So Who and What is the "Alt-Right?"

They believe in Kek.

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
It's a group the DNC made up as a boogeyman for their supporters.

Defined as 'Pied Paper' by Clinton's campaign staff :

How the Hillary Clinton campaign deliberately “elevated” Donald Trump with its “pied piper” strategy

As soon as the words Alt right or Liberal left and all those other terms get thrown around...I quit listening because I know they are just going to make themselves look ridiculous blaming the other group...yeah,thats one way to work together to solve problems,right???

My comment on who and what is the Alt right....WHO CARES!!

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

That's an excellent video. Thanks for posting it here. It's an excellent example of how those who refuse to buy the mainstream nonsense and garbage from both left and right are easily and quickly labeled and marginalized and demonized -- and that it doesn't work!

I haven't heard anyone called the "Alt-Left" yet though...

a reply to: DrumsRfun

My comment on who and what is the Alt right....WHO CARES!!

Fair enough!

My only concern is to understand what we're dealing with. But at this point the term has no real meaning to me; I'm more concerned about the true motives of those throwing it around for public consumption (or perhaps flagellation would be a better term).

a reply to: Boadicea

That and the SJW lable are equally dumb attempts to divide & conquer the people with shallow and reductionistic rhetorics.

Nothing for a reasonable and differentiated debate, which is why I always have to laugh when I see the usual suspects using those terms...

a reply to: Boadicea

In Nevada, Clinton took on the alt-right by name, singling it out as an "emerging racist ideology."

If Clinton was against them then you really have to wonder , no ? Think about it , the alt-right also don't believe in the whole man made climate change and are there for labeled as deniers . Back a few years ago in Canada the courts took what ever the women said in court as the gospel while judging the males as guilty and needing to prove their innocence .Kind of a reverse onus type law .I and others know full well what it was like in courts and out of that the courts learned that they were in the wrong because in a lot of cases the women (victims ) were given preferential treatment while they in most cases were actually the cause of the issues . The lawyers knew of this bias and exploited it . Things have changed sense then and now in family courts those kinds of accusations need to be proven .

Its the same deal on the climate debate or has been .Conservatives noticed that main stream liberal/conservatism were just two sides to the same coin and so birds of a feather flock together into the alt-right . imo

a reply to: Boadicea

Trying to make sense of it is like trying to eat a pie with no mouth.
Also,forgive my curtness,just got home from surgery and am cranky and on pain meds.

Most people who make sense have both left views and right views at the same time,in my opinion.

Sometimes there is nothing left on the right and nothing right on the left...talking about their brains.

originally posted by: GodEmperor
It's an amalgamation of anyone who isn't 'mainstream right'.

You could say, the left is 'alternative right', grouping the lefties in there would shut them up about it.

Yes because "I know you are but what am I" is such stellar reasoning that has won MANY an intellectual debate. Oh /sarc btw.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Boadicea

That and the SJW lable are equally dumb attempts to divide & conquer the people with shallow and reductionistic rhetorics.

Nothing for a reasonable and differentiated debate, which is why I always have to laugh when I see the usual suspects using those terms...

I couldn't agree more! Divide-and-conquer is the name of the game. Thank you!

a reply to: Middleoftheroad

I already added my 2 cents and don't feel like debating with someone who believes everything they read online.

I see you are new here, so you are unfamiliar with my strong anti-vaxing views, my championing of chemtrails, HAARP research and daring exposure of the Monn Landing Hoax.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

You make some very good points, but I have to confess that I didn't realize Hillary was the first to throw the label out until I did the research. And she only did so after Trump had cinched the nomination. It then made much more sense to me.

What I do find odd -- and I'm still pondering -- is that it wasn't that long ago that the entire Republican party was identified by what Hillary is now calling the alt-right. So were the mainstream Republicans racists and sexists and homophobes? Or is it now the alt-right and mainstream Republicans are cool? It just doesn't make any sense.

Well, except for the divide-and-conquer angle. Just another effort to divide the majority party -- and everyone.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think your sarcasm went clear over my head! I tend to agree (with the poster you replied to) that the label Alt-Right is being used as a way to label and demoralize -- if not demonize -- anyone and everyone who strays from the party lines, but if you want to make your point again in terms I could hopefully understand, I'm listening...

(Those would obviously have to be "Alt-Right for Dummies" terms though!)

a reply to: Boadicea

You make some very good points, but I have to confess that I didn't realize Hillary was the first to throw the label out until I did the research.

What is your source for that statement? Here's something that pre-dates Clinton:

The Alternative Right is a term coined in 2008 by Richard Bertrand Spencer, who heads the white nationalist think tank known as the National Policy Institute, to describe a loose set of far-right ideals centered on “white identity” and the preservation of “Western civilization.” In 2010, Spencer, who had done stints as an editor of The American Conservative and Taki’s Magazine, launched the Alternative Right blog, where he worked to refine the movement’s ideological tenets.

Spencer describes the Alt Right as a big-tent ideology that blends the ideas of neo-reactionaries (NRx-ers), who advocate a return to an antiquated, pseudo-libertarian government that supports “traditional western civilization”; “archeofuturists,” those who advocate for a return to “traditional values” without jettisoning the advances of society and technology; human biodiversity adherents (HBDers) and “race realists,” people who generally adhere to “scientific racism”; and other extreme-right ideologies. Alt-Right adherents stridently reject egalitarianism and universalism.

www.splcenter.org...

a reply to: Boadicea

You mean that you don't understand how telling someone on the left that they are also alt-right in order to shut discussion down being compared to the simple playground comeback of "I know you are but what am I?" to shut an argument down? I really don't know how else to explain it, but I can say that it isn't conducive to promoting discussion and it looks childish.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

That's an excellent video. Thanks for posting it here. It's an excellent example of how those who refuse to buy the mainstream nonsense and garbage from both left and right are easily and quickly labeled and marginalized and demonized -- and that it doesn't work!

I haven't heard anyone called the "Alt-Left" yet though...

PETA alt-left and pretty much ALL SJW's including also anyone who daily uses the term "micro aggression" seriously

a reply to: DJW001

Hmmm... not sure just where to start addressing your comment.

I guess I'll start by saying that I could have been more specific in the comment you quoted, specifically in that the new focus on the alt-right by the media and pundits began when Hillary used the term in a campaign speech in Nevada, as referenced by CNN and other news sites. (All of which are linked in the OP, and the CNN link was quoted in the OP.)

I will continue by pointing out that -- as noted in the OP -- Richard Spencer began a website called Alternative Right, now defunct, but he is not responsible for the current alt-right label being thrown around. The former is a proper noun or title for a very specific entity; the latter is a very loose term for a diverse group of people.

Third, all of this is included in the OP, and if you want to discuss further, please read the OP in its entirety so we can be on the same page and not have to repeat information.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

I already added my 2 cents and don't feel like debating with someone who believes everything they read online.

I see you are new here, so you are unfamiliar with my strong anti-vaxing views, my championing of chemtrails, HAARP research and daring exposure of the Monn Landing Hoax.

Yep, I don't believe in any of those either other than HAARP since we all know they exist. Good luck on your adventures.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Boadicea

You mean that you don't understand how telling someone on the left that they are also alt-right in order to shut discussion down being compared to the simple playground comeback of "I know you are but what am I?" to shut an argument down?

Yeah, pretty much! That's not where my head is at.

I took the comment as referring to how easily the "alt" left can also be labeled with the same broad brush as is being done with the right. Technically, if the "alt" left does not fall in line with mainstream left, then they could also be labeled as alt-right. I see your point now, but like I said, that's not where my head is at.

I really don't know how else to explain it, but I can say that it isn't conducive to promoting discussion and it looks childish.

I see your point now -- but not then. I'm not sure how the analogy was originally intended, I only know how I took it.

a reply to: Boadicea

I think that she even attacked infowars and Alex Jones at one point. The labeling and associations that go with the labels used to work for the most part .I think that is how the left found a place but Trump kind of knocked that wall down or at the least put a big crack in it . Our last election that went to a liberal majority might just be the last time the main stream parties rule . Canada is usually a few years behind the states so one can hope .