How To Stop The Alt-Right

I was thinking Don Quixote, but then this flashed before my frontal lobe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vhf9jRfXAp0

Naturally you're right about the eternal victimhood pissing contest. Either "side" in the issue can dredge up "proof" of how put upon they have been. And to what end? To browbeat the other "side" into some kind of capitulation that they don't personally owe. They pay it to "keep the peace".

But that only lasts till the hangover. Then it's time to hit the streets again to "demand" shit. It's all based on perceptions and feelings with facts taking a seat at the back of the bus. Look how "Hands Up Don't Shoot" is STILL being claimed, not because it was factual, but because it was plausible, until it was debunked and the guy who created it was proven to be a lying sack of shit. Look at all the crap created by a single lie. Look at how it has spun out of control and people are being murdered in clear acts of unearned revenge.

For the record, I have no problem with revenge and find it to be very therapeutic. Don't take that as advice though, I'm quite psychotic.

 

Eye

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]But then what is your point? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]You specifically said that lefties should get a sense of humour and not attack what the alt-right find funny. Then you gave as examples people that were not alt-right - then you said it was just about college campuses and the comedians they hired who had to follow the rules set down by the people that employed them and you’d like them to stop that - but now you say they are perfectly in the right to do what they do it’s just that you dislike it.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]So its not ‘all lefties’ but just a few on some campuses doing something you think is perfectly within their rights to do and which doesn’t affect places not on campuses? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Again sorry but what was your point? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]So it was never about comedy?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]It was about guest speakers on some campuses (again you go very niche) so let me see – you are now saying you would remove the right of protest to Student Associations or all students in general?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]So you would violate these area by force by law by what? And you would force students to listen to these speakers? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Again I’m not sure what you are getting at? [/SIZE]

 

Eye

[SIZE=11pt]But as pointed out there does seem to be data that show there is an income gap between men and women [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I know this issue is complicated but there does seem to be data that show there is an income gap between men and women[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]And putting up a very simplistic video from the American Enterprise Institute the home of the no-cons and the place where some of the worse ideas of the Bush Jr admin came from doesn’t really help your cause.[/SIZE]

I mean Christina Hoff Sommers seems to be pointing out the bloody obvious that men and women are different then trying to claim that that difference means that they are the same and that makes them equal – it makes no sense, it seems to be more about mudding the water than seeking clarity.

 

Eye

[SIZE=11pt]The problem is that when these fringe crazies trivialize the definition of rape to encompass any form of sexual aggression or unwanted advancement, then yeah, the 1 in 4 statistic would probably be real if we changed the definition like that. [/SIZE]

So the New York Times is a fringe crazy?

To me it was just bad journalism trying to get a reaction rather than reporting the facts.

Anyway again this is about fringe crazies not all lefties and also this report as said also does highlight an issue that I think should be followed up by other research it shouldn't be just dismissed a ‘feminist’.

The thing is that sexual assaults and rapes do happen in the real world they are not some fantasy made up by feminists.

 

Eye

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]But the LGBT community has people in it of many colours, those ‘identified’ as say dyslexic have groups and institutions helping them but dyslexics can come from of any race. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Thing is this about gaining an advantage or being given help because of a disadvantage?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]A lot of ‘identified’ groups are open to all people irrespective of colour or whatever yet it is the ones that are ‘race’ orientated that some seem to be drawing attention to. [/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]Even your example doesn’t seem to stand up[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]white [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]students receive 72 percent of all scholarships. Minority students receive only 28 percent of all scholarships.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=134623124[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]As to figures for college attendance – in 2013 [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Whites - [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]58.2%[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Black - [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]14.7%[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Hispanic – 16.5%[/SIZE]

 

[SIZE=11pt]Eye[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Actually I’m still not clear on what you mean by identity politics and your contradictory view of it, one moment seeming to argue against then the next been for it. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I mean why do you think white people as a group need help specific help as that group? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I mean as a group white people own most of the wealth in the US. That is not to say there are not poor white people only that the rich of America are in vast majority white and the majority of the poor are black or from other minority groups. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Thing is character can so much be the product of environment and upbringing and that can be different for someone born into advantage or disadvantage. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]It becomes even worse if it is looked at in economic terms those born into advantage are more like to receive advantages that help them obtain advantage and I’ve long argued here that it is the best criteria to look at things. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]But as I’ve also pointed out this often means that when looked at certain groups are more disadvantaged than other. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]And as explained that can be used by some to say those groups are getting ‘favour’ by those seeking to cause mischief. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]For example if the disadvantaged receiving help contain a large number of a particular racial group racist can use that to say that group are gaining an advantage at the expense of another racial group.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Let us take food stamps in the US - [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]women were about twice as likely as men (23% vs. 12%) to have received food stamps at some point in their lives. Blacks are about twice as likely as whites to have used this benefit during their lives (31% vs. 15%). Among Hispanics, about 22% say they have collected food stamps.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Does that mean women and minorities are gaining an advantage over white men or that women and minorities are more likely to need assistance? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The racial group can change from country to country (Gypsies, Blacks, Asians etc) but the method of those seeking to use scapegoating as a political tool is the same [/SIZE]

 

It seems to me that people are being manipulated - there seems to be this ‘supersizing’ the supposed problems of the ‘left’, things like ‘identity politics’ and ‘political correctness’ which seem like mirage problems (when examined they become hollow or insignificant) as a means of diverting attention away from the actual major problem of the last 30 years the right wing ideas of free market neoliberalism.

Why have wages for the majority stagnated or fallen while the wealth of the few vastly increased, it wasn’t ‘identity politics’ but neoliberalism

Why was manufacturing hollowed out it wasn’t ‘political correctness’ it was neoliberalism

And I could go one

And the thing is that many Americans enthusiastically voted for politicians that promoted neoliberal policies and they can’t even say they were not warned about what the consequences might be.

And the thing is they still are although voting for neoliberals even if many now have morphed into Nationalist Neoliberals.

So what is the biggest threat to working and middle class Americans – ideas that are bringing the US closer to being a plutocratic tyranny or a few kids stopping Milo Yiannopoulos from talking at their university?

And why is the right shouting so loudly that it is the latter?

 

To clarify, it was both about comedy, and allowing someone with the wrong opinion to speak.

Institutions of higher learning should be welcoming of diversity of opinion, where people's views and ideas of the world are actually challenged and they can be opened up to new ideas. That's what they were intended to be. How can that be possibly be accomplished when they push leftist ideas in every classroom, ban conservative speakers and edgy controversial entertainers from coming onto campus, and encourage safe spaces where students and teachers can shelter themselves from all alternative ideas and thinking?

So you think it should be OK to not give the speaking platform to certain people? If so, why?

Based on my observations with the public on and offline, I can compare far left social justice warriors to alt-right internet trolls. What I and a lot people have seen is the SJWs from the ugliest side of the left are so hyper sensitive to the point they actually believe they suffer PTSD when they hear triggering words or phrases they don't like. They are the authoritarian language policemen who attack the freedom of speech in the name of political correctness. And because they are so strict about all of this, they lack a sense of humor so much so that none of Dave Chappelle's racially driven (not racist) jokes would not be accepted by these lunatics. As I said in post 165:

"Political correctness is the new religion of the fringe left. Defacing holy imagery to evoke reactions has always been a hobby of trolls. Worshiping political correctness gave rise to the alt-right."

Most of the alt-right I've seen online mostly consists of trolls from all ages and ethnicity who take advantage of the hypersensitivity of these silly people by breaking every accepted norm of political correctness. They take pride in being heathens and evoking reactions out of these people. It's so easy to do it too. And they have a lot more fun doing it. They aren't afraid of breaking the boundaries of political correctness, and they have a great sense of humor doing it for the most part. Unfortunately, as I pointed out, there are the few bad ones who go way overboard into racist territory just to get a reaction out of their prey, and I honestly wish they didn't.

Politically incorrect humor is the best kind of humor

 

Yes, and several bills have been passed to seal this gap you speak of. Time after time. Did you miss post #160?
When you take all incomes made by men and women then divide it up, yeah you'll see a gap. But progressives never take into account the different lifesytle choices men and women make for themselves. Men typically put in more hours and work more overtime. Women typically take more time off to seek a more balanced work and family life, and can get pregnant. The career choices are vastly different as well, as you can see there are male and female dominated industries across the workforce.

So how do you wanna bridge this gap? Force women to work more hours and force men to work less?

yes lol

They do happen. But not at the rate that feminists want us to believe.
Why do they keep telling young people at highschools and college campuses this lie about the 1 in 4? If anything, that is the rape statistic of the war torn Congo region where it is still used as an act of war. The problem with trivializing the definition of rape to encompass everything from regret-sex to unwanted looks from a dorky unattractive guy, is that it downplays the severity and true horrors that a REAL rape victim goes through. Leading their stories to be taken less seriously by authorities.

 

Judging by your posts, I think you understand identity politics pretty well. It is the promotion of policies for selective groups of people whether it be for race, gender, sexual identity, religion, ethnicity, nationality, and any other unique identifier.

Actually, even though I said I prefer not to have a massive culture driven by identity politics at all. I'd be fine with allowing identity politics to exist in society, just as long as we can have identity politics for EVERYBODY equally. Instead of reserving it for certain classifications of human beings.

Do you think they should be ignored?

Do you actually judge an individual's socioeconomic background by the color of their skin?
Yes you acknowledge there are poor white people, but why throw skin color into it? You can't fight segregation with more segregation.

How wealthy you were when you were born does not determine your outcome in life.
Advantaged people have fallen hard. Disadvantaged people have risen high and above.

 

Folks, most of the poor in the US are white. It has been that way for all of US history.

As of 2015 the numbers were close to:
White 17.9 Million
Black 9.5 Million
Hispanic 12.2 Million
Other 3.7 Million

I realize some might want to get into a discussion about percentages. That's fine, but be aware it opens up a whole arena of percentage issues that have been downplayed because percentages and real numbers can be so "different". Cherry picking facts to assemble them into a lie is how we ended up with Trump in the top seat.

 

GET ON THE TRUMP TRAIN OR GET RUN OVER!!!!

 

Lol

 

That's because whites still outnumber minorities by a substantial margin. Non-Hispanic whites account for 63% of the population--197.7 million of the total 314 million, compared with only 57 million Hispanics (17.6%) and 46.3 million African Americans(14 %). By your own figures, the numbers of poor Hispanics and African-Americans totaled 21.7 million, compared with 17.9 million non-Hispanic whites. So in absolute numbers, there were more poor Hispanics and African-Americans, taken together, than whites, and in proportion to their relative numbers in the total U.S. population, the non-white minorities were disproportionately poorer relative to their numbers in the total U.S. population

 

Handy how they can be "taken together" like that. And how terms like "disproportionate" always seem to steer directly back to racism or the "racist" system. A total misuse of the term.

What I often wonder is why people don't question the whole notion of "diversity" when black Americans in particular are crammed into cities. Why? Because their votes have more value than their lives. It's disgusting to see how readily black Americans have been conned into this odd, manufactured lifestyle. If it is a white racist conspiracy, why are they still paying for it? Doesn't it seem more likely they'd let that segment of the population falter as quickly as possible?

I'll give you a disproportionate figure though, the number of people who give a crap about the issues of white people. After all, caring in the slightest about white heritage or lineage, is "racist" isn't it? Og course it is. Welcome to marxism's greatest success in dividing America. There's nothing like dredging up old grudges that nobody can fix.

The evil "system" that shits on people shits on all of them by basis of class. Which is exactly why most of the poor in the nation are white people. And why slapping labels like "white privilege" and "white supremacy" onto people JUST because they are white is fucking rude as all hell, and racist.

But we could probably talk all day about that weird paradigm, that ONLY white people can be racists and that black people can't be racists at all.

Bottom line, if you hate people, you suck. If you hate a whole race of people, you're a racist. Don't you get tired of all the back and forth racism? Of course not. Because most of it is in 1 direction these days. The rest is made up bullshit like this laughable assertion that "The KKK" is actually a thing anymore. As if they were an actual threat to anyone beyond the people who make their frumpy outfits.

 

Eye

Yes you would hope but you’d be naive to think that the reality was true – thing is that since the first ones in medieval Europe were founded they have been as much about the limiting of ideas and viewpoints as they have been about spreading them.

They could become very upset about heretical ideas.

In England right up to the end of the 19th century you couldn’t even go to university unless you were Church of England and at Cambridge women were not awarded degrees on an equal basis to men until 1948 and I believe some universities in the US still oppose the entry of gay students.

In the US many universities banned socialists and communists from teaching or speaking (formally or informally) bringing in mandatory loyalty oaths to weed out dissenters with un-America viewpoints. The North Carolina General Assembly passed a law the Act to Regulate Visiting Speakers that prohibited the use of any state-supported college or university facilities by anyone who was a communist and even the University of California had a policy of strictly limiting who could speak on campus. This was known as the Speaker Ban, and it largely applied to known Communists.

So as I’ve already asked are you going to force Student Associations in some way to allow people you like to speak but which they don’t like?

Should the US law makers bring in an Act to Regulate Visiting Speakers that forced Student Association to hire the type of comedians you like?

 

Eye

First you would have to explain to me what you mean by ‘politically incorrect’ then what a ‘politically incorrect’ joke was (can you give me an example?)

I mean an openly racist joke is politically incorrect but you have already said you don’t support such jokes. And the comedians you have mentioned like Jerry Seinfeld and Chris Rock do not seem that politically incorrect to me.

 

Eye

AGAIN is this ALL progressives?


*

Anyway I’ll try again – men and women are different but many of the ‘lifestyle choices’ come down to one thing as you mention – women have babies and are seen as the main carers of children. If the situation was reverse and men had the babies it is very likely the pay gap issue would be reversed.

[Also as an aside - often the ‘woman’s choice’ is in fact the couples decision made together to have a family -so why blame only the woman for that choice?]


Thing is that measures can be taken to lessen the impact on women of having the child bearing role.


One good one is paid maternity leave but as of 2012, only three countries do not mandate paid time off for new parents: Papua New Guinea, Lesotho, and the United States

[SIZE=10pt]Among 41 nations, U.S. is the outlier when it comes to paid parental leave[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/26/u-s-lacks-mandated-paid-parental-leave/[/SIZE]



My wife received paid maternity leave, then my child went to a workplace nursery (kindergarten) that was subsidised through tax credits but many countries in Europe like Sweden subsidize to an even higher degree. When the child moved on to primary school she went to publically funded after school provision.


In the US costing anywhere from $5,476 to $16,549 a year, childcare is one of the highest expenses for American households. In the majority of states, childcare costs more than in-state tuition to public colleges; most families spend twice as much on childcare as they do on food. And while over 900,000 US families receive subsidies to help them, such payments often cover only a fraction of the costs.


At the same time we have flexible working laws and paid leave to cover such things as a child’s illness or hospital appointments.

 

Eye

THEY –who are they -ALL lefties, ALL women ALL progressives

LOL - remember here that it was me, a leftie, that explained why it was a mistake because I looked into it - you just ‘knew’ it was wrong because you’d heard it from feminist and you don’t like feminists.

 

Eye

Sorry you clearly didn’t understand what I was trying to say and so I’ll try and explain again –

OK say we turn out the lights and then set about helping the economically poor as one group and of course the most amount of assistance would be targeted at the most disadvantaged.

Now turn the lights on – and it turns out that there are subsets within the group of reds, greens and yellows and that the groups green and yellow are receiving the most aid (or are perceived to be).

In such circumstances there are people that would exploit that for political gain, by for example saying that greens and yellows are getting a better deal and that the reds should demand more.

In that way something that was done colour blind can become something about colour.

*

So let us return to food stamps in the US - women were about twice as likely as men (23% vs. 12%) to have received food stamps at some point in their lives. Blacks are about twice as likely as whites to have used this benefit during their lives (31% vs. 15%). Among Hispanics, about 22% say they have collected food stamps.

Does that mean does this mean that women and minorities are gaining an advantage over white men or that women and minorities are more likely to need assistance?