nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The alt right - Mod Warning in OP

20Cent

What is the alt right?
Been hearing the term used more frequently since Trump has been elected.
I thought it was just milo and Katie Hopkins type trolling but it seems to be something bigger than that.

Mod: There have been a fair few mod warnings on this thread now. Any posts which fall under the standard of discussion of the forum will likely be deleted and will face mod action. These include but are not limited to one-liners, videodumps and insults. Please consult the charter if unsure or contact a mod.

Thanks.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Snickers Man

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The thing is that the GOP is more like a grand coalition than a single party. You have your NRA types, Christians, hawks, etc...Trump is too divisive to unite all of them.

That's true but then so is the Democratic Party. What do you expect when you have a country of 300 million people and effectively only a choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledummer?

The two-party system produces a sort of bipolar disorder which is very evident in American discourse. It's all about "pulling on the jersey" of whichever party approximates to your world view and waving your balloon about like a mad eejit.

The multiparty system that tends to be produced by PR-type electoral systems at least allows some granularity of choice to the electorate even though ensuing governments tend always to be coalitions of some sort. But at least they're more transparent coalitions. The monolithic appearance of the Big Two American parties hides a multittude of contradictions.

InTheTrees

Snickers Man wrote: »

The two-party system produces a sort of bipolar disorder which is very evident in American discourse.

It also differs from a parliamentary system in that the Presidency is one of the three branches of government and congress is another and that the two are not bound to work with one another even though they are of the same party.

They will of course, but it's not as though trump can count on GOP votes in congress, he has to work for them.

Skullface McGubbin

20Cent wrote: »

The Irish Times getting grief for an article they published about the alt right
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/the-alt-right-movement-everything-you-need-to-know-1.2924658

It's quite a surprise to see an IrishTimes article about the alt right that isn't a hysterical scaremongering hit piece. Of course, that's why the IrishTimes readership has their knickers in a twist over it. Most of their readers are the kind of people who would call Trump a fascist.

alchemist33

I read that IT article first and thought the author was taking the p1ss out of the alt-right. Then I read about the "controversy" and am now totally confused.

PopePalpatine

Yeah, let's gloss over the author's alt-right sympathies, and of course the movement's hard-on for authoritarianism. :rolleyes:

midnight city

Skullface McGubbin wrote: »

It's quite a surprise to see an IrishTimes article about the alt right that isn't a hysterical scaremongering hit piece. Of course, that's why the IrishTimes readership has their knickers in a twist over it. Most of their readers are the kind of people who would call Trump a fascist.

Say what you want about the Indo but at least they have journalists from the opposite ends of the spectrum. That alt right article that the Irish Times readers freaked out about could easily have been written by Ian O'Doherty. Maybe they want the Times to be one big safe space.

alchemist33

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Yeah, let's gloss over the author's alt-right sympathies, and of course the movement's hard-on for authoritarianism. :rolleyes:

Dunno if you're rolling your eyes at me (might be the previous poster looking at the posting time) but taken at face value without knowing any of the people involved, it looked like a pisstake to me. This seems like one of those issues you're probably better off avoiding or else getting completely immersed in.

Brian?

midnight city wrote: »

Say what you want about the Indo but at least they have journalists from the opposite ends of the spectrum.That alt right article that the Irish Times readers freaked out about could easily have been written by Ian O'Doherty. Maybe they want the Times to be one big safe space.

Say what you want about the Irish Times but at least they have journalists from opposite ends of the spectrum.

They have regular conservative contributors like Charles Krauthammer. They don't have populist scare mongers like he Indo do though.

Nice of you to fit "safe space" in. Just so we know you have contempt for the average Irish Times reader.

20Cent

midnight city wrote: »

Say what you want about the Indo but at least they have journalists from the opposite ends of the spectrum. That alt right article that the Irish Times readers freaked out about could easily have been written by Ian O'Doherty. Maybe they want the Times to be one big safe space.

Higher standards expected from the Times. The problem isn't that they wrote about the alt right it's the portrayal of them being harmless jokers on the internet. Be accurate at least save the dumbed down stuff for Ian O'Doherty.

Sweetemotion

Getting quite the echo chamber in here is't ancapailldorcha?

And yes Brian? The crime itself was horrible and should be condemned in the strongest terms.

Thankfully the justice system thinks like you also and have charged them with a hate crime.

Brian?

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Getting quite the echo chamber in here is't ancapailldorcha?

And yes Brian? The crime itself was horrible and should be condemned in the strongest terms.

Thankfully the justice system thinks like you also and have charged them with a hate crime.

Thankfully. They deserve to be charged with a hate crime.

What's your view on the alt right hijacking this horrific crime to attack BLM?

midnight city

Brian? wrote: »

What's your view on the alt right hijacking this horrific crime to attack BLM?

Its part of the propaganda war, they watch daily the same being done by liberals about trump and similar from the BLM supporters about white people and cops. You're hardly surprised about that are you?

Sweetemotion

Brian? wrote: »

Thankfully. They deserve to be charged with a hate crime.

What's your view on the alt right hijacking this horrific crime to attack BLM?

How do you see the "alt white" skin heads and doc martins?

What would BLM do? If they seen a disabled black teen tortured by four whites.

Brian?

midnight city wrote: »

Its part of the propaganda war, they watch daily the same being done by liberals about trump and similar from the BLM supporters about white people and cops. You're hardly surprised about that are you?

Bull.

It's wrong. Can't you have the decency to condemn it?

Kitsunegari

Brian? wrote: »

Bull.

It's wrong. Can't you have the decency to condemn it?

Black Lives Matter are a completely dishonest organisation with no credibility whatsoever.

Brian?

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Black Lives Matter are a completely dishonest organisation with no credibility whatsoever.

Who had nothing to do with this atrocity. Bit the alt right cheerleaders decided to associate them with it. They are lying scumbags, just because BLM are dishonest it doesn't excuse them for being lying scumbags.

hatrickpatrick

Part of this is a very direct and obvious blowback against the regressive left's "some victims are more equal than others because of their demographic" bullsh!t over the last few years. There's no denying it, and in my view there's no denying that this was an idiotic stance to take especially in the context of fighting for equality. The reason the alt-right are so delighted to have a white victim of a racist hate crime is because the regressive left have spent the last five years claiming that because of gigantic, macro societal forces which often have absolutely no relevance to an individual's experience, a black individual cannot be racist against a white individual, a female individual cannot be sexist against a male individual, etc.

It's absolutely moronic and idiotic (not to mention depressing) to see people being glad to have found a white person who has been a victim of a vile hate crime - the fact that anyone would be secretly happy that this attack happened to anyone because it furthers their political arguments just shows a total lack of proportion for what's important in life and what isn't. But let's not pretend that this came out of nowhere - it came from five years of deliberate baiting from the #KillAllwhiteMen, "nyah nyah you can't complain about it because privilege, it's not racism" idiotic muppets calling themselves "liberals".

Special Circumstances

alchemist33 wrote: »

I read that IT article first and thought the author was taking the p1ss out of the alt-right. Then I read about the "controversy" and am now totally confused.

Indeed.
I don't think it was "fawning" by any stretch of the imagination. Despite being described as such by some.

It looked like a lexicon. I have no idea if some of the explanations were correct, there was certainly some nasty stuff in there.

I thought that's part of what newspapers should do... explain emerging trends/movements/events factually and let the reader decide how they feel about them.

Seems a lot of people only want to hear about some things when Una Mullahly has been scrambled to give the hate speech about them as damage control.

Special Circumstances

20Cent wrote: »

Higher standards expected from the Times.

Ah here, the pontificating over another country's democratically elected leader has reduced them to a laughing stock in my view. Let that crap for Una and keep the wailing and gnashing of teeth off the front page.

Billy86

Who are 'the regressive left'? Is it a small subsection to the far left, anyone left of centre, or something else altogether?

PopePalpatine

Billy86 wrote: »

Who are 'the regressive left'? Is it a small subsection to the far left, anyone left of centre, or something else altogether?

It's a synonym for "social justice warrior". Personally I prefer the term because at least it doesn't try to drag the idea of social justice (and IMO my concept includes working class white men, who'd get stabbed in the back thanks to a slashing of workers' rights if the "alt-lite" like Milo got a whiff of political power) down into the mud.

B_Wayne

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Black Lives Matter are a completely dishonest organisation with no credibility whatsoever.

This is like Trump supporters going "But Hillary"...
Never actually addressing the point.

midnight city

Brian? wrote: »

just because BLM are dishonest it doesn't excuse them for being lying scumbags.

So one is merely dishonest and the other are lying scumbags. What's the difference other than your obvious bias?? Dishonesty is either bad or its not..

20Cent

Would agree with the sentiment in this article. Alt right are bullsh1***rs rather than liars.

(Trigger warning the author is Laurie Penny)

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/01/why-post-truth-age-bull****ters-are-winning

Liars know the truth and want to deceive, bullsh1***ers don't even care what the truth is.

Brian?

midnight city wrote: »

So one is merely dishonest and the other are lying scumbags. What's the difference other than your obvious bias?? Dishonesty is either bad or its not..

I'm not having this. You're completely refusing to call out one side in their dishonesty.

I won't budge until you do. Then we can discuss BLM's dishonesty.

Brian?

20Cent wrote: »

Would agree with the sentiment in this article. Alt right are bullsh1***rs rather than liars.

(Trigger warning the author is Laurie Penny)

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/01/why-post-truth-age-bull****ters-are-winning

Liars know the truth and want to deceive, bullsh1***ers don't even care what the truth is.

I get a 404 not found for that link.

Jimoslimos

Brian? wrote: »

I get a 404 not found for that link.

Boards swear filter. Replace the **** in the link with the appropriate word.

Brian?

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Boards swear filter. Replace the **** in the link with the appropriate word.

Sound. Thanks

Jan_de_Bakker

I see Una Mullaly had an article in the Irish Times saying how the IT should never have published the Alt. Right piece - does she not see the irony here ?

She will go on about this "fascism" yet she is the one trying to shut down free speech.

Brian?

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

I see Una Mullaly had an article in the Irish Times saying how the IT should never have published the Alt. Right piece - does she not see the irony here ?

She will go on about this "fascism" yet she is the one trying to shut down free speech.

I don't agree with Una here. The Irish Times can publish anything they like and exposing the alt right is great.

However, she is not being "fascist" in the least.

Serious question, if someone submitted an article on he merits of national socialism to the Irish Times, should they publish it in the name of free speech? Or should they decline to publish as its hate speech? Do you believe that all ideas have equal merit and deserve to be aired, no matter what?