Alt-right. A terrorist movement in the making?

[Diarcesia]

Okay? How does this prove your claims? Once again, you are going to need to back those things up with statistics.

https://www.theroot.com/are-white-men-a ... 1830175112
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/10/2/163 ... rism-islam

I can continue if you want.

Correlation is not causation. Don't make the same mistakes that were made when people used IQ to justify discrimination and segregation in the past.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Okay? How does this prove your claims? Once again, you are going to need to back those things up with statistics.

https://www.theroot.com/are-white-men-a ... 1830175112
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/10/2/163 ... rism-islam

I can continue if you want.

I'm not denying that in America right wing terrorism commited by whites is the most prevalent. That is pretty well established, and not really all that surprising as the majority race in a nation. However that doesnt prove they are the largest perpetrators across the globe which is your claim. This also utterly fails to prove the crime statistics and the low IQs.

[Greater Malegron]

https://www.theroot.com/are-white-men-a ... 1830175112
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/10/2/163 ... rism-islam

I can continue if you want.

Correlation is not causation. Don't make the same mistakes that were made when people used IQ to justify discrimination and segregation in the past.

I'm pretty sure there's causation involved in this one...

[The Rich Port]

https://www.theroot.com/are-white-men-a ... 1830175112
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/10/2/163 ... rism-islam

I can continue if you want.

Correlation is not causation. Don't make the same mistakes that were made when people used IQ to justify discrimination and segregation in the past.

Or justify being a Nazi today, for that fucking matter.

"TEH LIBRULZ R OPREZING UZ"

[Greater Malegron]

Correlation is not causation. Don't make the same mistakes that were made when people used IQ to justify discrimination and segregation in the past.

Or justify being a Nazi today, for that fucking matter.

"TEH LIBRULZ R OPREZING UZ"

The Liberal should oppress nazis, the way i see it.

[The South Falls]

I highly doubt that. What statistics do you even have though?

I'll show you mine if you show me yours. Or do you even have any. I'm not gonna do your fucking research for you.

What races? The ones we made up?

Those same exact ones.

At least in the important things like mental capacity and physical ability.

$10 he brings up The Bell Curve.

That would be bad. Very, very bad.

[Deutschess Kaiserreich]

Yoda is surprisingly useful in this context, "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering".

[The Rich Port]

Yoda is surprisingly useful in this context, "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering".

And suffering is arguing with the alt-right on Internet forums, and nobody wants that.

[Kowani]

What races? The ones we made up?

Are you claiming that there is no difference between different human races?

I’m claiming there are no races at all. At the very least, not based in biology.

[Yusseria]

There isn't even an agreed upon definition for the alt right.

Good luck trying to label something which one can't even properly define as a "terrorist movement".

[Nakena]

There isn't even an agreed upon definition for the alt right.

Good luck trying to label something which one can't even properly define as a "terrorist movement".

Theres two kinds:

Alt-right = Ethno nationalist (read white nationalist)
Alt-lite = everyone who isnt the above and rides on the same train and hasnt been kicked down yet

Pro-tip: there isn't a lot lite around anymore. Most who's still with it today is probably a true believer. The term "Alt-Right" itself became unpopular within the movement even before Charlottesville burned it forever.

[Sapientia Et Bellum]

Are you claiming that there is no difference between different human races?

I’m claiming there are no races at all. At the very least, not based in biology.

I mean races do have various small differences in biological structure and mental capacity due to the development of said races... Those differences don't necessarily mean one race it superior over another but its dishonest not to recognize the fact that race is real

[Mutz]

I’m claiming there are no races at all. At the very least, not based in biology.

I mean races do have various small differences in biological structure and mental capacity due to the development of said races... Those differences don't necessarily mean one race it superior over another but its dishonest not to recognize the fact that race is real

There is no dishonesty in adhering to the (quite long established) scientific consensus. From a biological point of view, humanity can't be divided up into races. See e.g.: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737365/ ->Which makes for a good and robust overview of the situation I think. That's also not a particularily new or in any way controversial opinion in the scientific community.

What is commonly understood to be "race", particularily in an Anglo-American context, where it's still in obiquitous use today in contrast to e.g. German, makes very little to no sense in a biological context.
While, for example, skin colour might seem an obvious and meaningful difference, it is in fact only skin deep. Having sickle-cell anemia has a far larger impact on a persons biology, yet no one ever thought it necessary to lump all people who have together as one "anemic race". That's even before going into how extremely vaguely (and often contradictory) concepts of race have been commonly defined since their invention in the 19th. century.

All classifications that are commonly used to define races in biological science (taxonomy admittedly being a pretty damn complicated and rather...imprecise field at the best of times), don't work when applied to modern homo sapiens. The variations between individuals e.g. is always greater than the variations between population groups, there's no such thing as an impossibility (or even problems) of reproduction between members of different populations or their descendants....etc.
The case could be made that peeps like Neanderthals, Denisovians and the like were different "human races", but since none of them are kicking around anymore, the point is moot.

Races are real, if a society decides that they are. They are, and always have been, social definitions, no matter how much the language of science was (ab)used to create a smokescreen of accetability and necessity.

If you're not convinced, I ask you: What races are there and how are they defined? How exactly could you sort a number of people into them according to rigid, well defined criteria?

[Shanhwa]

I must say its incredibly ridiculous to consider the entire Right-Wing to be a monolith, and there is no real basis for such a claim other than "People who disagree with me are evil"

Did you watch the video. Any of the videos. They vote as a block and have very little infighting or political disagreement, and whatever there is doesn't stop them from voting accordingly.

He also characterizes the left as disorganized, dis-unified, and prone of pointless, idiotic infighting, so it's not his bias in question.

You’ve clearly never seen some Classical Liberals going at it with people like Natsocs.

They’re pretty entertaining events.

[Satuga]

Can we all just agree the radical leftists and radical conservatives are equally shit?

[Tankmen]

It's the far right and yes, it is terrorist in the multiple tendencies it holds. Nothing "alternative" or "in the making" about it. Terror towards the left, women, non-whites, ethnic and sexual minorities, immigrants, muslims, anyone who doesn't think like them or weren't born into the social groups they were born into is its game.

[-Ocelot-]

Can we all just agree the radical leftists and radical conservatives are equally shit?

What about radical centrism and "both sides aer baed" arguments?

There isn't even an agreed upon definition for the alt right.

Good luck trying to label something which one can't even properly define as a "terrorist movement".

I believe that they avoid defining themselves on purpose. But judging from what they believe in, the are more or less fascists with mannerisms.

[Kowani]

I mean races do have various small differences in biological structure and mental capacity due to the development of said races... Those differences don't necessarily mean one race it superior over another but its dishonest not to recognize the fact that race is real

There is no dishonesty in adhering to the (quite long established) scientific consensus. From a biological point of view, humanity can't be divided up into races. See e.g.: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737365/ ->Which makes for a good and robust overview of the situation I think. That's also not a particularily new or in any way controversial opinion in the scientific community.

What is commonly understood to be "race", particularily in an Anglo-American context, where it's still in obiquitous use today in contrast to e.g. German, makes very little to no sense in a biological context.
While, for example, skin colour might seem an obvious and meaningful difference, it is in fact only skin deep. Having sickle-cell anemia has a far larger impact on a persons biology, yet no one ever thought it necessary to lump all people who have together as one "anemic race". That's even before going into how extremely vaguely (and often contradictory) concepts of race have been commonly defined since their invention in the 19th. century.

All classifications that are commonly used to define races in biological science (taxonomy admittedly being a pretty damn complicated and rather...imprecise field at the best of times), don't work when applied to modern homo sapiens. The variations between individuals e.g. is always greater than the variations between population groups, there's no such thing as an impossibility (or even problems) of reproduction between members of different populations or their descendants....etc.
The case could be made that peeps like Neanderthals, Denisovians and the like were different "human races", but since none of them are kicking around anymore, the point is moot.

Races are real, if a society decides that they are. They are, and always have been, social definitions, no matter how much the language of science was (ab)used to create a smokescreen of accetability and necessity.

If you're not convinced, I ask you: What races are there and how are they defined? How exactly could you sort a number of people into them according to rigid, well defined criteria?

See, this is the post I wanted to make, but that didn’t happen. Well done.

[Rising Palms]

There is no dishonesty in adhering to the (quite long established) scientific consensus. From a biological point of view, humanity can't be divided up into races. See e.g.: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737365/ ->Which makes for a good and robust overview of the situation I think. That's also not a particularily new or in any way controversial opinion in the scientific community.

What is commonly understood to be "race", particularily in an Anglo-American context, where it's still in obiquitous use today in contrast to e.g. German, makes very little to no sense in a biological context.
While, for example, skin colour might seem an obvious and meaningful difference, it is in fact only skin deep. Having sickle-cell anemia has a far larger impact on a persons biology, yet no one ever thought it necessary to lump all people who have together as one "anemic race". That's even before going into how extremely vaguely (and often contradictory) concepts of race have been commonly defined since their invention in the 19th. century.

All classifications that are commonly used to define races in biological science (taxonomy admittedly being a pretty damn complicated and rather...imprecise field at the best of times), don't work when applied to modern homo sapiens. The variations between individuals e.g. is always greater than the variations between population groups, there's no such thing as an impossibility (or even problems) of reproduction between members of different populations or their descendants....etc.
The case could be made that peeps like Neanderthals, Denisovians and the like were different "human races", but since none of them are kicking around anymore, the point is moot.

Races are real, if a society decides that they are. They are, and always have been, social definitions, no matter how much the language of science was (ab)used to create a smokescreen of accetability and necessity.

If you're not convinced, I ask you: What races are there and how are they defined? How exactly could you sort a number of people into them according to rigid, well defined criteria?

See, this is the post I wanted to make, but that didn’t happen. Well done.

Agreed, awesome response. Sticks to the facts and keeps to the science of it.

[Purpelia]

Can we all just agree the radical leftists and radical conservatives are equally shit?

What about radical centrism and "both sides aer baed" arguments?

They generally don't tend to engage in violence. Generally.

[Liriena]

Can we all just agree the radical leftists and radical conservatives are equally shit?

Nope. For one, radical leftism's goals generally don't include genocide or a boot stamping on a human face forever.

[Tankmen]

Can we all just agree the radical leftists and radical conservatives are equally shit?

No we can't, because that is objectively untrue.

[North German Realm]

Can we all just agree the radical leftists and radical conservatives are equally shit?

1- "Conservatives" do not come in opposite to "Leftists". "Right-wingers" do.
2- "Radical Right-wingers" are colossally more dangerous than "Radical Left-wingers". This is like, not even a secret. Modern Radicalized Right-wingers either strap a bomb to themselves or commit acts of murder. Modern Radicalized Left-wingers break some windows and punch people in the face. These two are not even remotely comparable.

[Satuga]

Can we all just agree the radical leftists and radical conservatives are equally shit?

What about radical centrism and "both sides aer baed" arguments?

I haven't seen much about centrism, most likely because they don't really care and therefore there isn't really much of a radicalism on that side. Btw i'm a conservative, i'm not libertarian or a centrist. It's fairly easy to say both sides have their crazies because they do.

[Satuga]

For the record to all of you saying that, Radical leftism, and Radical Rightism aren't as bad as each other. I'd first like to say, I have seen many, many people supporting Muslim extremist in their terror attacks, claiming the victims "deserved it". I've seen many Radical Leftists exclaim their absolute desire to "Exterminate White people as they are a devil on this earth" Yes someone has actually said this before. I've seen news reports of people being beaten to near death because of their political views not lining up with their, did you all forget the story of the autistic man who supported trump being kidnapped, scalped and degraded by Left extremists? Or how about the Man who hunted, shot and killed an innocent police officer, and Radical Leftists exclaiming "The pig deserved it, oink, oink." Just because you guys decide to ignore these incidents does not mean they did not happen.


(officer, not officers)