Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Cow Disease
I have an interest in some of what Dr. Peterson has to say, but the Dill-meister does a fairly thorough job of taking him to the cleaners here if you ask me. I imagine the outcome will be similar next month when Sam Harris sits down with him in Vancouver twice in one weekend (one of which I'll be attending).
|
I imagine the Harris interview will get bogged down in angels-dancing-on-the-heads-of-pins metaphysical stuff that has little bearing on contemporary social issues.
I'm much more interested in the upcoming Munk Debates on Political Correctness featuring Peterson and Stephen Fry vs a couple
SJWs I've never heard of.
https://www.munkdebates.com/The-Deba...al-Correctness
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsYcNeT
My pejorative definition of "Alt-Right" is mostly men between the ages of 20-40 more concerned with "owning the libs" than actually furthering the causes they claim to be interested in. Any outspoken commentator that furthers this "owning the libs" agenda is latched onto with the fierce dedication of a trained dog and will be defended to the death in online conversation.
The "owning the libs" agenda is of such an attractive nature however, that the hate groups you talk about gravitate towards it just as commonly as other, less hateful, disenfranchised groups. Think of the "Alt-Right" as a loose coalition of normal Conservatives that are less than enamored with the current establishment, with a smattering of /b/ rejects, /pol/ posters, incels, Libertarians, anti-Tankies, and Daily Stormer followers.
|
So now we need to come up with a new name for young white supremacist men who want to overturn conventional politics? This is why expanding definitions almost always reduces the utility of words.
So who else, along with Peterson, is tainted by having an alt-right (using your expanded definition) following?
Joe Rogan?
Sam Harris?
Andrew Sullivan?
Steven Pinker?
Jonathan Haidt?