On the Alt-Right

wordsmythe wrote:

There's plenty to be said for having One Great Person run everything. They can do things like redraft a complex web of laws into a unified, cohesive code (Justinian, among other Roman emperors), make strident changes to institutionally value things that need institutional support (Frederick the Great, among others), sweep away support for ideas you don't like (Peter the Great), etc. That's alluring stuff. The problem is that those powers aren't conditional on the views of the ruler.

But enough about Obama's immigration policy.

It would make more sense if the 3rd branch of our system - the judiciary - hadn't blocked Obama's policy.

farley3k wrote:

It would make more sense if the 3rd branch of our system - the judiciary - hadn't blocked Obama's policy.

Or if the executive branch ignored the courts decision.

The thing I like about the Roman/Byzantine emperors was that they had a tradition of saying "this legal code is confusing, scattered, and often contradictory. I'm going to rewrite it as one unified code."

Cf., U.S. taxes.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

There's plenty to be said for having One Great Person run everything. They can do things like redraft a complex web of laws into a unified, cohesive code (Justinian, among other Roman emperors), make strident changes to institutionally value things that need institutional support (Frederick the Great, among others), sweep away support for ideas you don't like (Peter the Great), etc. That's alluring stuff. The problem is that those powers aren't conditional on the views of the ruler.

But enough about Obama's immigration policy.

Just implementing his predecessor's policy, though, right?

NormanTheIntern wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

There's plenty to be said for having One Great Person run everything. They can do things like redraft a complex web of laws into a unified, cohesive code (Justinian, among other Roman emperors), make strident changes to institutionally value things that need institutional support (Frederick the Great, among others), sweep away support for ideas you don't like (Peter the Great), etc. That's alluring stuff. The problem is that those powers aren't conditional on the views of the ruler.

But enough about Obama's immigration policy.

This joke fails when Congress couldn't be bothered to write anything other than Obamacare repeal effort #X.

I bring up W's immigration desires because he was voted down by his own party on those. And also because he wanted to redraw large parts of the system to make it less byzantine.

jdzappa wrote:

Thx for the well thought out responses (and I always appreciate historical deep dives). I guess I'm wondering if the alt-righters have thought things through, given at best they're still nobody peasants in an autocracy and most likely their entire lives are co-opted in service of their emperor. As a guy who spent a long winter on the Korean DMZ to stop a crazy totalitarian regime, I'm still flabbergasted that millions of Americans want a similar system here at home.

America, and indeed most of the modern world, is built on the principle of giving poor white people small advantages and telling them that 'those people'* are coming to take those advantages away. its how we've gotten 8 years into the systematic destruction of the middle class and not one robber baron has been hung off a street lamp.

* for 'those people' insert any or all of the following: brown people, immigrants, women, gays, Catholics etc.

I'm still wondering when White supremacist racist authoritarian sumbitches earned a seat at the table with the innocuous label "alt-right". The fact that that was popularized by Richard Spencer should tell us something about using it. Like, DON'T.

It's designed to lend a harmless sounding label to a noxious philosophy.

Garion333 wrote:

Politics have become very tough to discuss to the point it isn't discussed anymore.

That is the absolute truth.

Robear wrote:

I'm still wondering when White supremacist racist authoritarian sumbitches earned a seat at the table with the innocuous label "alt-right". The fact that that was popularized by Richard Spencer should tell us something about using it. Like, DON'T.

It's designed to lend a harmless sounding label to a noxious philosophy.

I'm of two minds on this. I've seen the Facebook memes advertising that alt-right is just a nice word for white supremacy and is designed to hide their true nature, but on the other hand it's about as effective as "88" or "KKK" is in hiding white supremacists. The alt-right brand is the brand of racists.

I find a weird juxtaposition when I see people in this thread basically posting how white supremacists are bad and shouldn't be accept in our society are some of the same people posting in the safe spaces thread about how people with allergies should just shut up and we don't have to be concerned about them.

So for food we can say "f-you. I make what I like it is your problem" but for racists it is "they should change their attitude" Shouldn't people bothered by white supremacists just learn to be quite about it?

We have a food allergy safe space?

Edit: Nvm, the Academic Content Warnings and Safe Spaces thread, which I've avoided like the plague.

edit: moved to the other thread.

Robear wrote:
Garion333 wrote:

Politics have become very tough to discuss to the point it isn't discussed anymore.

That is the absolute truth.

On the other hand, it's helped me cull my Facebook friend list very quickly!

"Oh.... OH. You believe in that. Ok then."

I think a more apt description of "alt-right" is that it is a home for right wing conspiracy enthusiasts.

White nationalists would flock to that roost in that they go beyond racism to a belief that there is some group(s) actively working to suppress caucasians.

As a different example part of the gamergate movement is the belief that some cabal is actively working on changing games to some nefarious end.

I am not saying that racists, sexists, etc get a pass; rather I think the alt-right has more facets to it.

Garrcia wrote:

I think a more apt description of "alt-right" is that it is a home for right wing conspiracy enthusiasts.

White nationalists would flock to that roost in that they go beyond racism to a belief that there is some group(s) actively working to suppress caucasians.

As a different example part of the gamergate movement is the belief that some cabal is actively working on changing games to some nefarious end.

I am not saying that racists, sexists, etc get a pass; rather I think the alt-right has more facets to it.

I could see the argument for "it's not so much white nationalist as it is, anti everything except WASP male." That probably wouldn't be too far off the mark, I suppose (tossing in cis and straight too). But, the most outrageous part for most folks is the white part rather than the religious, ethnic, sexual orientation or gender identity.

Demosthenes wrote:

I could see the argument for "it's not so much white nationalist as it is, anti everything except WASP male." That probably wouldn't be too far off the mark, I suppose (tossing in cis and straight too). But, the most outrageous part for most folks is the white part rather than the religious, ethnic, sexual orientation or gender identity.

The "male" is probably true. Protestant, too (maybe—I think there may be a significant atheist wing). Anglo-Saxon, though? I bet there are plenty of folks who'd claim Irish or German. Even some Slavs.

"Aryan" is a better term for these whackjobs. That's the one they prefer.

Robear wrote:

"Cracker/Wonderbread" is a better term for these whackjobs. That's the one they prefer.

ftfy

garion333 wrote:

Fwiw, my family are these people. I'm from Maryland and my mother and stepfather drink from the Drudge and Rush fountain while my dad and stepmother loooooove Trump.

Politics have become very tough to discuss to the point it isn't discussed anymore.

I'm with you. Much of my family comes from rural IL, and they all have that systemic casual racism. I've heard "I don't mind black people, just black culture" too many time. Any time my dad and I talk politics it ends with him saying something like "well, that's just how I feel". I just want to beat him over the head with facts and logic.

Skiptron wrote:
garion333 wrote:

Fwiw, my family are these people. I'm from Maryland and my mother and stepfather drink from the Drudge and Rush fountain while my dad and stepmother loooooove Trump.

Politics have become very tough to discuss to the point it isn't discussed anymore.

I'm with you. Much of my family comes from rural IL, and they all have that systemic casual racism. I've heard "I don't mind black people, just black culture" too many time. Any time my dad and I talk politics it ends with him saying something like "well, that's just how I feel". I just want to beat him over the head with facts and logic.

Are they religious? Because I've got a whole bag full of "your feelings are sinful" verses that they might be familiar with.

wordsmythe wrote:
Skiptron wrote:
garion333 wrote:

Fwiw, my family are these people. I'm from Maryland and my mother and stepfather drink from the Drudge and Rush fountain while my dad and stepmother loooooove Trump.

Politics have become very tough to discuss to the point it isn't discussed anymore.

I'm with you. Much of my family comes from rural IL, and they all have that systemic casual racism. I've heard "I don't mind black people, just black culture" too many time. Any time my dad and I talk politics it ends with him saying something like "well, that's just how I feel". I just want to beat him over the head with facts and logic.

Are they religious? Because I've got a whole bag full of "your feelings are sinful" verses that they might be familiar with.

That won't work though from my experience. They will cherry pick verses that benefit them, and ignore others.

wordsmythe wrote:
Skiptron wrote:
garion333 wrote:

Fwiw, my family are these people. I'm from Maryland and my mother and stepfather drink from the Drudge and Rush fountain while my dad and stepmother loooooove Trump.

Politics have become very tough to discuss to the point it isn't discussed anymore.

I'm with you. Much of my family comes from rural IL, and they all have that systemic casual racism. I've heard "I don't mind black people, just black culture" too many time. Any time my dad and I talk politics it ends with him saying something like "well, that's just how I feel". I just want to beat him over the head with facts and logic.

Are they religious? Because I've got a whole bag full of "your feelings are sinful" verses that they might be familiar with.

They're kind of the C&E crowd. They go to church twice a year and pay vague lip service to being Christian. Mostly if it supports their opinion or might make them feel superior, then they're Christian.

Mostly if it supports their opinion or might make them feel superior ...

Pretty standard human tendency, there. Unfortunately, if there aren't easy levers poking out from their psyches, getting them to understand usually requires them spending a lot more time with other cultures. Per recent poll data, it seems that cultural isolation is really a major determining factor for the right wings these days.

Demosthenes wrote:
Garrcia wrote:

I think a more apt description of "alt-right" is that it is a home for right wing conspiracy enthusiasts.

White nationalists would flock to that roost in that they go beyond racism to a belief that there is some group(s) actively working to suppress caucasians.

As a different example part of the gamergate movement is the belief that some cabal is actively working on changing games to some nefarious end.

I am not saying that racists, sexists, etc get a pass; rather I think the alt-right has more facets to it.

I could see the argument for "it's not so much white nationalist as it is, anti everything except WASP male." That probably wouldn't be too far off the mark, I suppose (tossing in cis and straight too). But, the most outrageous part for most folks is the white part rather than the religious, ethnic, sexual orientation or gender identity.

A big distinction between the alt-right and the traditional far-right is that religion is not a big motivator for the alt-right. While rabidly anti-Islam and anti-Semitic, overall they don't try to justify their positions on religious grounds. When they rail against homosexuality or transgenderism, it's not based on sin, it's just plain old disgust wrapped in bullsh*t about mental illness. The New Atheist movement is a strong part of the alt-right.

Rather than rejecting science like the traditional extreme-right, the alt-right embraces it -- to the point of fetishism. Unfortunately the science they embrace is mostly junk science and pseudo-science -- anything that reinforces and validates their worldview. So they present themselves not as racists, but as "race realists". Not as sexists, but as experts in "bio-truths". And while they may dismiss psychology and psychiatry as not true STEM, they'll pretend the fields support their broken views on topics like PTSD or binary genders.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
Garrcia wrote:

I think a more apt description of "alt-right" is that it is a home for right wing conspiracy enthusiasts.

White nationalists would flock to that roost in that they go beyond racism to a belief that there is some group(s) actively working to suppress caucasians.

As a different example part of the gamergate movement is the belief that some cabal is actively working on changing games to some nefarious end.

I am not saying that racists, sexists, etc get a pass; rather I think the alt-right has more facets to it.

I could see the argument for "it's not so much white nationalist as it is, anti everything except WASP male." That probably wouldn't be too far off the mark, I suppose (tossing in cis and straight too). But, the most outrageous part for most folks is the white part rather than the religious, ethnic, sexual orientation or gender identity.

A big distinction between the alt-right and the traditional far-right is that religion is not a big motivator for the alt-right. While rabidly anti-Islam and anti-Semitic, overall they don't try to justify their positions on religious grounds. When they rail against homosexuality or transgenderism, it's not based on sin, it's just plain old disgust wrapped in bullsh*t about mental illness. The New Atheist movement is a strong part of the alt-right.

Rather than rejecting science like the traditional extreme-right, the alt-right embraces it -- to the point of fetishism. Unfortunately the science they embrace is mostly junk science and pseudo-science -- anything that reinforces and validates their worldview. So they present themselves not as racists, but as "race realists". Not as sexists, but as experts in "bio-truths". And while they may dismiss psychology and psychiatry as not true STEM, they'll pretend the fields support their broken views on topics like PTSD or binary genders.

The traditional extreme right actually makes a lot of those same arguments, but with the added "God designed people that way." They don't reject all science, just any science that involves evolution, the environment, or anything else they feel indisposed to agree with. (They'll often do the same with religious arguments in favor of environmentalism, free immigration, etc.)

wordsmythe wrote:

The traditional extreme right actually makes a lot of those same arguments, but with the added "God designed people that way." They don't reject all science, just any science that involves evolution, the environment, or anything else they feel indisposed to agree with. (They'll often do the same with religious arguments in favor of environmentalism, free immigration, etc.)

Sure, that's what makes them the alt-right as opposed to the alt-middle.

I don't think it's quite right to say that New Atheism is part of the Alt-Right, or that they focus on *science*. To me, they are co-opting both for their own uses. Would you say that science was part of Naziism, or that the Nazis cherry-picked parts of science out of context to "justify" their stances?

It bothers me to see atheism and science linked to racist a$$holes as if they were building blocks for the philosophies of racists. They aren't.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

The traditional extreme right actually makes a lot of those same arguments, but with the added "God designed people that way." They don't reject all science, just any science that involves evolution, the environment, or anything else they feel indisposed to agree with. (They'll often do the same with religious arguments in favor of environmentalism, free immigration, etc.)

Sure, that's what makes them the alt-right as opposed to the alt-middle.

Or the alt-middle-finger.

I need to listen to some Alt-J.