How To Stop The Alt-Right

LoL it tanked at the box office.

Tell me. I'm genuinely curious on a scale of 1-10 how much you liked the movie.

 

I never saw it. Not my kind of flick.

 

You keep saying that, but it's hard for me to understand what you mean or see as the problem. We've always had identity politics. Tribalism comes naturally to humans. As I've said often enough, identity politics is the essence of the Alt Right, and of your posts on this thread. The Alt right and you are arguing on behalf of an identity group: straight white males. In light of our discussion, it seems we might narrow it further to straight white lower or lower middle class males. The sense of common political identity on the part of this group is shaky and the numbers are relatively small. The white male lumpen proletariat is a motley crew, with significant internal divisions that I've outlined in previous posts. But the Alt Right is an identity group, or more accurately, a coalition of identity groups; and it does engage in politics--notably in the recent election. It may, as you say, be "entirely possible to spread awareness to the issues of some groups, without taking away from the issues of others." But that isn't the Alt Right's game, nor yours. The intensity of Alt Rightr animosity toward Black Lives Matter, e.g.,linking them without foundation to the savages who brutalized the mentally challenged white guy; the cherry picking of stories highlighting the alleged unfairness of feminists and Muslims; and the constant attack and disparagement of liberals goes well beyond "spreading awareness of the issues" of your identity group. The strident, relentlessly accusatory rhetoric and heavy reliance on cherry picked anecdotes seems on a par with the black and feminist militants the Alt Right opposes. So it seems we have identity politics for everybody. And I think that, humans being what they are, identity politics for nobody is a utopian fantasy.

 

I think you're overgeneralizing here. I know that there are elements among progressives who are over the top on political correctness. One of our Oklahoma eating establishments is famous for a logo featuring an Eskimo. My sisters wore this to a meeting of the Sierra Club and almost gave some other attendees heart failure from this "racist" display. Around here, though, Halloween is in more danger from the fundies who think it's "devil worship". I think the "rape culture" and hypersensitivity to "institutional racism" are also exaggerated, but this is par for the course with humans. This phenomenon seems to be largely localized to college campuses, where a minority of professors can abuse their positions of authority and student activists can foist their views on others. Right wing media like Fox and Breitbart pounce on these incidents and use them to paint anyone left of center as "one of those". But political correctness isn't just characteristic of the left. There are many things I can't openly say around here without being ostracized by the conservative majority--especially on matters involving religion or the free enterprise system. As for "social justice warriors" this is a cuss word created by the right to arouse negative sentiment against anyone opposing them. As the saying goes, "sticks and stones..."

 

It seems to me that it's putting our fundamental rights at risk by giving people permission to discriminate. But I'm glad you don't share the beliefs of Fuckabee and Cruz. There's hope!

 

There's an important difference between being obese and smoking. The former primarily concerns the health of the obese person; any adverse effects on others is largely aesthetic. Smokers, on the other hand, not only affect themselves by their habit but affect others around them. Apart from the research indicating the carcinogenic health effects of second hand smoke, there are lots of folks like me who are allergic to it. I haven't seen smoker shaming, but I have seen smoker banning and regulation--and I'm all for it, because smoking has tangible adverse effects on me and others. In his essay "On Liberty", J.S. Mill introduced the "harm" principle in ethics: the only justification for limiting the liberty of people to do what they want is to prevent harm to others. And harm must go beyond mere annoyance. Mill was concerned mainly with government restrictions, but I think the principle also should apply to private efforts at coercion. A precondition of a free society is a high level of tolerance for differences in taste and behavior that may strike us as disgusting or repulsive but not harmful. Mill was against paternalism-- the desire to restrict people's behavior because we think it would be good for them. I have a friend who weighs well over 300 pounds, and he seems miserable. He has health problems that cost him lots of money and expects to die young. I find it hard to understand why this isn't enough to motivate him to diet, exercise, or maybe get his stomach stapled. But I'd hesitate to engage in shaming for fear it would make the situation worse or even drive him to suicide. That fat lady in your picture is undoubtedly reacting to societal shaming by trying to change social norms in an effort to preserve a modicum of self-esteem. I doubt that taking that away from her would improve her condition. But in her case she may be doing harm to others if she's telling them that obesity isn't a problem. It's a serious health problem, and they shouldn't be told it's not--and they should be warned of that. After that, it's their own responsibility. I wouldn't want to date her, but I try not to take other people's inventory or intervene unduly in their lives, because I have enough deficiencies of my own to worry about and no standing to complain about the speck in my brother's eye.

 

Eye

Did you read post #369?

If you had you will see that it still does not answer the question I’ve been asking you (one amongst many I should note).

To repeat - - I’m still wondering what ‘special perks’ do you think straight white males are missing out of and therefore deserve to receive – again - as a specific group what do you think they specifically need help with?


Now first you linked to some UK studies not American, in the US white students are consistently doing well in comparison with other racial groups. (National Center for Educational Statistics)

But as pointed out what you linked to was not specifically about ‘straight white males’ it was about disadvantaged white boys, presumably some of whom would be gay so the ‘straight’ bit is out – so to white male part – this wasn’t all white males, as explained middle and upper class white males are doing fine. So as this means that this isn’t about been white it is about coming from a disadvantaged background and region.


And as further explained this has a lot to do with the right leaning neoliberal policies pursued in the UK over the last 30 years or so.

The other thing is that rather than been ignored the findings of these reports have been noted and strategies are been looked at to try and improve the situation. The problem is that these would to some extent or other mean going back on the neoliberal policies that created the situation and many on the right oppose that.

Anyway, again - I’m still wondering what ‘special perks’ do you think straight white males are missing out of and therefore deserve to receive – again - as a specific group what do you think they specifically need help with?

 

Eye

Instantly into attack - you don’t seem to want to discuss the issues you just seem to want to bash what you see as your enemy – ‘liberals’

And again not some liberals not even many liberals seem to think - but ALL liberals.

It increasingly seems to me that you are more interested in bashing your opponents than actually wanting to understand the issues, I think because you realise that if the issues are looked into your views fall apart.

 

Eye

Thing is that the opposite of ‘liberal’ is authoritarian, dictatorial, intolerant, opposed to freedom.

Are you opposed to freedom?

In political terms 'liberals’ are traditionally thought of as the group in between left and right going with some lapover from centre left to centre right.

Normally leaning toward social equality and market capitalism.

Its interesting that in a US context because the American right leaning liberals and right wing were rather successful in purging the US of left wing thought that now the ‘centre’ has moved so far to the right that right leaning liberals are thought by many Americans as akin to socialists.

 

Eye

I keep trying to talk about class, of the disadvantaged and advantaged as well as the economic factors and policies involved BUT you keep bringing it back to race.

Why is that?

I mean you say you don’t want to talk about other things but why not, why can’t you, are you actually able to do so?

It seems to me that you don’t seem at all interested in examining the actual issues, you just seem to want to bash and sloganise

You keep saying things like you want identity politics for all, or nobody.

But that is meaningless without context and you seem unable to give that context or answer questions about it.

I mean you say you don’t want help been given to those that may need it if that help isn’t also given to straight white males BUT you repeatable seem unable to answer the question of why you thing that specific group needs help.

Why is that?

I think you’ve been manipulated into thinking of it as a race issue to stop you realising it’s a social and economic issue, although it is a lot easier just to repeat taught buzz words like ‘political correctness’ ‘identity politics’ ‘social justice warrior’ etc than it is to actually think about the issues but i think you are capable of it if you just stopped with all the posturing.

 

Eye

First – is this really what you think is important, this is what you want people to get angry at, forget the huge social and economic problems at work in the US today and instead concentrate on a plumper Barbie?

Second – it’s a question I’ve asked before – are you saying you’d make it illegal for people to set up such organizations?

You don’t like the fat lobby so would you ban it, arrest people if they tried to set something up? You don’t like Black Lives Matter so would make that illegal as well? You’ve mention a number of such groups and organizations that you don’t like – would you ban them all?

And if you are not calling for these groups to be banned and believe people have the right to set them up – then what is your point?

You want to set up a Straight White Male lobby group then do so (it might force you to actually work out what its aims should be) yes if will probably draw some flak but then so do many others lobby groups, but if that’s what you think is needed then go ahead.

 

Aside from the incongruity of Milo, isn't that basically what the AltRight is? True, it doesn't operate primarily in the lobbies of legislatures, but it is a special interest and it has been active in niche arenas like the internet. Unlike traditional lobbying groups,it doesn't have a clearly defined policy agenda, other than backing Trump. It's very good at identifying what it's against, but not specifically what it;s for. The major function is to target groups for attack and to support the leader for solutions to specific problems, that being Trump. That's essentially what used to be called the Führerprinzip or, in Latin American dictatorships "peronalismo". What I think Eye needs to work on is developing specific policy plans for addressing the alleged grievances of the straight white males, and accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative. How, for example, do you deal effectively with misandry on college campuses, or promote obesity education and control, or see to it that lower SES white males have the same opportunities as minorities to get accepted to colleges and universities. And if class is the real problem, that should also be addressed, e.g., in calling for reversal of Citizens United. Misandry is destructive, obesity kill's, neglecting underprivileged whites is unjust. What to do about it? I don't think Trump is the answer, because I don't think he gives a crap.What would these programs look like?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the term "Social Justice Warrior" originate in the Gamergate spat, where young white male gamers rose up in high dudgeon at the encroachments of women and minorities into their basement bastions of hegemony. In 2004, white males accounted for three-fifths of videogame consumers. Now it's down to nearly half. Yikes, guys, these bitches are on the move! And those pushy broads started trying to foist their castrating values onto the guyz, taking the video violence and mysogeny personally and criticizing it. The result was Gamergate, involving coordinated cyberharassment of the likes of Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkessian. Enter Milo, who had previously characterized gamers as "damaged people" but saw an opportunity to mobilize them for political advantage. If that's the origin of this controversy, it adds a new context to understanding what it's about.

 

No, but many are and won't admit it. The "bubble" metaphor is a Breitbart favorite, reflecting the ideology that its critics are hopelessly out of touch with the heartland of America. But really, all of those labels you list seem to be applicable to one or more of the factions traveling under the banner Alt Right. Where does the Daily Stormer fit in? It considers itself to be AltRight and proclaims on the bannerhead of its website to be "The World’s Most Visited Alt-Right Website.” Stormer leader Andrew Anglin, who regards Milo as a deceitful Jew, states the goal of the movement as "to ethnically cleanse White nations of non-Whites and establish an authoritarian government. Many people also believe that the Jews should be exterminated.” Richard Spencer, who coined the term "alt right" in 2008 and who led the stiff armed "Hail Trump" salute after Trump's victory, describes the Alt Right as a big-tent ideology including the ideas of neo-reactionaries (NRx-ers) longing for a return to a golden age of white hegemony, ; “; human biodiversity adherents (HBDers)", “race realists,” adherents to “scientific racism”; etc. "Human biodiversity", "scientific racism" and "race realists" are the euphemisms of choice by race-obsessed believers in white nationalism. The white gamer faction that flocks to Milo has a distinctively misogynist tone, with a whiff of the boys locker room. So folks who are in the "big tent" pretending that it's simply seeking to get away from identity politics are living in a bubble which will burst soon as the bitter fruits of Trump's victory become apparent. Will the Jews at Breitbart survive? It remains to be seen what will emerge from the rubble, but I'm resisting any effort to climb into the tent with the deplorables.

 

To me the alt-right are clueless, they have nothing to actually contribute, they make a lot of noise but little sense, they are like a little boy banging a drum in a room where others are trying to work toward solving a problem, not only are they not helping they are disrupting those how are.

Its a dead end.

I mean the white supremacist sections of the alt-right want the US to be a ‘white’ country ‘again’ but it never was and what is to happen with the large numbers of non-white people, are they suggesting reservations like those set up for the Native Americans, or is it to be extermination? Neither is practicable let alone civilised.

As to the less extreme alt-right they seem to admit that discrimination of groups goes on and they seem to agree that people have the right to set up groups to highlight or to lobby against such discrimination and if people wish to fund such organisations that would seem their right also.

We have an organisation in the UK called FOREST (voice and friend of the smoker) which lobbies on behalf of smokers, now encouraging people to smoke or to continue to smoke seems silly to me that doesn’t mean I’d ban them, to me they have the right to do it even if it is stupid.

Although I think some might think differently (see 2 in the original list ‘Cut off funding to Black Lives Matter’) but again would these ‘moderate’ alt-right really support legislation to take away people’s rights to do such things?

But banning such organisation wouldn’t get rid of the discrimination that they were set up to counter and nor does moaning on about them (bang bang bang goes the little boy) I think the alt-right need to grow up a little and start to think about the real world, rather than screaming at others from their little homespun bubble.

 

Yes I read everything you posted. And if you'd have read a little more closely, I did acknowledge #369. It is predominantly a class issue. But middle and upper class white males are still subject to casual racism and sexism greenlighted by the social justice wackjobs on the left. Did you happen to see the MTV video I posted a few pages ago?

I already answered your question. But I'll elaborate further by saying that anti-white racism is now widely open and acceptable. Did you see my MTV video I posted a few pages back? Take a look at these tweets from BLM activists: https://redice.tv/news/extreme-anti-white-tweets-from-blacklivesmatter-movement Or how about the professor who called for a white genocide? Switch this to any other race and it's totally unacceptable. I know you're going to keep on asking this until I give you an answer YOU like though.

The fact that you keep asking this question is actually quite troubling. Why do you feel that white males deserve to be excluded from identity politics? Why do you support sexism and racism against white males? Why do you believe racism and sexism only travel in one direction. I mean, yeah you decried my statement that progressives today believe you can't be racist unless you're white, sexist unless you're male. Yet you keep contesting the idea that having identity politics for everyone or nobody is somehow absurd. Why do you feel this way?

 

Ha! You pull out the textbook definition of Liberalism from your arsenal. This is what I call the "feminist" argument. Who use the dictionary definition to say feminism is all about equality, and if you aren't a feminst, you don't believe in equality of the sexes. We all know this is bullshit as feminist organizations and ideologies are strictly gynocentric and mysandrist.

Yes I do know what the true definition of liberal is. I consider myself a classical liberal for the most part. Classical liberalism is a political ideology that values the freedom of individuals — including the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and markets — as well as limited government. It developed in 18th-century Europe and drew on the economic writings of Adam Smith and the growing notion of social progress. http://www.chegg.com/homework-help/definitions/classical-liberalism-53

The name has since then been skewed and altered by various left wing socialist authoritarians of later generations. Therefore I use the word "liberal" as it is widely used and recognized today.

I'll be happy to talk about class too. This whole myth of white privilege puts poor white people at an even harder disadvantage. Why can't we look at the problems of the lowest income earners and not throw in any racial tension into the mess?

I'll ask you what I asked Okie:

"Now what makes you think we can't raise issues for one group (straight white males), without taking away from another (everyone else)? This isn't the Oppression Olympics. "

Is it not possible to have an open discussion about certain groups and their problems, without political correctness and baseless accusations of racism and sexism interfering?

 

First, I'm not concentrating on a plumper Barbie. I'm using fat Barbie as an example of the power and influence of the fat lobby. The modern left is extending an olive branch to fat America to fight a new civil rights movement to them. Using fascist tactics to ban mean words against fat people to regulate free speech.

Second, I don't like the fat lobby or Black Lives Matter, but I won't "ban" them as they have constitutional rights to have voices, even if they are dead wrong. I'm not a leftist who bans and arrests conservatives and libertarians for handing out Constitutions on college campuses (Like what happened here: http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8534

Do 1488'ers and white nationalists have freedom of speech too?
Black Lives Matter has freedom of speech. But since Black Lives Matter uses violence and fascism to push their narrative to wage war on cops and destroy black communities, they must be stopped.
If the fat lobby lies to young people by saying fatness "has nothing to do with health," that beauty is "a social construct," and "you are healthy at any size." This is harmful misinformation that puts public health at risk. They must be stopped.

But not by silencing them, locking them up, instead by discrediting their agenda by bringing the truth behind what they are doing.

You're a marathon runner, right? You know damn well fatness has everything to do with health.

I'm more in favor of destroying all contrived forms of "protected groups" who are shielded with political correctness. But if it seals the coffin of the social justice left forever, lets go for it.

 

The alt-right is a counterculture to the social justice warrior movement that has taken over the media. The alt-right has been exploited by Richard Spencer to build his own fame on; I'm not sure who actually invented the word, but to say he invented it is a pretty bold statement. Political correctness is getting way out of hand. Bill Maher and George Carlin even recognized it, but nobody listened to them. And I blame the creation of the alt-right on the social justice warriors and trigger-warning microagression safe-space culture. If the left wants get rid of the monstrosity of the alt-right, I think they could work on improving themselves first.

 

I think one great thing that came from the Civil Rights movement is that it has formed a culture where blatant discrimination is deeply frowned upon. I may be straight and white, but I would never go to an establishment that openly practiced discrimination against certain people.
Yeah the ideology of the religious right is one of the many reasons I'm not a republican. Most republicans would find my views on banning GMO foods, abortion, alternative energy, 9/11, and many other things quite horrifying. This election season I thought Rand Paul would be the best one of the republican ticket ahead of Trump.

Do you remember all the anti-smoking PSAs back in the '90s? They were all over the place back in the day. Spreading public awareness, on top of banning cigarette advertisements in numerous forms of media was how they were able to ban smoking inside of all public places; no longer do restaurants have smoking sections because of this. Politics is downstream from culture, and in order to pass all these smoking bans they had to change the culture by shaming and demonizing smokers and cigarettes.

How about the cost of healthcare for smokers and the overweight? Their health problems put a huge strain on the budget of healthcare expenditures for numerous countries and communities. I'd argue that's a form of how overweight people's health problems affect healthcare costs for everyone else.

I don't know your friend, and I feel sorry he's gotten to that state. I don't know his situation, but for many people weight loss can be prevented before it goes out of control. And yes I agree with you that the fat girl in that photo giving that presentation is doing more harm than good. Fat acceptance is a movement that puts feelings before facts; it tells people that they can be fat and indulge in an unhealthy lifestyle and still be happy. This is wrong, and your friend's physical and mental condition only proves it.

If the fat lobby changes the culture of society to legislate mean words against fat people as hate crime, and grant special privileges to fat people, then we're all gonna be screwed!