"Alt-Right": A Movement? An Ideology? An Ethnicity? WHAT is it?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The inherent deal with the whole progressive PC stance, the part that makes demonizing SWM's it's centerpiece (SJW logic I'm talking about here), is if you're a SWM then you must self-loathe about it and set about going around towing the line and such. If you do that you're okay, otherwise you're part of the "Patriarchy" (well you still are anyways, but they'll disappear you last) to be White Devil'ized.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Yet it's this very RACIST SEXIST SJW mindset that has caused all this social chaos

you are one of the most uneducated people on the internet, well done!
that or a troll with poor bait.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Is an SWM a synonym for the alt-right? Because if it is then she is spot on.

The synonym is spot on, you said it buddy.

Poor choice of words? It would seem as though you think the two are interchangeable.

Nice back pedaling though

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: theantediluvian

Um, no category?

Being one the most articulate leftist's around, and the most descriptive anybody in this entire thread so far....

Are you capable of actually categorizing what this "thing" is and is not? Or is the subject, Hillary, and your looooong post, just about label attaching and smearing the opposition to PC / Hillary????

Semantics is a helluva thing. Political labels and terminology are particularly relative and subjective and therefore inherently short on denotation and long on connotation.

Alt-right is short for "alternative right-wing." If you're looking for a classification, I believe "movement" would be best. If you're looking for a definition, you're going to find a million of them just like you would for any other political label.

If you think that "alt-right" is simply a pejorative created by leftists to smear people, you're wrong. It's been around for years now and there are plenty of self-described members of the alt-right, it's an accepted term among alt-right sources, etc.

From Breitbart An Establishment Conservative’s Guide To The Alt-Right:

The alternative right, more commonly known as the alt-right, is an amorphous movement. Some — mostly Establishment types — insist it’s little more than a vehicle for the worst dregs of human society: anti-Semites, white supremacists, and other members of the Stormfront set. They’re wrong. Previously an obscure subculture, the alt-right burst onto the national political scene in 2015. Although initially small in number, the alt-right has a youthful energy and jarring, taboo-defying rhetoric that have boosted its membership and made it impossible to ignore.

There are many things that separate the alternative right from old-school racist skinheads (to whom they are often idiotically compared), but one thing stands out above all else: intelligence. Skinheads, by and large, are low-information, low-IQ thugs driven by the thrill of violence and tribal hatred. The alternative right are a much smarter group of people — which perhaps suggests why the Left hates them so much. They’re dangerously bright.

While I disagree that the many are "dangerously bright," I find it interesting that one of the central alt-right media sources goes to "much smarter group of people" when drawing a distinction between "old-school racist skinheads" and the alt-right.

Think about what's implied by that paragraph. Not that they aren't bigots but that they're a smarter breed of bigots. Here you can see them try to sugar coat it some more (my bold):

Natural conservatives can broadly be described as the group that the intellectuals above were writing for. They are mostly white, mostly male middle-American radicals, who are unapologetically embracing a new identity politics that prioritises the interests of their own demographic. In their politics, these new conservatives are only following their natural instincts — the same instincts that motivate conservatives across the globe. These motivations have been painstakingly researched by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, and an instinct keenly felt by a huge swathe of the political population: the conservative instinct.

The conservative instinct, as described by Haidt, includes a preference for homogeneity over diversity, for stability over change, and for hierarchy and order over radical egalitarianism. Their instinctive wariness of the foreign and the unfamiliar is an instinct that we all share – an evolutionary safeguard against excessive, potentially perilous curiosity – but natural conservatives feel it with more intensity. They instinctively prefer familiar societies, familiar norms, and familiar institutions.

Should I break that down for you?

"includes a preference for homogeneity over diversity" - we don't like people who aren't like us.
"for stability over change" - we don't like change
"for hierarchy and order over radical egalitarianism" - we want authoritarian rule and inequality (egalitarianism is the belief that people should have the same rights)
"They instinctively prefer familiar societies, familiar norms, and familiar institutions" - we're xenophobic white Christian nationalists

Don't take my word for it. Read it. It's a white Christian nationalist screed. That's from the same media source whose CEO was just hired on as Trump's campaign CEO.

It's not a smear when it's true.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Yep. Keep up with the strawmans telling us how we think. You just keep reinforcing the idea you are an alt-right person.

As long as no one is advocating for censorship or infringing on the rights of free expression, does it really matter what names people call each other?

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Is an SWM a synonym for the alt-right? Because if it is then she is spot on.

The synonym is spot on, you said it buddy.

Poor choice of words? It would seem as though you think the two are interchangeable.

Nice back pedaling though

Only if you fail to understand what a question mark means, which I guess you don't. Anything to believe your strawmans. That's the alt-right way!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: chris_stibrany
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss


Isn't 'alt right' a 'polite' 'PC' way for them to say Trump supporters?

Who is them? KKK members and neo nazis? Because they are the ones who coined the term and love calling themselves that.

That might be true. But now the precedent is to label all of PC / Hillary opposition as such, which is the same thing as labeling (DEMONIZING) them as being actual NN/KKK.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I haven't the slightest interest in viewing your film. I cued it up, and saw the text disclaimer and then heard the STARWARS theme...I turned it off.

It's nearly two hours long. I can scarcely tolerate this sort of scanning of your posts, let alone watch something you made. There aren't really that many "home-made" films worth watching. And even the crap ones are on youtube.

I don't give a rat's ass who you used to be "for" or "against" - that only proves that you are disingenuous in your entire approach here. It seems to be from a 'playbook' that you and a couple of other members share.

Are you guys all in a cube-row and high fiving each other all day long as you vomit all over the internet?

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
That's only because Trump has embraced the alt-right philosophy completely with his hiring of Steven Bannon, but I don't call Gary Johnson supporters, Jill Stein supporters, or undecided independents alt right.

But you seem to think that everyone who isn't a Hillary supporter is a Trump supporter or you think that I don't care about that nuance. Either way, just another strawman from you. Keep piling on the evidence of you being alt right. I'll keep pointing it out for you.

a reply to: DBCowboy

YES. It matters.

Verbal abuse and psychological terrorism matters.

IT MATTERS.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
It's not a smear when it's true.

Sure, apparently there really is some actual group of people whom are all that stuff.

But to go label any and all opposition / people that annoy you as such....



How about this mind job: "Alt-Right" is "Nationalistic", and yet the claim is that this 'vast alt-right wing conspiracy' has Putin at it's head. Anyone running with this idea might as well start calling water fire.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

It's a difference between being a boor in any type of neutral setting and purposely challenging an ideology and position that actively promotes censorship and other totalitarian measures as a form of protest. Such an odious and Orwellian atmosphere should be challenged for the good of society. Unless you want to live in a totalitarian state.

Really look at the positions of these people and compare them to the ideas in the book 1984. Thoughtcrime, newspeak and doublethink specifically. See if you can't find millions of examples of this on the internet.

demean, browbeat, control, stalk, terrorize

REALLY? They don't have the power to even do that, isn't that what you liberals always say? Your newspeak redefinition of racism? You have to have institutional power for racism to be valid. These people aren't demeaning, browbeating, controlling, stalking or terrorising people. They are reacting to tremendous intolerance and totalitarianism that is stemming from the left, WHICH DO HAVE INSTITUTIONAL HARD AND SOFT POWER far more powerful than anything the alternative right could ever muster. So in which reality are you living? Because in the one I live in almost all institutions of power in society have a decidedly leftist bias, and not only that but they take it upon themselves to constantly hit us with a barrage of propaganda wherever we go.

And this is the reason:

It’s arguable that natural conservatives haven’t had real political representation for decades. Since the 1980s, establishment Republicans have obsessed over economics and foreign policy, fiercely defending the Reagan-Thatcher economic consensus at home and neoconservative interventionism abroad. In matters of culture and morality, the issues that natural conservatives really care about, all territory has been ceded to the Left, which now controls the academy, the entertainment industry and the press.

Neither is Trump supporters even close to how violent protesters have been against Trump supporters. It seems these emotionally infantile people can't even handle the idea of being challenged in a meaningful way without resorting to violence. I'm not an American but this is also the case where I live, the so called liberal utopia that is on its way to becoming a failed state. Left wing violence is explained away and justified.

So no, screw your delicate sensibilities. These people need exposure therapy to overcome their sickness!

"the matter"? Nothing. You just restated my sentence. Yes, hate speech is a limitation on free speech.

´

No, I called you out on saying that"freedom of speech" does not mean people can collectively make trouble being as outrageously inappropriate as possible.

Which is exactly what freedom of speech means. But apparently you just ignored that..

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm trying to go off of Hillary conspiracy theory, which BuzzyWig's sure seemed to parrot expertly today.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Right. Strawmans. I know already.

originally posted by: stinkelbaum
you are one of the most uneducated people on the internet, well done!
that or a troll with poor bait.

Wow! Just wow.



You have no idea who you're even dealing with.

If you get an actual argument about anything please do report back!

edit on 31-8-2016 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

gah.

Just knock it off. It's your fantasy that it's some sort of smear campaign. I don't buy that, and it's frivolous to keep accusing me of somehow "proving" anything you are saying. I am not a Hillary supporter. NONE of the sources I posted were her speaking.

The sources I posted were Breitbart (!), Wiki, and NPR - along with others.

Not one of those is a Hillary cheerleading team. Just quit already, and stop talking about me as if I'm not here. I am here, I can hear EVERYTHING you are saying about me. Stop it.
Now.

If people want to know what I think, and who I am, and what I am saying or referencing or proving, they can bloody well read my own posts and threads. Step off.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TheLaughingGod
Describing someone's behavior accurately is not an ad hominem remark. If you call someone a racist then prove it with racist remarks made by that person, then you aren't insulting or ad homineming them. You should go restudy Logic or at the very least logical fallacies.

The problem is liberals have an ever expanding definition of being racist. Have you really not noticed that?

Not only that, but they've also tried to redefine the very definition of the word in a ploy to exclude white people because apparently racism is a one way street. In the liberal fantasy it flows out from all white people in all directions and this is the only meaningful racism any liberal is ever willing to discuss. Yet you people still take this obvious lie as truth and never challenge this highly biased notion.

No, when a liberal is calling someone a racist these days 90% of the time it'll be as a substitute for actual arguments.

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
Yet you people still take this obvious lie as truth and never challenge this highly biased notion.

WHAT YOU MEAN "YOU PEOPLE"????

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: DBCowboy

YES. It matters.

Verbal abuse and psychological terrorism matters.

IT MATTERS.

Oh, you mean like all of this:
Social Justice Assault Warriors TV Marathon!