8 ) then the pic

The alt-fight?

Also what does the term actually mean?

Writing about the ‘alt-right’
Nov. 28, 2016, by John Daniszewski

Recent developments have put the so-called “alt-right” movement in the news. They highlight the need for clarity around use of the term and around some related terms, such as “white nationalism” and “white supremacism.”

Let’s tackle them.

The “alt-right” or “alternative right” is a name currently embraced by some white supremacists and white nationalists to refer to themselves and their ideology, which emphasizes preserving and protecting the white race in the United States in addition to, or over, other traditional conservative positions such as limited government, low taxes and strict law-and-order.

The movement has been described as a mix of racism, white nationalism and populism.

Although many adherents backed President-elect Donald Trump in the recent election, Trump last week said he disavows and condemns the “alt-right.”

The movement criticizes “multiculturalism” and more rights for non-whites, women, Jews, Muslims, gays, immigrants and other minorities. Its members reject the American democratic ideal that all should have equality under the law regardless of creed, gender, ethnic origin or race.

Usage

“Alt-right” (quotation marks, hyphen and lower case) may be used in quotes or modified as in the “self-described” or “so-called alt-right” in stories discussing what the movement says about itself.

Avoid using the term generically and without definition, however, because it is not well known and the term may exist primarily as a public-relations device to make its supporters’ actual beliefs less clear and more acceptable to a broader audience. In the past we have called such beliefs racist, neo-Nazi or white supremacist.

Boilerplate

Again, whenever “alt-right” is used in a story, be sure to include a definition: “an offshoot of conservatism mixing racism, white nationalism and populism,” or, more simply, “a white nationalist movement.”

Here is an example from the AP news report:

With an ideology that’s a mix of racism, white nationalism and old-fashioned populism, the “alt-right” has burst into the collective consciousness since members showed up at the Republican National Convention to celebrate Trump’s nomination last summer.

Be specific and call it straight

Finally, when writing on extreme groups, be precise and provide evidence to support the characterization.

We should not limit ourselves to letting such groups define themselves, and instead should report their actions, associations, history and positions to reveal their actual beliefs and philosophy, as well as how others see them.

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.

The mainstream also label civic nationalists as alt-right, if you take them into account then i reckon 30% is not far off. But the ethnic nationalists do not class civic nationalists as alt-right.

According to the Associated Press:
https://blog.ap.org/behind-the-news/wri ... -alt-right



I'd say that's about right. Sen?

Astonishing. And they wonder why no one takes the mainstream press seriously anymore. They really aren't very smart people are they.

That doesn't make clear what you think of the AP diktaat. I'm genuinely interested to know if you think it's fair.

I think it's an idiotic misrepresentation.

How about if they used the words ethnic nationalism rather than white nationalism?

Yeah, maybe. There are a few half decent stabs at definitions floating around, and none of them believe necessarily in white nationalism above any other nationalism, and certainly not supremacy. All races or ethnicities are equal (own strengths and weaknesses), different and with their own rights to their own homelands. That seems to be an absolute common theme.

Astonishing. And they wonder why no one takes the mainstream press seriously anymore. They really aren't very smart people are they.

It seems to me that it's difficult not to call it white nationalism in the American context, given the ethnic complexity of the white population there. Are there any kind of ideas about how ethnic nations would be carved out of America, given the historical mixing of different ethnicities? Would Italian and Irish Americans be allotted their own state? Is this discussed, in your experience? Genuinely interested, even if I'm also poking.

So what do you we do about America, give it back to the Indians and go back to our white homeland in Europe?

The psychological pressure is enormous, when you have to criticize yourself, denounce your thinking—your own ethnic group. I still think about it every night, until the sun rises. I can’t sleep. The thoughts are with me all the time.

I'm sure you can completely relate, belonging to the most persecuted demographic in the liberal West.

Do you have some ethnic minority in your heritage you can identify with instead? Like 1/32nd Samoan or something?

Yeah, maybe. There are a few half decent stabs at definitions floating around, and none of them believe necessarily in white nationalism above any other nationalism, and certainly not supremacy. All races or ethnicities are equal (own strengths and weaknesses), different and with their own rights to their own homelands. That seems to be an absolute common theme.

Yet it was acceptable for you to emigrate to the UK.

Yet it was acceptable for you to emigrate to the UK.

Jesus you are thick. That's the point.

That's because (I'm guessing here, but I think I'm correct) Seneca is a white NZer, meaning almost all of his ancestry comes from the British Isles, so the UK is his homeland.

So a Maori would not qualify I take it?

Too brown maybe?

Would it be OK if the Maori were to wear a white hoodie masking their face to fit in with some of the locals?

what a moron.

Blah blah blah. You can't help yourself. Another thread, another piece of stalking by you. Like I say, should have been perma banned years ago. A truly worthless poster.

what a moron.

The Third
For this agreed arrangement therefore concerning the government of the Queen, the Queen of England will protect all the ordinary people of New Zealand and will give them the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England.

This, dear mods is why we can't have good threads. Look at what this individual has done to this one. And countless others over the years.

Behold the T-dawg of Waitangi Article 3

Behold the T-dawg of Waitangi Article 3

I think this was a helpful thread. We now have a more or less 'official' standard definition of the alt-right, and some clarification from someone who actually identifies with the movement and probably has more familiarity with their thought than anyone else on the bored. We can see where the overlap is, and where there are differences. I would have thought that was in everyone's interests - know your enemy, keep your enemies in plain sight and all that. The problem is that the alt-right have been given a monopoly on certain things which are true, or at least seem true to a lot of people, and without open discussion of their ideas, the monopoly remains. We've seen (I believe) that the devil really is in the details, even for those who may be sympathetic in general.

.

The commonwealth vs EU thing is interesting. I had a conversation with a young southern European lady the other day who was very angry that her right to live in the UK may be revoked after they leave the EU (she doesn't live there now). I pointed out that I was ethnically British (descended from at least one person who was forcibly removed from the UK, as well as more recent voluntary migrants), spoke the language fluently and shared in an almost identical culture, and have no right to simply live in the UK without a (very expensive) visa. She didn't seem to understand why her sense of entitlement was simply based on one set of arbitrary principles, she just kept telling me that I'm not European. Australia is playing an interesting role in this respect.

I'm sympathetic to many of their theories which is not the same thing as identifying with them. But you can see just how difficult it is to have a sensible discussion about this (pretty important) stuff when you see the performance here of our Belgian friend. And why I mostly don't bother.

Trying to get the moral high ground now?

It has never stopped you before and is unlikely to stop you moving forward.

I think Sen is far from the most abusive person on the forum, he's perfectly reasonable if approached in the right way, and provides a useful insight into the beliefs of people who we like to demonise but don't really understand. That said, we all have histories with each other on here. Not sure what yours is with him - pretty sure you've had the odd go at me, too (I give as good as I get, of course). I'd say, however, that if people really fear the rise of the alt-right (I think they're a small group), they don't really serve their cause by simply shutting them down. That doesn't make them disappear, it just keeps you in your comfort zone (they, in turn, will find somewhere that is their comfort zone, where they go unchallenged). Steven Pinker recently put it well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xJ5bvw6Ckw

In short, it's not unhealthy for us all to be a bit uncomfortable when discussing politics. That's how we might find a compromise.