-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is the Alt-Right?
- Thread starter Quetzal
- Start date
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
As I have stated numerous times, I am not familiar with alt right ideology and am not really sure it can be pigeonholed or clearly defined by anyone yet. I'll go on to say that on the surface, some of its tenets seem repulsive to me.
But you didn't answer my question, so I'll repeat it and I hope you will answer it this time:
"Now - to clarify - I do not know much about the "alt right" movement and do not consider myself to be aligned with it. But I guess my question is this - why does this particular movement or ideology evoke such outrage among liberals when groups based on identifying with other ethnicities - groups which often disparage or denounce folks of European ancestry and those traditions - get a pass on the racist smack talk? I guess I just don't get the inconsistency."
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Interesting - I can easily find all sorts of sources on the alt right movement that aren't "white nationalist sources."
For instance, this is an interesting article:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/benjamin-wallace-wells/is-the-alt-right-for-real
And here's another one:
http://www.unz.com/article/the-decline-and-rise-of-the-alternative-right/
Anyway, the "Alt Right" seems familiar to me - it seems they've been around for a long time, even if they weren't identified as one particular group. That's not saying anything positive about them - it's just an observation.
Well first there is good reason for it to provoke outrage, it is a dangerous, repulsive, hateful ideology. But I think your question has more to do with why other hateful ideologies by other ethnic groups seem to get a pass. I will give you two reasons for this.
First, at this time in history, it is the alt-right that is getting dangerously close to influencing the President of the United States and thereby U.S. foreign and domestic policy. This is a terrifying prospect and needs to be addressed.
Second I acknowledge that there is a bias evident in Liberals in general. Liberal (in general) prefer the idea of punching up, rather than punching down. And I think this is a good instinct, but like any instinct, it can go wrong in some instances. Liberals can be subject to bias, and frankly laziness just like anyone else.
Yes, but I was attempting to go to the source to show that it is the alt-right that defines the alt-right as being white nationalists. Which was your original question. If you want me to find some reporters who have gone to the alt-right and talked to them I can do that as well.
From your link
http://www.newyorker.com/news/benjamin-wallace-wells/is-the-alt-right-for-real
I'm not persuaded of anything when The New Yorker calls someone a "white nationalist". The source is strongly pro-Dem & anti-Pub, so their expression of this ill defined value judgement is suspect. I'm seeing a lot of fear & hate towards the "alt right", but not a lot of evidence that they have well defined core beliefs, & that they're racist. Moreover, I've seen a lot of misrepresentation about them by the left. Even reading Kathryn's links, I'm still unclear on what the alt right is.
What I hope is not going on with the left.....
By repetition of criticism, the label, "alt right" is fully demonized as evil.
Anyone who is somehow associated with it, can be attacked by tagging him (always a him) as such.
This avoids the more difficult criticism based upon what he actually says, believes, & would do.
I don't like the guy, but I'll begrudgingly admit he's kind of got a point. How is Milo of all people an alt right queen? I mean he's an ******* sure, he's more abrasive than even Dawkins but he's more traditionally conservative than alt right. Whatever alt right is.
Also, oh god the Rotherham scandal. That was deplorable!
For context
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-28939089
*shudders*
I'm a typical homophobic married straight guy whose neck has seen too much sun,
but I'd date that guy. (Of course, he'd never have me....I'm a sartorial embarrassment.)
I think that single video clarified everything for me now.
Which is exactly why I was attempting to use original sources, i.e. the alt-right telling us themselves what he alt-right is. Kathryn didn't like that because she felt white nationalist sources were unreliable. You don't like second-hand sources (which I can understand). But it seems either way I can't win.
White nationalists can like what they want.
But they cannot characterize something just because they like it.
Lefties have tried to use this against Libertarians, painting us as white racists.
It didn't work then.
It doesn't work now.
To win an argument for a claim, it requires a cogent argument backed up by evidence.
Whether you see it or not I want you to understand what I am saying. I am not saying white nationalists "like" the alt-right. I am saying white nationalist created the alt-right.
How do you support that claim?
You know I rarely do this. But the truth is that I feel I have supported this claim, in spades. And frankly, I am just tired of talking about this garbage. So you can look back at some of my earlier posts on the topic, or you can do your own research. But right now, I am done with this. Maybe I will return to this topic at a later date.
I haven't seen anything cromulent yet.
This isn't just denial....there's simply nothing offered but highly partisan opinion,
eg, the Huff Po article which tries to paint the entire alt right by criticizing a few
associated with it. If this approach were valid, then it would also demolish
progressives, the left & liberals. So a standard of analysis is needed which
applies to all.
Last edited:
I met with tenants today, an inter-racial couple, who joked about how they woke up today to hear on the news that they're "Nazis" & "white supremacists". They had no idea!
It's really hard to take people seriously when they see Hitler und Nazis everywhere.
I've just gotta find out if this is a real book.....
If it is, I'm doing some Xmas shopping!
It's really hard to take people seriously when they see Hitler und Nazis everywhere.
I've just gotta find out if this is a real book.....
If it is, I'm doing some Xmas shopping!
How about a picture of alt right gatherers doing the nazi salute? Doesn't that pretty much summarizes their beliefs? Either they support Nazi beliefs or they're just simply ignorant of the history. I seriously can't believe it's the latter.
What specific evidence do you need to be convinced? Do you believe this is fake news or media bias?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bu...posting-hate-speec?client=ms-android-motorola
http://www.salon.com/2016/11/21/the...yre-dressed-nice-so-lets-take-them-seriously/
Well, it's encouraging that Trump finally condemned the alt right. This I do appreciate to hear.
https://gma.yahoo.com/trump-disavows-alt-group-condemn-them-234704020--abc-news-topstories.html
No, & I'll explain why using introductory set theory.
Example.....
Set A is 1000 people who are named Bob.
Set B is 10 people who are in Set A, & sell extended warranties for buggy whips.
If you observe Set B, & notice that all are named Bob, this is not evidence that
everyone named Bob sells extended warranties for buggy whips.
Thus Set A includes Set B.
But Set B does not include Set A.
To make a comment about all Alt Righters must be based upon something all
Alt Righters have in common.
During the election, a KKK member supported Hillary.
By your reasoning, this would mean that all Hillary supporters are KKK members.
Of course this isn't true, & this reductio ad absurdum illustrates the folly of characterizing
a large set by examining a chosen subset.
This is what a single person in the said.
Can one person define the entire group?
Were that true, then Democrats all advocate violence against those they disagree with.
One example.....
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/22/n...-richard-spencer-advocates-for-baseball-bats/
The problem is that what you call "evidence", is actually just a data point which confirms your predetermined bias. Actual evidence would sway to someone who doesn't already believe it.
Consider that Salon is highly prejudiced leftish version of Fox News.
You should be skeptical of them, especially when the article's title is so histrionic.
The article starts out with glib vapidity.....
.....& doesn't get any better. They offer no evidence whatsoever that criticism "Nazi" element can be writ large regarding the entire alt right. It's echo chamber.
Many here feel that I'm just blindly rejecting evidence.
Au contraire....I've looked at all offered me, & simply
found it bogus & not backed up by any logic.
I understand your points. I already knew what I was presenting was very loose in logic, but even now the president is quoted in condemning alt-right.
I'm satisfied by the following. This is my threshold which one can easily argue against. If alt right organizers knew their members were doing the nazi salute and did nothing to stop it, then to me, they deserve the full label as being racist. That picture is what I focused on. It's worth a thousand words. I didn't even care about the articles and the commentary. the first article was to present the picture. The second article was to confirm that it came from an alt right event. If I can have easy access to it then so can the organizers. And if they haven't condemn it to not be part of their movement then I will readily accept that as being part of their movement. Leaders have to control their followers and suggest what they can or cannot do, especially at their events.
I was questioning Trump's position on this but I feel much better now that he openly condemned them.