight into didactics.) I liked the read and I thought it was thought provoking. The characters were ... umm ... operatic. The themes were a bit overdone. But for what it was, I liked the read, and the way the various characters and their struggles played out in long throughlines. But I didn't pull out the big "and this is the way the world really is" kind of objectivist/libertarian bent. The author of one of my formational books, Whittaker Chambers, wrote this review, which I thought was spot-on.
On an unrelated note, I think if people knew more objectivists, and libertarians, and tradcons social-cons fiscal cons, they'd be less liberal in in sprinkling "far-right" or "alt-right" on TeamLiquid users. The term is becoming synonymous with someone possessing unorthodox political views on one subject or more.
|
If we're going with an ideology of selfishness like objectivism, why not be far right? As long as you are on top of society, which of course you are, it will follow from others being treated worse that you are treated better.
|
The problem with this discussion is that nearly everyone is stuck in the same rat maze of Modern and inherently derivative post-Modern ideas. It seems everyone agrees that the Titanic (Modernity) is sinking but disagree if by fire or ice. The Right, it seems to me is flopping around, trying to find an alternative, while the Left is punching that Higher Taxes button from Office Depot.
|
On November 04 2019 09:03 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 07:45 CoupdeBoule wrote:On November 04 2019 07:13 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 07:07 CoupdeBoule wrote:On November 04 2019 06:55 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 05:34 crnm95 wrote:On November 04 2019 03:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2019 03:10 crnm95 wrote: Oh look another debate between neurotic “No Fun Allowed”-authoritarians and those less hysterically unreasonable I think the subject is a bit more nuanced than that though, considering dog-whistling is a very real thing, politically and culturally. I didnt believe but I just opened up TwitchChat thereby exposing myself to Pepe memes. YOU WERE RIGHT!!! I AM NOW AN ALT-RIGHT FASCIST!!! PepeHands No of course not. But we now perceive leftwingers to be shrill idiots who complain about nothing, and this is making us less likely to hear them out. They keep us from just enjoying our games and our community, fucking social justice warriors, I just want to beat some protosses ffs. Let's ostracize them, so that we don't have to hear from their nonsense again. And this other dude also, I know he's been a gamer for years but he seemed to agree with the leftist dude, probably should remove him as well, probably undercover. Also this nazi dude, he uses the same symbols as us, he is part of our community. He is humanized. Is he really a nazi? He could be an ironic nazi, isn't that a funny meme, after all who is a nazi? Those ideas are atrocious, universally condemned, no one is a nazi really. Remember how hysterical the left is? I bet they called him a nazi because they're hysterical, I bet they called him a nazi because they think everyone right of Stalin is a nazi. His ideas are probably not as bad as they say, he could be just a tradcath that is being maligned. I suddenly know a lot about the subtle differences between far right political ideologies, I wonder how that came to happen. The left is the real enemy, even if we don't agree on everything we could probably work together. Also he raised a good point about cultures the other day, and since we've chased all the leftists from the community because they were hysterical, nobody answered. If nobody answered I see no reason to assume that he was wrong there. That's interesting. Telling that you seem to think this is a left/right issue and not an authoritarian (such as -you guessed it!- nazis) vs freedom issue. Yes of course. Nazism isn't only defined by its authoritarianism, it's also a fascist ideology, and therefore reactionary and rightwing. You will always recruit nazis through social views first, and then tell them that the authoritarianism is necessary to save the nation from all the bad people, progress, and the jews. You mind walking me through how you define fascism? (Offtopic but im really curious after reading what you wrote) As for people falling prey to dangerous ideology and extremism, Im more of a believer in “pray for broader shoulders, not lighter burdens” - lets lay out to people why something leads nowhere good instead of going after people being silly just because some alt-right crazies decided to try to claim some of the perfectly innocent symbols. Think of all political ideologies as they relate to social hierarchies. Leftwing ideologies think social hierarchies are bad, and should be eliminated or reduced. Rightwing ideologies think social hierarchies are either a necessary evil or a good thing, and that they should be maintained or increased. The main social hierarchy today is capitalism. From that starting point: Far right is when you want a radical change in society, so that there is an increased level of importance for social hierarchies compared to liberal capitalism. There is a helpful line that we use to define the limit where you stop being rightwing and start being far right: in liberalism, you are (supposed to be) where you are in society because of the amount of effort you've put into where you are (american dream, meritocracy, all that bullshit). In the far right, there is some element of your identity that becomes relevant to where you are in the social hierarchy. It can be anything; religion in theocracies, race in nazism, it can even be something really vague like tradition or culture in the far right forms of conservatism. Note that even our liberal center right systems generally retain some far right elements because your identity typically has some influence on where you are likely to be in society - this is where privilege comes in, but also more generally you're better off as a citizen than as an immigrant in every liberal country as far as I know, that was the whole point of having those immigration waves in the first place. The ideal society for the far right is one where there is a rigid social hierarchy, where "you and the people you like", however defined, are on top, and the others are second class citizens, below you. They are to be exploited and discriminated against. Fascism ostensibly has "the nation" as the people they like, but it also borrows from the traditional social hierarchies in that man > woman, straight > queer, cis > trans, white > black (in the first world). It recognizes that authoritarianism is necessary to create the society that it wants, so it is also authoritarian. Fascism isn't very distinct from other far right ideologies in how it functions, but it's distinct in its propaganda, and that's due to the propaganda of WW2 mostly. Like all far right ideologies, fascism is intellectually bankrupt and definitionally irrational, in that it posits an ideal society that isn't based on any kind of rational analysis of the world, just on what you feel good about and what you feel bad about. But fascism has embraced this irrationality and uses it to posit a mythical worldview. The modern world is plagued by degeneracy, there was a specific time in the somewhat distant past where the world was good and moral and it is crucial that we come back to that point no matter the means. It's kind of an epic tale, with grandiose fights and crusades that other far right ideologies don't necessarily have. Which makes it both more attractive to people with far right inclinations, and arguably more dangerous, as the mythology creates a concrete goal and a sense of urgency that you don't find in, for example, traditional religious conservatism.
I agree with a lot of how you have framed this, but I don't see any real sense of balance. You don't seem to address what level of "Rightness" is appropriate or what positive relationship it has as a balance to the Left.
|
On November 07 2019 17:57 Jerubaal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2019 09:03 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 07:45 CoupdeBoule wrote:On November 04 2019 07:13 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 07:07 CoupdeBoule wrote:On November 04 2019 06:55 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 05:34 crnm95 wrote:On November 04 2019 03:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2019 03:10 crnm95 wrote: Oh look another debate between neurotic “No Fun Allowed”-authoritarians and those less hysterically unreasonable I think the subject is a bit more nuanced than that though, considering dog-whistling is a very real thing, politically and culturally. I didnt believe but I just opened up TwitchChat thereby exposing myself to Pepe memes. YOU WERE RIGHT!!! I AM NOW AN ALT-RIGHT FASCIST!!! PepeHands No of course not. But we now perceive leftwingers to be shrill idiots who complain about nothing, and this is making us less likely to hear them out. They keep us from just enjoying our games and our community, fucking social justice warriors, I just want to beat some protosses ffs. Let's ostracize them, so that we don't have to hear from their nonsense again. And this other dude also, I know he's been a gamer for years but he seemed to agree with the leftist dude, probably should remove him as well, probably undercover. Also this nazi dude, he uses the same symbols as us, he is part of our community. He is humanized. Is he really a nazi? He could be an ironic nazi, isn't that a funny meme, after all who is a nazi? Those ideas are atrocious, universally condemned, no one is a nazi really. Remember how hysterical the left is? I bet they called him a nazi because they're hysterical, I bet they called him a nazi because they think everyone right of Stalin is a nazi. His ideas are probably not as bad as they say, he could be just a tradcath that is being maligned. I suddenly know a lot about the subtle differences between far right political ideologies, I wonder how that came to happen. The left is the real enemy, even if we don't agree on everything we could probably work together. Also he raised a good point about cultures the other day, and since we've chased all the leftists from the community because they were hysterical, nobody answered. If nobody answered I see no reason to assume that he was wrong there. That's interesting. Telling that you seem to think this is a left/right issue and not an authoritarian (such as -you guessed it!- nazis) vs freedom issue. Yes of course. Nazism isn't only defined by its authoritarianism, it's also a fascist ideology, and therefore reactionary and rightwing. You will always recruit nazis through social views first, and then tell them that the authoritarianism is necessary to save the nation from all the bad people, progress, and the jews. You mind walking me through how you define fascism? (Offtopic but im really curious after reading what you wrote) As for people falling prey to dangerous ideology and extremism, Im more of a believer in “pray for broader shoulders, not lighter burdens” - lets lay out to people why something leads nowhere good instead of going after people being silly just because some alt-right crazies decided to try to claim some of the perfectly innocent symbols. Think of all political ideologies as they relate to social hierarchies. Leftwing ideologies think social hierarchies are bad, and should be eliminated or reduced. Rightwing ideologies think social hierarchies are either a necessary evil or a good thing, and that they should be maintained or increased. The main social hierarchy today is capitalism. From that starting point: Far right is when you want a radical change in society, so that there is an increased level of importance for social hierarchies compared to liberal capitalism. There is a helpful line that we use to define the limit where you stop being rightwing and start being far right: in liberalism, you are (supposed to be) where you are in society because of the amount of effort you've put into where you are (american dream, meritocracy, all that bullshit). In the far right, there is some element of your identity that becomes relevant to where you are in the social hierarchy. It can be anything; religion in theocracies, race in nazism, it can even be something really vague like tradition or culture in the far right forms of conservatism. Note that even our liberal center right systems generally retain some far right elements because your identity typically has some influence on where you are likely to be in society - this is where privilege comes in, but also more generally you're better off as a citizen than as an immigrant in every liberal country as far as I know, that was the whole point of having those immigration waves in the first place. The ideal society for the far right is one where there is a rigid social hierarchy, where "you and the people you like", however defined, are on top, and the others are second class citizens, below you. They are to be exploited and discriminated against. Fascism ostensibly has "the nation" as the people they like, but it also borrows from the traditional social hierarchies in that man > woman, straight > queer, cis > trans, white > black (in the first world). It recognizes that authoritarianism is necessary to create the society that it wants, so it is also authoritarian. Fascism isn't very distinct from other far right ideologies in how it functions, but it's distinct in its propaganda, and that's due to the propaganda of WW2 mostly. Like all far right ideologies, fascism is intellectually bankrupt and definitionally irrational, in that it posits an ideal society that isn't based on any kind of rational analysis of the world, just on what you feel good about and what you feel bad about. But fascism has embraced this irrationality and uses it to posit a mythical worldview. The modern world is plagued by degeneracy, there was a specific time in the somewhat distant past where the world was good and moral and it is crucial that we come back to that point no matter the means. It's kind of an epic tale, with grandiose fights and crusades that other far right ideologies don't necessarily have. Which makes it both more attractive to people with far right inclinations, and arguably more dangerous, as the mythology creates a concrete goal and a sense of urgency that you don't find in, for example, traditional religious conservatism. I agree with a lot of how you have framed this, but I don't see any real sense of balance. You don't seem to address what level of "Rightness" is appropriate or what positive relationship it has as a balance to the Left.
I've thought about how to answer this but it's hard to do without knowing for sure what you mean. Considering we're talking core level of politics here, I would argue that we're still in the phase of the discussion where the goal is to defeat the other rather than the phase where we're compromising and balancing. So in that sense, the right is the opponent and brings absolutely nothing positive, and about 0% is an appropriate level of it, eh.
I also don't know that modernity is in crisis because I associate that term with progress and progressivism. I do believe liberalism is in crisis though, and I think that's a dangerous but ultimately good thing.
|
On November 08 2019 17:26 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2019 17:57 Jerubaal wrote:On November 04 2019 09:03 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 07:45 CoupdeBoule wrote:On November 04 2019 07:13 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 07:07 CoupdeBoule wrote:On November 04 2019 06:55 Nebuchad wrote:On November 04 2019 05:34 crnm95 wrote:On November 04 2019 03:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2019 03:10 crnm95 wrote: Oh look another debate between neurotic “No Fun Allowed”-authoritarians and those less hysterically unreasonable I think the subject is a bit more nuanced than that though, considering dog-whistling is a very real thing, politically and culturally. I didnt believe but I just opened up TwitchChat thereby exposing myself to Pepe memes. YOU WERE RIGHT!!! I AM NOW AN ALT-RIGHT FASCIST!!! PepeHands No of course not. But we now perceive leftwingers to be shrill idiots who complain about nothing, and this is making us less likely to hear them out. They keep us from just enjoying our games and our community, fucking social justice warriors, I just want to beat some protosses ffs. Let's ostracize them, so that we don't have to hear from their nonsense again. And this other dude also, I know he's been a gamer for years but he seemed to agree with the leftist dude, probably should remove him as well, probably undercover. Also this nazi dude, he uses the same symbols as us, he is part of our community. He is humanized. Is he really a nazi? He could be an ironic nazi, isn't that a funny meme, after all who is a nazi? Those ideas are atrocious, universally condemned, no one is a nazi really. Remember how hysterical the left is? I bet they called him a nazi because they're hysterical, I bet they called him a nazi because they think everyone right of Stalin is a nazi. His ideas are probably not as bad as they say, he could be just a tradcath that is being maligned. I suddenly know a lot about the subtle differences between far right political ideologies, I wonder how that came to happen. The left is the real enemy, even if we don't agree on everything we could probably work together. Also he raised a good point about cultures the other day, and since we've chased all the leftists from the community because they were hysterical, nobody answered. If nobody answered I see no reason to assume that he was wrong there. That's interesting. Telling that you seem to think this is a left/right issue and not an authoritarian (such as -you guessed it!- nazis) vs freedom issue. Yes of course. Nazism isn't only defined by its authoritarianism, it's also a fascist ideology, and therefore reactionary and rightwing. You will always recruit nazis through social views first, and then tell them that the authoritarianism is necessary to save the nation from all the bad people, progress, and the jews. You mind walking me through how you define fascism? (Offtopic but im really curious after reading what you wrote) As for people falling prey to dangerous ideology and extremism, Im more of a believer in “pray for broader shoulders, not lighter burdens” - lets lay out to people why something leads nowhere good instead of going after people being silly just because some alt-right crazies decided to try to claim some of the perfectly innocent symbols. Think of all political ideologies as they relate to social hierarchies. Leftwing ideologies think social hierarchies are bad, and should be eliminated or reduced. Rightwing ideologies think social hierarchies are either a necessary evil or a good thing, and that they should be maintained or increased. The main social hierarchy today is capitalism. From that starting point: Far right is when you want a radical change in society, so that there is an increased level of importance for social hierarchies compared to liberal capitalism. There is a helpful line that we use to define the limit where you stop being rightwing and start being far right: in liberalism, you are (supposed to be) where you are in society because of the amount of effort you've put into where you are (american dream, meritocracy, all that bullshit). In the far right, there is some element of your identity that becomes relevant to where you are in the social hierarchy. It can be anything; religion in theocracies, race in nazism, it can even be something really vague like tradition or culture in the far right forms of conservatism. Note that even our liberal center right systems generally retain some far right elements because your identity typically has some influence on where you are likely to be in society - this is where privilege comes in, but also more generally you're better off as a citizen than as an immigrant in every liberal country as far as I know, that was the whole point of having those immigration waves in the first place. The ideal society for the far right is one where there is a rigid social hierarchy, where "you and the people you like", however defined, are on top, and the others are second class citizens, below you. They are to be exploited and discriminated against. Fascism ostensibly has "the nation" as the people they like, but it also borrows from the traditional social hierarchies in that man > woman, straight > queer, cis > trans, white > black (in the first world). It recognizes that authoritarianism is necessary to create the society that it wants, so it is also authoritarian. Fascism isn't very distinct from other far right ideologies in how it functions, but it's distinct in its propaganda, and that's due to the propaganda of WW2 mostly. Like all far right ideologies, fascism is intellectually bankrupt and definitionally irrational, in that it posits an ideal society that isn't based on any kind of rational analysis of the world, just on what you feel good about and what you feel bad about. But fascism has embraced this irrationality and uses it to posit a mythical worldview. The modern world is plagued by degeneracy, there was a specific time in the somewhat distant past where the world was good and moral and it is crucial that we come back to that point no matter the means. It's kind of an epic tale, with grandiose fights and crusades that other far right ideologies don't necessarily have. Which makes it both more attractive to people with far right inclinations, and arguably more dangerous, as the mythology creates a concrete goal and a sense of urgency that you don't find in, for example, traditional religious conservatism. I agree with a lot of how you have framed this, but I don't see any real sense of balance. You don't seem to address what level of "Rightness" is appropriate or what positive relationship it has as a balance to the Left. I've thought about how to answer this but it's hard to do without knowing for sure what you mean. Considering we're talking core level of politics here, I would argue that we're still in the phase of the discussion where the goal is to defeat the other rather than the phase where we're compromising and balancing. So in that sense, the right is the opponent and brings absolutely nothing positive, and about 0% is an appropriate level of it, eh. I also don't know that modernity is in crisis because I associate that term with progress and progressivism. I do believe liberalism is in crisis though, and I think that's a dangerous but ultimately good thing.
I'm not being polemical.
|
|
|
|