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

ancapailldorcha

FA Hayek wrote: »

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

No, it isn't. There's a gulf between being pro-violence and having no sympathy for a neo-Nazi getting a smack. I don't condone it but I've no sympathy either.

I also find it interesting that you failed to mention ethnic nationalism, the driving force behind several atrocities in history being described as harmless.

frostyjacks

It's not a question of having sympathy with Spencer, but rather, do we want our children to grow up in a society that tolerates punching people who hold opposing views? Even the Jewish press were aghast at the way the attack was celebrated, because it used to be they who were demonized and beaten up in the street by bully boys.

Ultimately, if one doesn't like what Richard Spencer has to say, don't listen to him. It's really not that difficult.

Brian?

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's not a question of having sympathy with Spencer, but rather, do we want our children to grow up in a society that tolerates punching people who hold opposing views? Even the Jewish press were aghast at the way the attack was celebrated, because it used to be they who were demonized and beaten up in the street by bully boys.

Ultimately, if one doesn't like what Richard Spencer has to say, don't listen to him. It's really not that difficult.

Again. Punching not right. Punching anyone wrong.

Seeing Richard Spencer getting punched. Hilarious, but wrong.

Even the Jewish press? What does that even mean? You should change your name to frostyjackboots to make it easier for people to see your racist bile coming.

frostyjacks

Brian? wrote: »

Again. Punching not right. Punching anyone wrong.

Seeing Richard Spencer getting punched. Hilarious, but wrong.

Even the Jewish press? What does that even mean? You should change your name to frostyjackboots to make it easier for people to see your racist bile coming.

It means that one would expect the Jews to be clapping loudest at this incident. But they recognise fascist behavior when they see it, and for you to find it hilarious makes you no better than the Nazis you purport to rail against.

If I saw footage of a black man or militant feminist being punched I would be horrified. What kind of sick mind is amused by violence?

Billy86

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's not a question of having sympathy with Spencer, but rather, do we want our children to grow up in a society that tolerates punching people who hold opposing views? Even the Jewish press were aghast at the way the attack was celebrated, because it used to be they who were demonized and beaten up in the street by bully boys.

Ultimately, if one doesn't like what Richard Spencer has to say, don't listen to him. It's really not that difficult.

You really don't like the Jews, do you? I'd rather neither, but the choice between children growing up in a world where punching white supremacists is seen as acceptable, or a where the below is entertained as acceptable, I know which I would prefer.

Brian?

frostyjacks wrote: »

It means that one would expect the Jews to be clapping loudest at this incident. But they recognise fascist behavior when they see it, and for you to find it hilarious makes you no better than the Nazis you purport to rail against.

What Jews? All Jews or just the Jewish press? Why are we even talking about Jews? You seem obsessed with them.

Again. Punching people is wrong. Seeing a neo nazi punched, hilarious.

You know what makes me better than the Nazis I disagree with? Not being a nazi.

If I saw footage of a black man or militant feminist being punched I would be horrified. What kind of sick mind is amused by violence?

I actually don't think you would.

Sick mind eh? Better tell the 3 Stooges.

Zubeneschamali

frostyjacks wrote: »

If I saw footage of a black man or militant feminist being punched I would be horrified.

Really? Then who said this just upthread?

I would have loved to have seen the professional trouble-makers and feminists get taught a lesson at the weekend

frostyjacks

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Really? Then who said this just upthread?

I would have loved to have seen the professional trouble-makers and feminists get taught a lesson at the weekend

I've no issue with the police or vigilantes using violence to stop violence. If people block streets, set fire to things or call for the Whitehouse to be blown up, then the use of force is justified. But just attacking someone for no good reason, like this incident or the Rodney King one from a while back is neither justified nor hilarious.

Zubeneschamali

frostyjacks wrote: »

I've no issue with the police or vigilantes using violence to stop violence.

So in this video clip, a lone vigilante punches a guy who advocates genocide for blacks.

It's right up your street.

Billy86

frostyjacks wrote: »

I've no issue with the police or vigilantes using violence to stop violence. If people block streets, set fire to things or call for the Whitehouse to be blown up, then the use of force is justified. But just attacking someone for no good reason, like this incident or the Rodney King one from a while back is neither justified nor hilarious.

You also have no issue with people hurling stones at politicians, so please do get down from that high horse of yours.

ancapailldorcha

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's not a question of having sympathy with Spencer, but rather, do we want our children to grow up in a society that tolerates punching people who hold opposing views?

Of course but the alt right don't seem too fussed about extended this privilege beyond their white, male demographic.

frostyjacks wrote: »

Ultimately, if one doesn't like what Richard Spencer has to say, don't listen to him. It's really not that difficult.

So you're fine with Muslim clerics preaching Islam then?

frostyjacks

Billy86 wrote: »

You also have no issue with people hurling stones at politicians, so please do get down from that high horse of yours.

They threw objects at a car, not the politician. You seem to be misremembering things.

Billy86

frostyjacks wrote: »

They threw objects at a car, not the politician. You seem to be misremembering things.

The car that his driver was still in.

FreudianSlippers

frostyjacks wrote: »

They threw objects at a car, not the politician. You seem to be misremembering things.

Still dangerous to the individual and potential criminal damage.

Brian?

The downfall of Milo is bitter sweet for me. Sweet because he's a hateful piece of work. Bitter because publicity is like oxygen to him. I have a feeling he'll parlay the publicity from his downfall into a higher profile, somehow he'll come out looking the victim.

The alt-right have turned on him, so I do hope it's the beginning of the end for alt-right as a movement.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-39045458

red ears

He will be like a politician resigning, he'll be back in 6 months.

ScumLord

Milo put himself in front of the media, it was only a matter of time before they found something that would upset the alt-right conservative movement. It was hard to tell if they hated having a gay as a spokesperson or loved the fact that everything they hate was supporting their cause as it would act like a get out of jail free for everything they said.

I always got the impression Milo couldn't really be the conservative he made himself out to be and that the attention he's conservatism got him probably meant more to him than anything else. I wouldn't be surprised to see him back as anything from alt-right to militant liberal. As far as I could see he promoted liberal views like free speech (which I know alt righters think they own now) and that his support of free speech is what pulled him into that movement because free speech was/is under attack by liberalism.

PopePalpatine

Brian? wrote: »

The downfall of Milo is bitter sweet for me. Sweet because he's a hateful piece of work. Bitter because publicity is like oxygen to him. I have a feeling he'll parlay the publicity from his downfall into a higher profile, somehow he'll come out looking the victim.

The alt-right have turned on him, so I do hope it's the beginning of the end for alt-right as a movement.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-39045458

Nature abhors a vacuum, I wouldn't be surprised if there's dozens of young, anti-PC, anyone-who-disagrees-with-me-will-be-harassed-by-my-minions commentators out there willing to take up Milo's position as a presentable (well, relative to a skinhead, a rapey alphabater or a neckbeard with a Mountain Dew addiction) face of the alt-right.

Tony EH

Brian? wrote: »

The downfall of Milo is bitter sweet for me. Sweet because he's a hateful piece of work. Bitter because publicity is like oxygen to him. I have a feeling he'll parlay the publicity from his downfall into a higher profile, somehow he'll come out looking the victim.

The alt-right have turned on him, so I do hope it's the beginning of the end for alt-right as a movement.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-39045458

It was only a matter of time.

Milo is completely vacuous at times. He's simply an attention seeking queen with too big a mouth. It was really bound to happen at some stage.

TBH, as obnoxious and as irritating as he is, he does - on occasion - hit the mark. But he's just too...er..."fabulous" to take seriously. In other words, the act wears thin after a while and you can see through statements to the bullshit origins they stem from.

I wonder whether he truly believes half of what he actually says anyway and if it isn't just loving the limelight. He really will say just about anything.

The only thing worse than people talking about you is....yadda, yadda, yadda...

Tony EH

ScumLord wrote: »

Milo put himself in front of the media, it was only a matter of time before they found something that would upset the alt-right conservative movement. It was hard to tell if they hated having a gay as a spokesperson or loved the fact that everything they hate was supporting their cause as it would act like a get out of jail free for everything they said.

I always got the impression Milo couldn't really be the conservative he made himself out to be and that the attention he's conservatism got him probably meant more to him than anything else. I wouldn't be surprised to see him back as anything from alt-right to militant liberal. As far as I could see he promoted liberal views like free speech (which I know alt righters think they own now) and that his support of free speech is what pulled him into that movement because free speech was/is under attack by liberalism.

Milo was always the Conservatives get out of jail card. Played when the time needed it. I've always found it bizarre, to say the least, that a gay Jew, of all people, should be so venomous of those on the left, when there are people on that wing of politics he should be thanking profusely for what they've done for gay rights and anti-semitism in the past.

In the end, I am of the opinion, too, that Milo would have said anything at all to fuel controversy and have the lights aimed in his direction, which is what he most craves.

ScumLord

Tony EH wrote: »

Milo was always the Conservatives get out of jail card. Played when the time needed it. I've always found it bizarre, to say the least, that a gay Jew, of all people, should be so venomous of those on the left, when there are people on that wing of politics he should be thanking profusely for what they've done for gay rights and anti-semitism in the past.

In the end, I am of the opinion, too, that Milo would have said anything at all to fuel controversy and have the lights aimed in his direction, which is what he most craves.

He's main argument seems to have always been about free speech. Basically the right has a right to be dicks if they want to be. He himself likes to push the borders of what's acceptable so free speech is in his interest.

There's no doubt in my mind the PC-brigade brought this on themselves by overdoing their reactions. It has always seemed like attention whoring, pseudo compassion that was convenient but very shallow..

vetinari

I see a speaker a CPAC is now trying to claim that the alt right is a left wing fascist group.
It's just one fringe nut case but the disingenuous nature of such a claim is consistent with other republican politicians.
Just flat out say that any problem is actually caused by the other side.

Tony EH

ScumLord wrote: »

He's main argument seems to have always been about free speech. Basically the right has a right to be dicks if they want to be. He himself likes to push the borders of what's acceptable so free speech is in his interest.

That's all well and good, but if you're simply about saying any old crap and being a wanker, simply to fuel your own self interested career, you're bound to draw ire from some quarter, sooner or later.

Frankly, I reckon the right have always been kind of embarrassed by Milo and have finally just said enough.

I heard someone say that this is his "pee wee moment". He'll repackage himself and be back in front of the camera once the noise has died down.

red ears

ScumLord wrote: »

He's main argument seems to have always been about free speech. Basically the right has a right to be dicks if they want to be. He himself likes to push the borders of what's acceptable so free speech is in his interest.

There's no doubt in my mind the PC-brigade brought this on themselves by overdoing their reactions. It has always seemed like attention whoring, pseudo compassion that was convenient but very shallow..

It was as an antidote to the extremes of feminism that he was best known for.

Ben Gadot

I never really got the whole hubbub about him. The first time I came across him was his twitter ban and thought nothing more of him than just being a trolling attention whore.

Seems to me the second he got an actual platform it wasn't long before he was slapped down by those who put him there in the first place.

Anyway, in regards to the alt right, when I was in college 10 years ago I think I was the only left leaning student who was worried about giving such clowns as Milo a platform. I was told by my fellow lefts that I was hindering free speech by saying they shouldn't be given a platform....now those same people are writing articles about media outlets "enabling" people like Milo and saying refusing to publish "hate speech" isn't censorship.

Basically 10 years ago the left never had it better so it was easy to defend even the most reprehensible fcuker's right to free speech...simply because they were no threat. Now that the tables have flipped it isn't so easy.

ancapailldorcha

Tiger55, please do not just dump links here.

demfad

ScumLord wrote: »

He's main argument seems to have always been about free speech. Basically the right has a right to be dicks if they want to be. He himself likes to push the borders of what's acceptable so free speech is in his interest.

There's no doubt in my mind the PC-brigade brought this on themselves by overdoing their reactions. It has always seemed like attention whoring, pseudo compassion that was convenient but very shallow..

The right has always had the rights to be dicks if they want to be. They also must deal with the consequences of this. For the alt-right to blame their fascist behaviour on the 'PC Brigade' is pretty childish and no less than a lie.
The Alt-right might like to spread hate and bigotry. That doesn't mean they deserve a platform for it. You have to earn that.

Palmach

demfad wrote: »

The right has always had the rights to be dicks if they want to be. They also must deal with the consequences of this. For the alt-right to blame their fascist behaviour on the 'PC Brigade' is pretty childish and no less than a lie.
The Alt-right might like to spread hate and bigotry. That doesn't mean they deserve a platform for it. You have to earn that.

So you have no problem with people visiting violence on those with whom they disagree?

demfad

Palmach wrote: »

So you have no problem with people visiting violence on those with whom they disagree?

I have every issue with people breaking the law in a fair meritocracy.
I would also point out the hypocrisy of Facists whinging about violence given their fellow ideologues were responsible for the deaths of over 100 million people in WW2. That's not to mention the violence meted out to minorities to this day just for being different

ScumLord

demfad wrote: »

The right has always had the rights to be dicks if they want to be. They also must deal with the consequences of this. For the alt-right to blame their fascist behaviour on the 'PC Brigade' is pretty childish and no less than a lie.
The Alt-right might like to spread hate and bigotry. That doesn't mean they deserve a platform for it. You have to earn that.

The problem is the alt-right has a point. The liberals were gone off the plot, shaming people for even the tiniest infraction or misspoken word, they were ready to jump on anyone at a moment's notice, would willfully take things out of context to vilify people.

I think part of that is down to special interest groups. They would go out of their way to find something to be offended by and then run to the press who would be all too happy to rock the boat by taking things to the next level of sensationalism. then we end up listening to the most polarised views because that's the only story the media wanted to promote.

In all probability if you kept the media out of it and just let the two sides talk we'd find the vast majority aren't as polarised in their views, agree on a lot of points and would be happy to find a compromise. But because everyone's been offended and the media keep stirring nobody wants to even contemplate a resolution, we're having far too much fun arguing nonsensical points.