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; } } }

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

red ears

Tony EH wrote: »

However, what someone says is THEIR OWN RESPONSIBILITY and if they get a punch in face for patently abhorrent views, the fault lies on their own doorstep.

The responsibility lies with the person who throws the punch. That's how the law would view it. Assault is illegal.

end of the road

FA Hayek wrote: »

No one. We are all well aware of your extremist left wing views, views that manifest itself to excuse violence perpetrated in the name of 'a cause'. Ireland has seen plenty of that over the past 40 years or so. At least you admit you are not a liberal anyway, a true liberal condemns violence, leftists on the other hand are knee deep in violence.

no different to rightists, who also love their violence.

Overheal

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

Really !

You find someone getting assaulted like that hilarious ??

wow ..

https://twitter.com/GerryDuggan/status/822603492321796097

FreudianSlippers

red ears wrote: »

The responsibility lies with the person who throws the punch. That's how the law would view it. Assault is illegal.

Again: it was battery.

Brian?

FA Hayek wrote: »

No one. We are all well aware of your extremist left wing views, views that manifest itself to excuse violence perpetrated in the name of 'a cause'. Ireland has seen plenty of that over the past 40 years or so. At least you admit you are not a liberal anyway, a true liberal condemns violence, leftists on the other hand are knee deep in violence.

We're shockingly violent alright. Hitler, Pinochet and Suharto were all notorious leftists after all.

Neither side has a monopoly on using violence to further their aims. Let's be real here though, it was a punch in the ear.

ScumLord

Palmach wrote: »

Those who use violence to further their aims are the same as Nazis.

That means that Luke Skywalker is basically a Nazi. Everyone that's ever fought for any reason is also a Nazi. French revolution was the nazi revolution, the American war of independance was the nazi war of independance.

My whole view of history has been flipped on its head.

InTheTrees

If it had been me I would have sucker punched the a*shole in the face then turned myself in so I could give my reasons for doing so in court.

I would happily pay the fine.

Overheal

ScumLord wrote: »

That means that Luke Skywalker is basically a Nazi. Everyone that's ever fought for any reason is also a Nazi. French revolution was the nazi revolution, the American war of independance was the nazi war of independance.

My whole view of history has been flipped on its head.

Well he realized he was becoming one when he was about to strike down Vader. Jesus did you even watch Episode VI ?

InTheTrees

ScumLord wrote: »

Palmach wrote: »

Those who use violence to further their aims are the same as Nazis.

That means that Luke Skywalker is basically a Nazi. Everyone that's ever fought for any reason is also a Nazi. French revolution was the nazi revolution, the American war of independance was the nazi war of independance.

My whole view of history has been flipped on its head.

Yup. The Jewish rebellion in the Warsaw Ghetto was actually nazis fighting nazis.

ScumLord

Overheal wrote: »

Well he realized he was becoming one when he was about to strike down Vader. Jesus did you even watch Episode VI ?

All that proves is nepotism beats fascism.

Sand

oscarBravo wrote: »

I thought Warren Ellis's take on it was interesting:

Its not that interesting. Spencer isnt a member of the Nazi party, and denies being a Nazi. He also has not called for the genocide of anyone, lebensraum in Poland or demanded the repeal of the Treaty of Versailles.

Just calling someone a Nazi is not then sufficient cause to punch them.

He is someone who believes in racial idenitity and racial politics but then so do the BlackLivesMatter and "white privilege" crowd.

Billy86

Sand wrote: »

Its not that interesting. Spencer isnt a member of the Nazi party, and denies being a Nazi. He also has not called for the genocide of anyone, lebensraum in Poland or demanded the repeal of the Treaty of Versailles.

Just calling someone a Nazi is not then sufficient cause to punch them.

He is someone who believes in racial idenitity and racial politics but then so do the BlackLivesMatter and "white privilege" crowd.

I don't agree with him being punched either, though while not a Nazi he is a white supremacist which is exactly why he is currently banned from every Schengen country when he tried to spread it in Hungary.

ancapailldorcha

I don't give a toss what Spencer denies. I do, however disagree with him being physically attacked because of his beliefs, disgusting as they are.

Sand

Billy86 wrote: »

I don't agree with him being punched either, though while not a Nazi he is a white supremacist which is exactly why he is currently banned from every Schengen country when he tried to spread it in Hungary.

Yep, no doubt he is a white supremacist and a slimy piece of work.

FA Hayek

Tony EH wrote: »

I am for freedom of speech as an absolute. I fully believe in Chomsky's point of view that one is either for freedom of speech or they're not.

However, what someone says is THEIR OWN RESPONSIBILITY and if they get a punch in face for patently abhorrent views, the fault lies on their own doorstep.

Then you don't support freedom of speech, period. It is quite simple. 30 years ago gay rights activists were protected by freedom of speech to advocate their cause and issue. In your world, because one may have disagreed with them, it was ok to punch them.

FA Hayek

Brian? wrote: »

Neither side has a monopoly on using violence to further their aims. Let's be real here though, it was a punch in the ear.

All the violence perpetrated over the weekend in DC was by leftists. In modern times they sure have a monopoly on it.

Billy86

FA Hayek wrote: »

All the violence perpetrated over the weekend in DC was by leftists. In modern times they sure have a monopoly on it.

Then why was a prominent member of the alt right/alt light in Gavin McInnes bragging in an interview about assaulting protesters?

Tony EH

FA Hayek wrote: »

Then you don't support freedom of speech, period. It is quite simple. 30 years ago gay rights activists were protected by freedom of speech to advocate their cause and issue. In your world, because one may have disagreed with them, it was ok to punch them.

Please stop replying with bullshit.

People advocating for their right to merely exist without fear is NOT the same as someone advocating the want to ethnically cleanse a group or groups of people they consider racially inferior, al la:

"...we should instead be asking questions like, ‘Does human civilization actually need the Black race?’ ‘Is Black genocide right?’ and, if it is, ‘What would be the best and easiest way to dispose of them?"

It's akin to someone walking down Harlem and shouting that he's going to kill all **** and thinking that's an acceptable form of behaviour. That kind of provocative speach is designed to stir the wrong kinds of response and if you engage in that desire to stir such a response, then you only have yourself to blame when it reaches your doorstep.

Gay rights activists weren't and aren't calling for the elimination of straight people, or stating that they are superior to them either.

That's a stupid analogy.

Sand

Tony EH wrote: »

Please stop replying with bullshit.

People advocating for their right to merely exist without fear is NOT the same as someone advocating the want to ethnically cleanse a group or groups of people they consider racially inferior, al la:

"...we should instead be asking questions like, ‘Does human civilization actually need the Black race?’ ‘Is Black genocide right?’ and, if it is, ‘What would be the best and easiest way to dispose of them?"

It's akin to someone walking down Harlem and shouting that he's going to kill all **** and thinking that's an acceptable form of behaviour. That kind of provocative speach is designed to stir the wrong kinds of response and if you engage in that desire to stir such a response, then you only have yourself to blame when it reaches your doorstep.

Gay rights activists weren't and aren't calling for the elimination of straight people, or stating that they are superior to them either.

That's a stupid analogy.

You're still arguing that taking a certain position invites violence as a valid response. Its a weak position. There is some very...uh, controversial and provocative... positions taken by supposed LGBT activists and indeed other social activists. It wouldn't justify violence as a response. If people really want to wind the clock back to medieval times where political disputes are solved by attacking the other party, then by all means visit Syria and see how that system works in practise.

As far as I understand it those articles (there were two - the second asked if white genocide was right) were written 5 years ago by a man called Colin Liddell (not Spencer). Both were later removed by Spencer because Spencer viewed them as embarrassing.

Tony EH

Sand wrote: »

You're still arguing that taking a certain position invites violence as a valid response.

No. I am saying people should take responsibility for the things that they say under the banner of free speach. Free speach is not an armour. It's a right. However, more provocative type speech the likes of which white supremacists spout is designed to stir reactions. Some of which will be violent.

It's common sense.

They can say what they want, but they can't go whinging when their call for eliminating folk they dislike stirs up trouble for them.

A 5 year can understand what I'm saying.

Sand wrote: »

As far as I understand it those articles (there were two - the second asked if white genocide was right) were written 5 years ago by a man called Colin Liddell (not Spencer). Both were later removed by Spencer because Spencer viewed them as embarrassing.

I know. But Spencer published it on his Alt Right site. He acted as an advocate and conduit for those views and his site was designed as an organ for them. Whether he considered them "embarrassing" later (did he say this?) or not is neither here nor there.

frostyjacks

What happened to the principle of, “I don't agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I would have loved to have seen the professional trouble-makers and feminists get taught a lesson at the weekend, but I respect their right to peaceful protest.

It shows how morally bankrupt they are that they resort to violence when confronted with harmless nationalist sentiments.

Sand

Tony EH wrote: »

No. I am saying people should take responsibility for the things that they say under the banner of free speach. Free speach is not an armour. It's a right. However, more provocative type speech the likes of which white supremacists spout is designed to stir reactions. Some of which will be violent.

It's common sense.

They can say what they want, but they can't go whinging when their call for eliminating folk they dislike stirs up trouble for them.

A 5 year can understand what I'm saying.

Violence is a crime, not a critical reaction.

Even in the leadup to the punch Spencer was hardly being provocative - he was accused by a bystander of being a neo-nazi "No, I'm not a neo-nazi. They hate me actually". He was then challenged if he liked black people, responding "Yeah, sure".

Not exactly spitting in their face.

I know. But Spencer published it on his Alt Right site. He acted as an advocate and conduit for those views and his site was designed as an organ for them. Whether he considered them "embarrassing" later (did he say this?) or not is neither here nor there.

Yeah, and then he removed it as being embarrassing. This is according to the author Colin Lidell. The supposed justification for this attack is something he said. Actually no something someone else said. 5 years ago. In articles that Spencer later removed. It gets weaker and weaker with each telling.

Spencer has repulsive views, but so do a lot of his supposed opponents. Spencer is literally a nobody with a twitter account and some followers. He is about as politically influential as Pewdiepie. Its hardly an excuse for people going round attacking (and ultimately murdering, as in the case of Jo Cox) each other. People cant on the one hand moan about divisiveness in US politics whilst at the same time being soft on extremists waging street warfare like its 1920s Berlin.

Tony EH

frostyjacks wrote: »

What happened to the principle of, “I don't agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

Evelyn Hall was philosophically talking about defending a principle not the person saying stupid or hateful things. Voltaire's actual quote was "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too."

If someone wants to stand outside the holocaust museum in Washington and say that he believed that Hitler was correct to kill Jews. I would defend his RIGHT to his beliefs, but I certainly wouldn't get between him and the police when they come to take him away.

I would, however, be forced to ask myself if he had learned any valuable, common sense, lessons.

Tony EH

Sand wrote: »

Yeah, and then he removed it as being embarrassing. This is according to the author Colin Lidell. The supposed justification for this attack is something he said. Actually no something someone else said. 5 years ago. In articles that Spencer later removed. It gets weaker and weaker with each telling.

Big deal. He chose to publish it in the first place and act as an organ for such beliefs. That gets noticed. Pluse Spencer is not short on his own vile views about race and bigotry and such views will draw fire.

Sand wrote: »

Spencer has repulsive views, but so do a lot of his supposed opponents. Spencer is literally a nobody with a twitter account and some followers. He is about as politically influential as Pewdiepie. Its hardly an excuse for people going round attacking (and ultimately murdering, as in the case of Jo Cox) each other.

I agree. I don't support violent reactions to people's views. I don't even support the guy who whacked Spencer in the mush.

But, I do absolutely believe that one has to take responsibility for what they say and the reactions it may provoke from some people.

BTW, the murder of Jo Cox (another person who's views I would have issue with) and Spencer's bitchslap aren't even on the same scale.

ArthurDayne

Tony EH wrote: »

I am saying people should take responsibility for the things that they say under the banner of free speach.

Agreed. And to develop on from that, another fallacy which I have found to become more prevalent in this post-truth world we live in is that which compels a person to say that they have the right to have their opinion respected. In my view, people do of course have the right to have an opinion and to voice that opinion -- but respect for an opinion is earned through articulating that opinion through a genuine attempt at reasoning and rationalising their point, which requires a little bit of actual reading of the subject matter.

What we see now, in the context of the rise of the alt-right, is that people read biased or simply non-factual sensationalised click-bait garbage on their smartphones and mistake that for wider reading. They then form an opinion based on soundbite and superficial political themes which ignore both the bigger picture and the nuanced complexities -- dismissing those who dare raise the issue of said complexities as puppets of the elite.

The overriding result is the tragedy of watching western civilisation become enslaved to the soundbites of 'establishment' and 'elites' and a fuzzy amnesiac blur of a non-existent golden era where a country was 'great', before dark-skinned people arrived and somehow made everything worse. Just as our ancestors devised myths and legends to rationalise and make sense of the world around them, the alt-right has devised the myth of a shadowy elite to whom all blame for all the things an individual hates about the world around them can be attributed, and have contradictorily succeeded in making immigrants the physical incarnation of the failure of society.

This paranoid and delusional fear of immigrants and their effect on society, and I see it being regularly spouted from respectable working people in this country too, completely ignores the fact that the success and prosperity of the West did not come from isolationism --- but from integration, immigration and the assimilation of immigrants into society. The alt-right, in all its ignorance of nuance, fails to see that one of the most significant driving factors of the West's position as a cradle of progress is the assimilation of immigrants. By dissuading immigrants and alienating them, they will only succeed in making worse the things they seem to fear.

wes

frostyjacks wrote: »

What happened to the principle of, “I don't agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I would have loved to have seen the professional trouble-makers and feminists get taught a lesson at the weekend, but I respect their right to peaceful protest.

"Taught a lesson", what do you mean by that, exactly? Interesting statement to make....... Considering the context of what your saying one second and wanting people to be "taught a lesson" the next. Interesting statement to say the least.

The Womens protest were peaceful, with no arrests from what I remember and amongst the biggest in US history.

frostyjacks wrote: »

It shows how morally bankrupt they are that they resort to violence when confronted with harmless nationalist sentiments.

Genocide is now harmless "nationalist sentiment". I don't think you have a leg to stand on accusing others of "moral bankruptcy".

We are through the looking glass people.

wes

ArthurDayne wrote: »

The overriding result is the tragedy of watching western civilisation become enslaved to the soundbites of 'establishment' and 'elites' and a fuzzy amnesiac blur of a non-existent golden era where a country was 'great', before dark-skinned people arrived and somehow made everything worse.

Exact same nonsense is used by Al Qaeda and ISIS and there ilk. Albeit blaming the West for all there problems and targeting Religious minorities.

Sand

Tony EH wrote: »

I agree. I don't support violent reactions to people's views. I don't even support the guy who whacked Spencer in the mush.

But, I do absolutely believe that one has to take responsibility for what they say and the reactions it may provoke from some people.

BTW, the murder of Jo Cox (another person who's views I would have issue with) and Spencer's bitchslap aren't even on the same scale.

Fair enough (I wouldn't be as bothered if Spencer was involved in some heated verbal confrontation that escalated into violence. I'd see that as a provocation. But he was just attacked out of the blue), but I don't agree with what you've said there or at least how you phrased it. It could follow on from that that Jo Cox ought to take responsibility for what she said or the positions she took and the reactions those provoked from some violent and hateful people. The only possible qualifier being ideas I like/ideas I do not like.

People (including nomark college dropouts like Spencer) ought to be free to give their views so long as they don't break the law. People should be free to disagree with, disprove or ignore those views, again so long as they don't break the law. No democratic society can permit violent people to intimidate and silence people. Its up to legislators to police free speech, not skinhead thugs.

FA Hayek

What is clear here, is that many people on boards are pro violence.

red ears

FA Hayek wrote: »

What is clear here, is that many people on boards are pro violence.

Its an absolutely ridiculous position for people to take. How they can't see if you are OK with one side of a political argument using violence then how can you argue when the other side use violence.