And what agenda is that? To portray a reality-based picture of a political group rather than a far-removed media-driven coloration?
There's a whole world out there to be interacted with everyone, you can't just read the latest synopsis posted on The Atlantic and call it a day.
You are pointing out definitions and ascribe to what biased advocacy groups label as "alt right". You are essentially saying those people that refute identity politics are "alt right".
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.
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?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
You are pointing out definitions and ascribe to what biased advocacy groups label as "alt right". You are essentially saying those people that refute identity politics are "alt right". You are labeling so many people as alt right.
Do you have a reading comprehension issue?
I literally just said that my definition is based off my (subjective of course) reality rather than what the ADL or SPLC or Shaun King or whomever have to say about the issue.
And what agenda is that? To portray a reality-based picture of a political group rather than a far-removed media-driven coloration?
There's a whole world out there to be interacted with everyone, you can't just read the latest synopsis posted on The Atlantic and call it a day.
Your definition comes across as willfully dishonest. You know for a fact that when people read your statements, a little flashing box doesn't come up with whatever is going through your mind at the moment as the current definition of that word.
It comes across as sinister to me what you are continuing to do.
You know for a fact that most people are familiar with the ADL and SPLC's definitions, not your specific one. Then you also make no reasonable efforts to clarify your positions in everytime you use your specific definition of a word.
So if someone just happens to read your post and see you calling someone Alt-Right, it's really their fault for assuming racism. It's a pretty dishonest way to use language.
The Following User Says Thank You to CaramonLS For This Useful Post:
Here’s a more complete view of the term “alt-right,” from Wikipedia, which shows that it encompasses far more than just racists:
Quote:
There is no formal organization and it is not clear if the alt-right can be considered a movement,[74] according to a 2016 description in the Columbia Journalism Review: "Because of the nebulous nature of anonymous online communities, nobody's entirely sure who the alt-righters are and what motivates them. It's also unclear which among them are true believers and which are smart-ass troublemakers trying to ruffle feathers".[34] Many of its own proponents often claim they are joking or seeking to provoke an outraged response.[23] Andrew Marantz of The New Yorker describes it as "a label, like 'snob' or 'hipster,' that is often disavowed by people who exemplify it".[27]
It has been said to include elements of white nationalism,[10][11][23] white supremacism,[8][9][41] antisemitism,[10][11][12] right-wing populism,[23] nativism[15] and the neoreactionary movement.[25] Andrew Marantz includes "neo-monarchists, masculinists, conspiracists, belligerent nihilists".[27] Newsday columnist Cathy Young noted the alt-right's strong opposition to both legal and illegal immigration and its hard-line stance on the European migrant crisis.[75] Robert Tracinski of The Federalist has written that the alt-right opposes miscegenation and advocates collectivism as well as tribalism.[76] Nicole Hemmer stated on NPR that political correctness is seen by the alt-right as "the greatest threat to their liberty".[20]
Milo Yiannopoulos claims that some "young rebels" are drawn to the alt-right not for deeply political reasons but "because it promises fun, transgression, and a challenge to social norms".[77] According to The New Yorker, "testing the strength of the speech taboos that revolve around conventional politics-of what can be said, and how directly", is a major component of alt-right identity.[77] The beliefs that make the alt-right perceptible as a movement "are in their essence not matters of substance but of style", and the alt-right's tone may just be concealing "a more familiar politics".[77]
The whole article is worth a read for anyone that has a simplistic view of the alt-right.
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.
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?
Joe Rogan should be tainted on the basis that he's a woo-peddling idiot.
The Following User Says Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
Alt Right definitely has a more racist and nationalist connotation to the average person.
The term "alt-right" was originally coined by white supremacist Richard Spencer. From wikipedia:
Quote:
Spencer and others have said that he created the term "alt-right", which he considers a movement about white identity and a vanguard for white interests. In the weeks following the 2016 U.S. presidential election, at a National Policy Institute conference, Spencer quoted from Nazi propaganda and denounced Jews. In response to his cry "Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!", a number of his supporters gave the Nazi salute and chanted in a similar fashion to the Sieg Heil chant used at the Nazis' Nuremberg rallies.
Gee, I wonder why the average person might possibly come to the conclusion that "alt-right" has racist and nationalist connotations when the very founder of the movement has explicitly stated it's about white supremacy. It's gonna take the combined investigative skills of Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot, and the Scooby Gang to solve this case!
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
I actually think this article from the New Yorker shows that while Paul Gottfried technically coined the term, Spencer definitely popularized it. However, the actual meaning of the term and movement in general is hotly contested, even among it's adherents (warning: article is from last July):
You know for a fact that most people are familiar with the ADL and SPLC's definitions, not your specific one. Then you also make no reasonable efforts to clarify your positions in everytime you use your specific definition of a word.
So if someone just happens to read your post and see you calling someone Alt-Right, it's really their fault for assuming racism. It's a pretty dishonest way to use language.
It's almost as though some Culture Warriorz want to discredit anyone challenging far left progressive dogma as a bigot and racist.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
So what's the difference between right and alt-right?
"Right" is just mainstream conservatives, like, for example, Mitt Romney or John McCain or George Bush (both of them) or Stephen Harper or Theresa May. "Alt-right", per PsYcNeT's New Yorker link above, was originally intended to be used as an umbrella term for people with right-wing views that fell outside the current conservative mainsteam, like libertarians and anti-free traders. The term was subsequently adopted by Richard Spencer (who was either the sole or co-creator of the term, depending upon whom you ask) to describe a movement of anti-Jew, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-feminist white supremacists.
Quote:
Lucian Wintrich, of the pro-Trump tabloid the Gateway Pundit, told me that, last year, the term alt-right “was adopted by libertarians, anti-globalists, classical conservatives, and pretty much everyone else who was sick of what had become of establishment conservatism.” Wintrich counted himself among that group. “Then Richard Spencer came along, throwing up Nazi salutes and claiming that he was the leader of the alt-right,” Wintrich went on. “He effectively made the term toxic and then claimed it for himself. We all abandoned using it in droves.”
[...]
As far as anyone can tell, the phrase “alternative right” was invented in 2008. That November, Paul Gottfried, a cantankerous intellectual who calls himself a “paleoconservative,” gave a speech at the first annual meeting of the H. L. Mencken Club, a “society for the independent Right.” “We have attracted, beside old-timers like me . . . well-educated young professionals, who consider themselves to be on the right, but not of the current conservative movement,” he said. Gottfried did not utter the phrase “alternative right” in the speech—he used the term “post-paleo” instead—but his remarks were later published on the Web site Taki’s Magazine, under the headline “The Decline and Rise of the Alternative Right.” The headline was written by Spencer, who was then an acolyte of Gottfried’s and an editor at Taki’s. (Gottfried later told the journalist Jacob Siegel that he and Spencer “co-created” the phrase.) In 2010, Spencer registered alternativeright.com, which now redirects to altright.com, and he has since endeavored to position himself as the face of the movement.
"Right" is just mainstream conservatives, like, for example, Mitt Romney or John McCain or George Bush (both of them) or Stephen Harper or Theresa May. "Alt-right", per PsYcNeT's New Yorker link above, was originally intended to be used as an umbrella term for people with right-wing views that fell outside the current conservative mainsteam, like libertarians and anti-free traders. The term was subsequently adopted by Richard Spencer (who was either the sole or co-creator of the term, depending upon whom you ask) to describe a movement of anti-Jew, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-feminist white supremacists.
That's kind of what I thought. Psycnet's definition seems to be anyone who disagrees with him.
That's kind of what I thought. Psycnet's definition seems to be anyone who disagrees with him.
It actually seems to me that people who disagree with him generally latch on to the terminology and apply it to themselves, thinking, “oh, he must be talking about me.”
It actually seems to me that people who disagree with him generally latch on to the terminology and apply it to themselves, thinking, “oh, he must be talking about me.”
Well I agree with a large portion but not all of what peterson says and there is nothing about me that would be considered "alt-right". I'm barely right-wing as it is.
Well I agree with a large portion but not all of what peterson says and there is nothing about me that would be considered "alt-right". I'm barely right-wing as it is.
Tim Pool so he's too far right for some.
__________________
Tacitus: Rara temporum felicitate, ubi sentire quae velis, et quae sentias dicere licet.
Tim used to be pretty moderate, but the last 6 months of videos are literally either crying about conservatives being treated unfairly by media, liberals going TOO FAR or social justice faux pas. He's about 2 breakdowns away from being the new Cernovich.
