Chat Forum
It is currently Fri Aug 07, 2020 4:18 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 209 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 5:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9903
penguin wrote:
englishchief wrote:
pontifex wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Quote:
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.


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.

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.


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.

Just because you take a chicken and put it in a kennel, it doesn't become a dog.


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.


How often is often? For colonial era indigenes 'often' means never.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 5:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5575
Location: A gaf in Bracknell
Sandstorm wrote:
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.


I wondered when you'd show up on this thread. :)


I'm offended by that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 5:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2706
Santa wrote:

How often is often? For colonial era indigenes 'often' means never.
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 6:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5575
Location: A gaf in Bracknell
Seneca of the Night wrote:
houtkabouter wrote:
Sandstorm wrote:
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.


I wondered when you'd show up on this thread. :)


I'm offended by that.


Can I just say that I haven't owned a pair of beige chinos since the dotcom bubble went tits up in 2000, and I will never stop listening to the sainted Taylor Swift. The video to Wildest Dreams is an alt-right neo-colonialist orientalist classic,

Never gonna give her up.

That’s beautiful Sen, very nouveau droite. You rose up from the dead.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 6:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9903
pontifex wrote:
Santa wrote:

How often is often? For colonial era indigenes 'often' means never.
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.


I agree. I was simply challenging the view that assimilation often happens. It often doesn't happen. And many of the mechanisms that used to be available to make it happen are now illegal.

And the other point is that given enough numbers it definitely doesn't happen. Or at least not in ways that indigenous populations would like.

Should we perhaps ask ourselves why the only people who want these hyperpluralistic societies are Western liberals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 6:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 10:49 am
Posts: 1496
Location: Sunny Plymouth
I'm not Alt right but the only thing that offends me is how shit the left are at meme's.

this thread being a prime example.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 6:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 9:18 pm
Posts: 2497
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Santa wrote:
pontifex wrote:
Santa wrote:

How often is often? For colonial era indigenes 'often' means never.
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.


I agree. I was simply challenging the view that assimilation often happens. It often doesn't happen. And many of the mechanisms that used to be available to make it happen are now illegal.

And the other point is that given enough numbers it definitely doesn't happen. Or at least not in ways that indigenous populations would like.

Should we perhaps ask ourselves why the only people who want these hyperpluralistic societies are Western liberals.


As for this, touch this rail you die.


Because they are deluded and have been fed leftist propaganda from birth. The only 'contentious' topic is who is paying/forcing the propaganda at the top level.

The contemporary right has much deeper debates and meaning to its views. The contemporary left is based on 'how quickly can we destroy God (almost done), the family (done) and community (done).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 6:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2706
Santa wrote:



Should we perhaps ask ourselves why the only people who want these hyperpluralistic societies are Western liberals.



Not an easy question to answer. I'd just blame the Germans, but I guess it goes deeper than that - part of it is not only guilt, but embarrassment, which is subtly different. Certainly, state liberalism, a universalist philosophy, doesn't really have the tools to prevent the outbreak of identity politics. People living in a liberal system might be able to, however, in a way perfectly consistent with liberal philosophy. Unfortunately, it's not clear we all still live in a universalist, liberal system.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 7:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9903
pontifex wrote:
Santa wrote:



Should we perhaps ask ourselves why the only people who want these hyperpluralistic societies are Western liberals.



Not an easy question to answer. I'd just blame the Germans, but I guess it goes deeper than that - part of it is not only guilt, but embarrassment, which is subtly different. Certainly, state liberalism, a universalist philosophy, doesn't really have the tools to prevent the outbreak of identity politics. People living in a liberal system might be able to, however, in a way perfectly consistent with liberal philosophy. Unfortunately, it's not clear we all still live in a universalist, liberal system.


I refer you to my post about parochial altruism. Think if it this way: Universalists distribute to groups other than themselves. Parochial altruists don't. Who benefits most when both of those are in play in the same system?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 7:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2706
Santa wrote:
pontifex wrote:
Santa wrote:



Should we perhaps ask ourselves why the only people who want these hyperpluralistic societies are Western liberals.



Not an easy question to answer. I'd just blame the Germans, but I guess it goes deeper than that - part of it is not only guilt, but embarrassment, which is subtly different. Certainly, state liberalism, a universalist philosophy, doesn't really have the tools to prevent the outbreak of identity politics. People living in a liberal system might be able to, however, in a way perfectly consistent with liberal philosophy. Unfortunately, it's not clear we all still live in a universalist, liberal system.


I refer you to my post about parochial altruism. Think if it this way: Universalists distribute to groups other than themselves. Parochial altruists don't. Who benefits most when both of those are in play in the same system?

Sure. Also the Hawk-Dove game. We could, maybe, try to get people think of themselves as primarily as individuals, as citizens of a nation-state first, and maybe some other non-ethnic social groupings, based on interest or something else. That is of course a bit naive, but something in that direction seemed possible in the past. A bit hard now though, since saying "I don't see things in terms of race" is itself considered hatespeech.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 7:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9903
pontifex wrote:
Santa wrote:
pontifex wrote:
Santa wrote:



Should we perhaps ask ourselves why the only people who want these hyperpluralistic societies are Western liberals.



Not an easy question to answer. I'd just blame the Germans, but I guess it goes deeper than that - part of it is not only guilt, but embarrassment, which is subtly different. Certainly, state liberalism, a universalist philosophy, doesn't really have the tools to prevent the outbreak of identity politics. People living in a liberal system might be able to, however, in a way perfectly consistent with liberal philosophy. Unfortunately, it's not clear we all still live in a universalist, liberal system.


I refer you to my post about parochial altruism. Think if it this way: Universalists distribute to groups other than themselves. Parochial altruists don't. Who benefits most when both of those are in play in the same system?

Sure. Also the Hawk-Dove game. We could, maybe, try to get people think of themselves as primarily as individuals, as citizens of a nation-state first, and maybe some other non-ethnic social groupings, based on interest or something else. A bit hard now though, since saying "I don't see things in terms of race" is itself considered hatespeech.


Very difficult when some cultures fundamentally require the subsumation of the individual to the group.

I recall reading an MA dissertation by a Maori student qhich made the claim that as a collectivist culture Maori do not have I-dentity they have we-identity. I thought that was brilliant in a demented kind of way.

Moreover as long as the prevailing attitude is that it is wrong to challenge those cultural predispositions your idea is a pipe dream.


Last edited by Santa on Mon May 21, 2018 7:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 7:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2706
Santa wrote:
pontifex wrote:
Santa wrote:
pontifex wrote:
Santa wrote:



Should we perhaps ask ourselves why the only people who want these hyperpluralistic societies are Western liberals.



Not an easy question to answer. I'd just blame the Germans, but I guess it goes deeper than that - part of it is not only guilt, but embarrassment, which is subtly different. Certainly, state liberalism, a universalist philosophy, doesn't really have the tools to prevent the outbreak of identity politics. People living in a liberal system might be able to, however, in a way perfectly consistent with liberal philosophy. Unfortunately, it's not clear we all still live in a universalist, liberal system.


I refer you to my post about parochial altruism. Think if it this way: Universalists distribute to groups other than themselves. Parochial altruists don't. Who benefits most when both of those are in play in the same system?

Sure. Also the Hawk-Dove game. We could, maybe, try to get people think of themselves as primarily as individuals, as citizens of a nation-state first, and maybe some other non-ethnic social groupings, based on interest or something else. A bit hard now though, since saying "I don't see things in terms of race" is itself considered hatespeech.


Very difficult when some cultures fundamentally require the subsumation of the individual to the group.

I recall reading an MA dissertation by a Maori student qhich made the claim that as a collectivist culture Maori do not have I-dentity they have we-identity. I thought that was brilliant in a demented kind of way.

There is of course that. Given time, that could also be digested by a liberal society.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 7:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2706
Quote:
Moreover as long as the prevailing attitude is that it is wrong to challenge those cultural predispositions your idea is a pipe dream.

That's what I'm saying.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 7:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9903
pontifex wrote:
Quote:
Moreover as long as the prevailing attitude is that it is wrong to challenge those cultural predispositions your idea is a pipe dream.

That's what I'm saying.


Use simpler words please.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 7:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2706
Santa wrote:
pontifex wrote:
Quote:
Moreover as long as the prevailing attitude is that it is wrong to challenge those cultural predispositions your idea is a pipe dream.

That's what I'm saying.


Use simpler words please.


Quote:
But they certainly will when the destination culture is busy denigrating itself so as not to offend anyone.


Quote:
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.


I'm not sure why that's too verbose. It may be a little indirect.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 7:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9903
pontifex wrote:
Santa wrote:
pontifex wrote:
Quote:
Moreover as long as the prevailing attitude is that it is wrong to challenge those cultural predispositions your idea is a pipe dream.

That's what I'm saying.


Use simpler words please.


Quote:
But they certainly will when the destination culture is busy denigrating itself so as not to offend anyone.


Quote:
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.


I'm not sure why that's too verbose. It may be a little indirect.


I was being silly. And of course I possess the great failing of the majority of boredies in only being interested in my own thoughts about stuff.

Anyway we in the West are no strangers to thoughtless collectivism. We even see it on this very bored: the swarm, the anti-Trumpists, the band of lower and middle class Aussies who resent your intelligence and social background...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 7:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2706
Santa wrote:
pontifex wrote:
Santa wrote:
pontifex wrote:
Quote:
Moreover as long as the prevailing attitude is that it is wrong to challenge those cultural predispositions your idea is a pipe dream.

That's what I'm saying.


Use simpler words please.


Quote:
But they certainly will when the destination culture is busy denigrating itself so as not to offend anyone.


Quote:
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.


I'm not sure why that's too verbose. It may be a little indirect.


I was being silly. And of course I possess the great failing of the majority of boredies in only being interested in my own thoughts about stuff.

Anyway we in the West are no strangers to thoughtless collectivism. We even see it on this very bored: the swarm, the anti-Trumpists, the band of lower and middle class Aussies who resent your intelligence and social background...

I don't think they resent me, that's just one way among many to have a go at me, and I guess it's fair enough, given that I am admittedly verbose and it's an obvious point to attack. The problem is, I'm not afraid to admit it's a characteristic, perhaps a flaw, that I have. If it were someone else, they'd be having a go at them about some other weak point they'd identified, probably calling them stupid or something. And to be fair, I've only noticed one or two take that line with me, and there's obvious insecurities there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 8:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 39233
Location: For Wales the Welsh and aproppriate pronouns
So how do we tell the alt right from the right and the far right and the reactionaries and the racists and the religious nutters on bored.
Is there an agorithm or something?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 8:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2706
c69 wrote:
So how do we tell the alt right from the right and the far right and the reactionaries and the racists and the religious nutters on bored.
Is there an agorithm or something?

Another quality contribution. Cheers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 8:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 39233
Location: For Wales the Welsh and aproppriate pronouns
pontifex wrote:
c69 wrote:
So how do we tell the alt right from the right and the far right and the reactionaries and the racists and the religious nutters on bored.
Is there an agorithm or something?

Another quality contribution. Cheers.

That's quite an insecure reply tbh.
If you don't know the answer don't reply.
I don't care a jot.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 8:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11306
I am alt-right and I'm offended by the way Allah provides through the pocket of the taxpayer.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 8:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2706
c69 wrote:
pontifex wrote:
c69 wrote:
So how do we tell the alt right from the right and the far right and the reactionaries and the racists and the religious nutters on bored.
Is there an agorithm or something?

Another quality contribution. Cheers.

That's quite an insecure reply tbh.
If you don't know the answer don't reply.
I don't care a jot.

Cheers again for that. I really enjoyed reading it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 8:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 39233
Location: For Wales the Welsh and aproppriate pronouns
Nicely passive aggressive :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 8:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2706
c69 wrote:
Nicely passive aggressive :thumbup:

You're onto me. :shock:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 8:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 39233
Location: For Wales the Welsh and aproppriate pronouns
I await a response where you claim victory and that you have handed me my arse on a plate ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 8:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2706
c69 wrote:
I await a response where you claim victory and that you have handed me my arse on a plate ;)

I think you've already sat on the plate, mate.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 8:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 39233
Location: For Wales the Welsh and aproppriate pronouns
8) then the pic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 8:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2706
c69 wrote:
8 ) then the pic
What? You ate the plate then the pic? Your bantz is too clever for me, I'm afraid.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 9:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6155
Bowens wrote:
Image


The alt-fight?

Also what does the term actually mean?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 9:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2706
flaggETERNAL wrote:
Bowens wrote:
Image


The alt-fight?

Also what does the term actually mean?

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

Quote:
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'd say that's about right. Sen?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 9:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2706
Here's as good a place as any: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBCbf8a5SKU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 9:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 504
pontifex wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
pontifex 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.
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.


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.

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 9:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2706
xbgo1 wrote:
pontifex wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
pontifex 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.
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.


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.

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.

Well, the mainstream (media) are not correctly identifying the alt-right, as outlined by AP (a standard maker in English language journalism) above. The truth is, journalists (and PR posters), while knowing fairly well what it means, are using the fuzziness of the way the term sounds in order to lump those they don't agree with who are not outside the Overton window in with those they don't agree with, but are outside the Overton window. It's effectively calling people Nazis, without having to use, or defend, Godwin's Law.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 9:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2706
Seneca of the Night wrote:
pontifex wrote:
flaggETERNAL wrote:
Bowens wrote:
Image


The alt-fight?

Also what does the term actually mean?

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 10:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2706
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Quote:
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?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 10:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2706
Seneca of the Night wrote:
pontifex wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Quote:
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.


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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 10:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 18177
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Astonishing. And they wonder why no one takes the mainstream press seriously anymore. They really aren't very smart people are they.

Not everyone can be as smart as you in deciphering what exactly it is Sen. Go easy!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 10:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5575
Location: A gaf in Bracknell
So what do you we do about America, give it back to the Indians and go back to our white homeland in Europe?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2018 9:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6089
Location: Vandean Coast
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?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2018 9:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6089
Location: Vandean Coast
Do they publish those results on wallet-sized cards? It would be convenient to be able to whip it out every time you're losing an argument.

Instant credibility gains.


Last edited by deadduck on Tue May 22, 2018 9:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 209 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bimboman, CrazyIslander, eldanielfire, EverReady, Insane_Homer, jdogscoop, Leinsterman, Liathroidigloine, Poshprop, ragyboy, Short Man Syndrome, ticketlessinseattle and 75 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group