midnight city wrote: » His popularity i meant. Nobody would know anything about him if there wasn't such nonsense coming form the liberal left.
oscarBravo wrote: » There's a subtle element of "victim blaming", for want of a phrase, about the justification for the rise of the alt-right. If only the SJWs weren't so mouthy, the argument goes, there wouldn't be an alt-right. The echoes of "why'd you make me do it?" are a little chilling.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » But again does nobody see the double standard here? Extremist SJWs who behave just as badly as people like Milo (and who in my view are responsible for creating his brand of reactionism) don't get dissected and called out in this manner, not in mainstream discourse. The Alt-Right is socially unacceptable, the SJW left is not. That's a major, major difference which in my view makes all the difference in terms of which is the more dangerous movement.
Skullface McGubbin wrote: » ...progressive left wing ideology... ...regressive left folks.
Brian? wrote: » Can you post some examples of feminists attacking men and SJWs attacking white people?
Lackey wrote: » African American college student attacked a white college student for having dread locks (sp) Hilary supports attacked lone trump voter, I'm not digging up links Google and ye shall find. Any 'far' movement right left or otherwise is never good ...but when facts are ignored people get pissed off and when there's no middle ground, and no ones listening Trump Brexit etc will happen.
Amazingfun wrote: » Why is a "justification" required at all? :rolleyes:
Brian? wrote: » Because the alt right is a horrible mishmash of people with a large dollop of hatred thrown in. They love to lower the discourse to the insult level, everyone who disagrees with them is a SJW or a feminazi or a cuck or a libertard. Do you think Milo has ever said "I respectfully disagree" without sneering? Please don't respond about how the left are wrong about X and y. Address the hate spewed by the people you support.
alastair wrote: » None needed, but there's this guff about the alt-right being a response to progressives nonetheless. Idiocy is a human trait. That's all anyone needs to know. Here's the latest bunch of idiots.
alastair wrote: » Nope, there's an ample audience for reactionary rubbish. It doesn't require any 'nonsense' from the liberal left to set yourself up as a clown of intolerance.
Amazingfun wrote: » Idiots? There is plenty of very highly intelligent people within the "Altright".
Anyways, here is one of the videos that was mentioned above, the dreadlock incident:
Amazingfun wrote: » lol, why are you so easily triggered by them? Serious query.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » I'd disagree to a degree. The idiots are prevalent on both sides. However, we're not at a stage where performers are prevented from performing at Universities if their students don't like them. Universities are supposed to be melting pots of ideas. Instead, predominantly left-leaning students are trying to censor people they don't like instead of engaging with, or ignoring them. The far right loves censorship just as much. The point is that either side sees itself as the victim, sees itself as being oppressed and loves nothing more than to hurl vitriol at the other.
Sound of Silence wrote: » You may say that, but many in the Alt-Right would consider themselves specifically as a counter-culture to what they would describe as modern Liberalism and "Equalatarianism". It just so happens that nonsense spawns nonsense, and we've ended up with another fine example of the horseshoe theory in action.
Brian? wrote: » Triggered? Hilarious. I am not triggered by them and I don't seek a safe space away from them. I want to confront them wherever they raise their heads. Like now. I'm trying to open a dialogue and you throw a one liner, a very unfunny one, back at me. How about we engage in debate instead?
Because the alt right is a horrible mishmash of people with a large dollop of hatred thrown in.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » The point is that either side sees itself as the victim, sees itself as being oppressed...
alastair wrote: » Thing is, there's a preponderance of evidence on one side and sod all on the other. Idiots be everywhere, but there's one side of this argument considerably more idiotic than the other (and consequently has a greater density of idiot supporters). There is no equivalence between the two sides.
oscarBravo wrote: » OK, let's think about that for a second. One perspective says that women, people of colour, gays and so on are victims of oppression. Another perspective says that white men are victims of oppression. I think it's fairly clear to anyone looking at the question objectively which of those perspectives has the more validity. For all the cries of "help, help, I'm being oppressed" from the alt-right, I can't imagine too many of them would actually prefer to be black lesbians.
Brian? wrote: » This is what gets me. They are a counter culture to a more tolerant, multi cultural, multi ethic and pluralist society. Surely society is improved by increased tolerance. What value does a counter culture to make society less tolerant have?
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Again, I didn't say that each side had equal amounts of legitimacy. I didn't think I needed to.
oscarBravo wrote: » Accepted. Unfortunately, I think it needs to be said.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » I didn't claim that the two were in any way equivalent. I was just pointing out that the modern left is going down less than desirable directions.
alastair wrote: » I'm not buying it. I suspect you've fallen hook, line and sinker for pretty weak bait. The modern left is the same range of opinions and perspectives it's ever been.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » I'll have to try to be clearer in future. I was trying to describe the common behaviours and mindsets of each.