The definitive rugby union forum. Talk to fans from around the world about your favourite team
https://forum.planetrugby.com/
What better thread than this to discuss this topic.openclashXX wrote:How do we know whether we belong on this thread or not?
I voted for the Labour Party three years ago but I also made a few #edgey remarks about Muslims more recently than that
Am I an alt-rightist??
If by tough you mean dull, repetitive and spirit draining, then yes.Seneca of the Night wrote:Must be tough for you.
The bird in the turquoise t-shirt has nice tits.deadduck wrote:
Which one of these is Bindi?
What is the collective noun for a group of "plums"?kiwinoz wrote:Please note Bindi chooses to be addressed by the singular pronoun of "plum"
penguin wrote:What is the collective noun for a group of "plums"?kiwinoz wrote:Please note Bindi chooses to be addressed by the singular pronoun of "plum"
Turbogoat wrote:The problem is that people the OP might think are alt-right are of course offended by the term alt-right.
Despite it being a term the original alt-right coined themselves and used to refer to themselves, it quickly became a pretty derogatory term, as would any term used to describe that shower of utter fukkstains, really.
Of course, there are few, if any, real alt-right here, just people who'd be offended at being termed as such, even as they're of course demanding their own right to free speech meaning they can use terms of similar offensiveness to refer to other groups they disagree with. Cos it's free speech when they're doing it, but mean and nasty and howwible lies when it's aimed at them, and they should have a safe space where nobody can call them alt-right ever again, the poor wee snowflakes.
Thistroglodiet wrote:Turbogoat wrote:The problem is that people the OP might think are alt-right are of course offended by the term alt-right.
Despite it being a term the original alt-right coined themselves and used to refer to themselves, it quickly became a pretty derogatory term, as would any term used to describe that shower of utter fukkstains, really.
Of course, there are few, if any, real alt-right here, just people who'd be offended at being termed as such, even as they're of course demanding their own right to free speech meaning they can use terms of similar offensiveness to refer to other groups they disagree with. Cos it's free speech when they're doing it, but mean and nasty and howwible lies when it's aimed at them, and they should have a safe space where nobody can call them alt-right ever again, the poor wee snowflakes.
To summarize: identity politics = bad.
(From the left and the right).
Agree with that 100%.
The Alt-Right don't find the descriptor derogatory. After all, they coined it and continue to use it, proudly. The attempt to use it as a general smear, by people who either don't know what it means, or do know what it means and are attempting to poison the discourse, isn't really insulting, just dumb and counterproductive. Mostly, the overreach just undermines their own arguments and their own cause.Turbogoat wrote:The problem is that people the OP might think are alt-right are of course offended by the term alt-right.
Despite it being a term the original alt-right coined themselves and used to refer to themselves, it quickly became a pretty derogatory term, as would any term used to describe that shower of utter fukkstains, really.
Of course, there are few, if any, real alt-right here, just people who'd be offended at being termed as such, even as they're of course demanding their own right to free speech meaning they can use terms of similar offensiveness to refer to other groups they disagree with. Cos it's free speech when they're doing it, but mean and nasty and howwible lies when it's aimed at them, and they should have a safe space where nobody can call them alt-right ever again, the poor wee snowflakes.
Pretty muchtroglodiet wrote:Turbogoat wrote:The problem is that people the OP might think are alt-right are of course offended by the term alt-right.
Despite it being a term the original alt-right coined themselves and used to refer to themselves, it quickly became a pretty derogatory term, as would any term used to describe that shower of utter fukkstains, really.
Of course, there are few, if any, real alt-right here, just people who'd be offended at being termed as such, even as they're of course demanding their own right to free speech meaning they can use terms of similar offensiveness to refer to other groups they disagree with. Cos it's free speech when they're doing it, but mean and nasty and howwible lies when it's aimed at them, and they should have a safe space where nobody can call them alt-right ever again, the poor wee snowflakes.
To summarize: identity politics = bad.
(From the left and the right).
Agree with that 100%.
Since you've demoted yourself from the playing field and hidden away in the commentary box you've become quite a boring old fart.Seneca of the Night wrote:More stellar philosophy from our great sage of the desert.Turbogoat wrote:The problem is that people the OP might think are alt-right are of course offended by the term alt-right.
Despite it being a term the original alt-right coined themselves and used to refer to themselves, it quickly became a pretty derogatory term, as would any term used to describe that shower of utter fukkstains, really.
Of course, there are few, if any, real alt-right here, just people who'd be offended at being termed as such, even as they're of course demanding their own right to free speech meaning they can use terms of similar offensiveness to refer to other groups they disagree with. Cos it's free speech when they're doing it, but mean and nasty and howwible lies when it's aimed at them, and they should have a safe space where nobody can call them alt-right ever again, the poor wee snowflakes.
I don't. The Alt-Right is explicitly interested in creating ethnic nation-states out of existing pluralistic ones. I doubt 30% of the populations of western countries want to go along with what that would imply and would instead be more pragmatic.Seneca of the Night wrote:I reckon about 30% of the populations of the west are alt-right, mostly without knowing it of course, as they are just going about their lives.pontifex wrote:The Alt-Right don't find the descriptor derogatory. After all, they coined it and continue to use it, proudly. The attempt to use it as a general smear, by people who either don't know what it means, or do know what it means and are attempting to poison the discourse, isn't really insulting, just dumb and counterproductive. Mostly, the overreach just undermines their own arguments and their own cause.Turbogoat wrote:The problem is that people the OP might think are alt-right are of course offended by the term alt-right.
Despite it being a term the original alt-right coined themselves and used to refer to themselves, it quickly became a pretty derogatory term, as would any term used to describe that shower of utter fukkstains, really.
Of course, there are few, if any, real alt-right here, just people who'd be offended at being termed as such, even as they're of course demanding their own right to free speech meaning they can use terms of similar offensiveness to refer to other groups they disagree with. Cos it's free speech when they're doing it, but mean and nasty and howwible lies when it's aimed at them, and they should have a safe space where nobody can call them alt-right ever again, the poor wee snowflakes.
I don't think you know the meaning of altSeneca of the Night wrote:I reckon about 30% of the populations of the west are alt-right, mostly without knowing it of course, as they are just going about their lives.pontifex wrote:The Alt-Right don't find the descriptor derogatory. After all, they coined it and continue to use it, proudly. The attempt to use it as a general smear, by people who either don't know what it means, or do know what it means and are attempting to poison the discourse, isn't really insulting, just dumb and counterproductive. Mostly, the overreach just undermines their own arguments and their own cause.Turbogoat wrote:The problem is that people the OP might think are alt-right are of course offended by the term alt-right.
Despite it being a term the original alt-right coined themselves and used to refer to themselves, it quickly became a pretty derogatory term, as would any term used to describe that shower of utter fukkstains, really.
Of course, there are few, if any, real alt-right here, just people who'd be offended at being termed as such, even as they're of course demanding their own right to free speech meaning they can use terms of similar offensiveness to refer to other groups they disagree with. Cos it's free speech when they're doing it, but mean and nasty and howwible lies when it's aimed at them, and they should have a safe space where nobody can call them alt-right ever again, the poor wee snowflakes.
Under £20 for an MOT!
Which links to this https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scot ... e-11553478
Oh look. Now the alt-right are fighting each other.Dark wrote:I don't think you know the meaning of altSeneca of the Night wrote:I reckon about 30% of the populations of the west are alt-right, mostly without knowing it of course, as they are just going about their lives.pontifex wrote:The Alt-Right don't find the descriptor derogatory. After all, they coined it and continue to use it, proudly. The attempt to use it as a general smear, by people who either don't know what it means, or do know what it means and are attempting to poison the discourse, isn't really insulting, just dumb and counterproductive. Mostly, the overreach just undermines their own arguments and their own cause.Turbogoat wrote:The problem is that people the OP might think are alt-right are of course offended by the term alt-right.
Despite it being a term the original alt-right coined themselves and used to refer to themselves, it quickly became a pretty derogatory term, as would any term used to describe that shower of utter fukkstains, really.
Of course, there are few, if any, real alt-right here, just people who'd be offended at being termed as such, even as they're of course demanding their own right to free speech meaning they can use terms of similar offensiveness to refer to other groups they disagree with. Cos it's free speech when they're doing it, but mean and nasty and howwible lies when it's aimed at them, and they should have a safe space where nobody can call them alt-right ever again, the poor wee snowflakes.
Thai guy wrote:Oh look. Now the alt-right are fighting each other.Dark wrote:I don't think you know the meaning of altSeneca of the Night wrote:I reckon about 30% of the populations of the west are alt-right, mostly without knowing it of course, as they are just going about their lives.pontifex wrote:The Alt-Right don't find the descriptor derogatory. After all, they coined it and continue to use it, proudly. The attempt to use it as a general smear, by people who either don't know what it means, or do know what it means and are attempting to poison the discourse, isn't really insulting, just dumb and counterproductive. Mostly, the overreach just undermines their own arguments and their own cause.Turbogoat wrote:The problem is that people the OP might think are alt-right are of course offended by the term alt-right.
Despite it being a term the original alt-right coined themselves and used to refer to themselves, it quickly became a pretty derogatory term, as would any term used to describe that shower of utter fukkstains, really.
Of course, there are few, if any, real alt-right here, just people who'd be offended at being termed as such, even as they're of course demanding their own right to free speech meaning they can use terms of similar offensiveness to refer to other groups they disagree with. Cos it's free speech when they're doing it, but mean and nasty and howwible lies when it's aimed at them, and they should have a safe space where nobody can call them alt-right ever again, the poor wee snowflakes.
Who are the Alt-Right, and what do they believe? I'm pretty sure they're just as fond of 'community spirit' as you are, to be honest. Are you Alt-Right?Thai guy wrote:Oh look. Now the alt-right are fighting each other.Dark wrote:I don't think you know the meaning of altSeneca of the Night wrote:I reckon about 30% of the populations of the west are alt-right, mostly without knowing it of course, as they are just going about their lives.pontifex wrote:The Alt-Right don't find the descriptor derogatory. After all, they coined it and continue to use it, proudly. The attempt to use it as a general smear, by people who either don't know what it means, or do know what it means and are attempting to poison the discourse, isn't really insulting, just dumb and counterproductive. Mostly, the overreach just undermines their own arguments and their own cause.Turbogoat wrote:The problem is that people the OP might think are alt-right are of course offended by the term alt-right.
Despite it being a term the original alt-right coined themselves and used to refer to themselves, it quickly became a pretty derogatory term, as would any term used to describe that shower of utter fukkstains, really.
Of course, there are few, if any, real alt-right here, just people who'd be offended at being termed as such, even as they're of course demanding their own right to free speech meaning they can use terms of similar offensiveness to refer to other groups they disagree with. Cos it's free speech when they're doing it, but mean and nasty and howwible lies when it's aimed at them, and they should have a safe space where nobody can call them alt-right ever again, the poor wee snowflakes.
c69 wrote:One answer to the question posited would be:
Fellow travellers of Jordan Peterson who are offended by suggestions he is part of the alt right without realising that they are also part of the movement even tacitly.
Good try, mate. Jordan Peterson isn't Alt-Right, by any definition, even that of the SPLC. The people smearing him don't (usually) even try to make that claim directly, they just - falsely - claim that he is popular among the Alt-Right. And you were having a go at me a few weeks ago about 'labelling people'.I'm not against ethnic pluralism, if done right - i.e. without identity politics. The question then becomes whether identity politics is an inevitable consequence of ethnic pluralism. I would say that to some extent it is, but it can be managed, or at least I would prefer to try to mitigate it before embracing it and moving to conflict (accelerationism, I think). Mass migration, as currently being undertaken (i.e. the rapid increase of ethnic pluralism without an ethos of assimilation *gasp*), combined with identity politics (where the unit of power is the group, not the individual), is a recipe for conflict. Either way, aside from a few states, ethnic pluralism is a fact in the west. The question is how to deal with that. All forms of identity politics, right and left, are inevitable paths to conflict from here. I may be the most naive person here in hoping that we can find a civilised way out of identity politics, if only we were willing to try. I guess I'm pretty black-pilled on the question of time, though.Seneca of the Night wrote:Most people live in de facto ethno 'states' given the ethnic enclaves they live in in even extremely pluralistic countries. Spencer cites Poland and Japan as ethno States. The question of repatriation is another of those cleft issues. Many just think if the immigration is stopped now there's still time for blending to occur. Most people don't live above kebab shops in Berlin wondering about ethno states. They just piss off to the suburbs and live it.pontifex wrote:I don't. The Alt-Right is explicitly interested in creating ethnic nation-states out of existing pluralistic ones. I doubt 30% of the populations of western countries want to go along with what that would imply and would instead be more pragmatic.Seneca of the Night wrote:I reckon about 30% of the populations of the west are alt-right, mostly without knowing it of course, as they are just going about their lives.pontifex wrote:The Alt-Right don't find the descriptor derogatory. After all, they coined it and continue to use it, proudly. The attempt to use it as a general smear, by people who either don't know what it means, or do know what it means and are attempting to poison the discourse, isn't really insulting, just dumb and counterproductive. Mostly, the overreach just undermines their own arguments and their own cause.Turbogoat wrote:The problem is that people the OP might think are alt-right are of course offended by the term alt-right.
Despite it being a term the original alt-right coined themselves and used to refer to themselves, it quickly became a pretty derogatory term, as would any term used to describe that shower of utter fukkstains, really.
Of course, there are few, if any, real alt-right here, just people who'd be offended at being termed as such, even as they're of course demanding their own right to free speech meaning they can use terms of similar offensiveness to refer to other groups they disagree with. Cos it's free speech when they're doing it, but mean and nasty and howwible lies when it's aimed at them, and they should have a safe space where nobody can call them alt-right ever again, the poor wee snowflakes.
Well, that's the definition of identity politics, innit. It could be otherwise, if we had the will to dismantle identity politics. Unfortunately, we appear to be feeding it, and it's become a giant overfed tantrumming toddler.Seneca of the Night wrote:This quote is pulled out by the alt right all the time: "In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.” Lee Kuan yew, who knew a little about these things. This is one of the key predictions: the increased ethnic plurality of Western countries dooms the democratic plurality of their electoral systems. And all sorts of global implications floe downstream from that.I'm not against ethnic pluralism, if done right - i.e. without identity politics. The question then becomes whether identity politics is an inevitable consequence of ethnic pluralism. I would say that to some extent it is, but it can be managed, or at least I would prefer to try to mitigate it before embracing it and moving to conflict (accelerationism, I think). Mass migration, as currently being undertaken (i.e. the rapid increase of ethnic pluralism without an ethos of assimilation *gasp*), combined with identity politics (where the unit of power is the group, not the individual), is a recipe for conflict. Either way, aside from a few states, ethnic pluralism is a fact in the west. The question is how to deal with that. All forms of identity politics, right and left, are inevitable paths to conflict from here. I may be the most naive person here in hoping that we can find a civilised way out of identity politics, if only we were willing to try. I guess I'm pretty black-pilled on the question of time, though.
I wondered when you'd show up on this thread.houtkabouter wrote:I remember when being Alt-right was cool, but it's so mainstream now, I've sold my beige chinos and stopped listening to Taylor Swift.
Is there any country where racial groups have almost no bias towards a certain political party? My guess if there was would be somewhere in South America, but I doubt there is.pontifex wrote:Well, that's the definition of identity politics, innit. It could be otherwise, if we had the will to dismantle identity politics. Unfortunately, we appear to be feeding it, and it's become a giant overfed tantrumming toddler.Seneca of the Night wrote:This quote is pulled out by the alt right all the time: "In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.” Lee Kuan yew, who knew a little about these things. This is one of the key predictions: the increased ethnic plurality of Western countries dooms the democratic plurality of their electoral systems. And all sorts of global implications floe downstream from that.I'm not against ethnic pluralism, if done right - i.e. without identity politics. The question then becomes whether identity politics is an inevitable consequence of ethnic pluralism. I would say that to some extent it is, but it can be managed, or at least I would prefer to try to mitigate it before embracing it and moving to conflict (accelerationism, I think). Mass migration, as currently being undertaken (i.e. the rapid increase of ethnic pluralism without an ethos of assimilation *gasp*), combined with identity politics (where the unit of power is the group, not the individual), is a recipe for conflict. Either way, aside from a few states, ethnic pluralism is a fact in the west. The question is how to deal with that. All forms of identity politics, right and left, are inevitable paths to conflict from here. I may be the most naive person here in hoping that we can find a civilised way out of identity politics, if only we were willing to try. I guess I'm pretty black-pilled on the question of time, though.
They will make a nice boat sail.houtkabouter wrote:I've sold my beige chinos
No, but if you raise animals around other species they will often start to behave like them - the difference between just being in a country and becoming part of it.englishchief wrote:Is there any country where racial groups have almost no bias towards a certain political party? My guess if there was would be somewhere in South America, but I doubt there is.pontifex wrote:Well, that's the definition of identity politics, innit. It could be otherwise, if we had the will to dismantle identity politics. Unfortunately, we appear to be feeding it, and it's become a giant overfed tantrumming toddler.Seneca of the Night wrote:This quote is pulled out by the alt right all the time: "In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.” Lee Kuan yew, who knew a little about these things. This is one of the key predictions: the increased ethnic plurality of Western countries dooms the democratic plurality of their electoral systems. And all sorts of global implications floe downstream from that.I'm not against ethnic pluralism, if done right - i.e. without identity politics. The question then becomes whether identity politics is an inevitable consequence of ethnic pluralism. I would say that to some extent it is, but it can be managed, or at least I would prefer to try to mitigate it before embracing it and moving to conflict (accelerationism, I think). Mass migration, as currently being undertaken (i.e. the rapid increase of ethnic pluralism without an ethos of assimilation *gasp*), combined with identity politics (where the unit of power is the group, not the individual), is a recipe for conflict. Either way, aside from a few states, ethnic pluralism is a fact in the west. The question is how to deal with that. All forms of identity politics, right and left, are inevitable paths to conflict from here. I may be the most naive person here in hoping that we can find a civilised way out of identity politics, if only we were willing to try. I guess I'm pretty black-pilled on the question of time, though.
Just because you take a chicken and put it in a kennel, it doesn't become a dog.
How often is often? For colonial era indigenes 'often' means never.penguin wrote:No, but if you raise animals around other species they will often start to behave like them - the difference between just being in a country and becoming part of it.englishchief wrote:Is there any country where racial groups have almost no bias towards a certain political party? My guess if there was would be somewhere in South America, but I doubt there is.pontifex wrote:Well, that's the definition of identity politics, innit. It could be otherwise, if we had the will to dismantle identity politics. Unfortunately, we appear to be feeding it, and it's become a giant overfed tantrumming toddler.Seneca of the Night wrote:This quote is pulled out by the alt right all the time: "In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.” Lee Kuan yew, who knew a little about these things. This is one of the key predictions: the increased ethnic plurality of Western countries dooms the democratic plurality of their electoral systems. And all sorts of global implications floe downstream from that.I'm not against ethnic pluralism, if done right - i.e. without identity politics. The question then becomes whether identity politics is an inevitable consequence of ethnic pluralism. I would say that to some extent it is, but it can be managed, or at least I would prefer to try to mitigate it before embracing it and moving to conflict (accelerationism, I think). Mass migration, as currently being undertaken (i.e. the rapid increase of ethnic pluralism without an ethos of assimilation *gasp*), combined with identity politics (where the unit of power is the group, not the individual), is a recipe for conflict. Either way, aside from a few states, ethnic pluralism is a fact in the west. The question is how to deal with that. All forms of identity politics, right and left, are inevitable paths to conflict from here. I may be the most naive person here in hoping that we can find a civilised way out of identity politics, if only we were willing to try. I guess I'm pretty black-pilled on the question of time, though.
Just because you take a chicken and put it in a kennel, it doesn't become a dog.
I'm offended by that.Sandstorm wrote:I wondered when you'd show up on this thread.houtkabouter wrote:I remember when being Alt-right was cool, but it's so mainstream now, I've sold my beige chinos and stopped listening to Taylor Swift.
That's because there was no ethos of assimilation, since the invaders assumed that their value system and way of life was superior to that of those they were invading. White supremacy and all that. You could argue that any group will think that way about their own culture, maybe. I'm not convinced they always will. But they certainly will when the destination culture is busy denigrating itself so as not to offend anyone. We won't find out (arguably, anew) whether identity politics is an inevitable consequence of pluralism, since identity politics - of all shades - is a currently consequence of identity politics, and I guess also the sense that there's blood in the water.Santa wrote:
How often is often? For colonial era indigenes 'often' means never.