Alt-right. A terrorist movement in the making?

[Ostroeuropa]

When was the last time neoliberal capitalists did an inner city riot?

You're falling into a Liberal mindset all of a sudden and acting like state violence doesn't exist.

I'm gonna stop you right here. This is a terrorism thread, not a state violence thread or a violence-in-general thread.

Then your question is worthless isn't it. If all you mean to say is that one ideology has power and the other doesn't, then that's a useful observation for understanding how to de-escalate a conflict, but it's not what you were getting at and we both know it. You were implying the violent nature of the movements isn't the same, and that doesn't appear to be true once you account for state violence.

It's like cluelessly asking why Islam is so violent compared to Neoconservatism and how one is clearly inferior because of that disparity.

[Prydania]

I'm gonna stop you right here. This is a terrorism thread, not a state violence thread or a violence-in-general thread.

Then your question is worthless isn't it. If all you mean to say is that one ideology has power and the other doesn't, then that's a useful observation for understanding how to de-escalate a conflict, but it's not what you were getting at and we both know it. You were implying the violent nature of the movements isn't the same, and that doesn't appear to be true once you account for state violence.

Thing is this is a thread to talk about right wing terrorism within the movement known as the “alt right.” Not a venue for you to go off on the “feminist hate movement” you allege is insidiously in power.

[Ostroeuropa]

Then your question is worthless isn't it. If all you mean to say is that one ideology has power and the other doesn't, then that's a useful observation for understanding how to de-escalate a conflict, but it's not what you were getting at and we both know it. You were implying the violent nature of the movements isn't the same, and that doesn't appear to be true once you account for state violence.

Thing is this is a thread to talk about right wing terrorism within the movement known as the “alt right.” Not a venue for you to go off on the “feminist hate movement” you allege is insidiously in power.

Alt-right terrorism and the growth of the alt-right, their motives and what drives them and their memetic viability and so on, can only be understood within a broader social context, not in isolation.

A large part of alt-right ideology is driven by the collapse in faith in good faith dialogue with the progressive left, and alt-right violence can be argued to be Camusian in some sense. (As in, Camus reasons for deciding that there was no point in trying to engage with the French and instead joining the Algerian resistance was the way forward.).4

Moreover, the progressive left through it's hatred of men and white people and its constant pollution of culture with its own bigotry has produced a situation similar to gang culture in the US for white males in terms of some males being pressured into the stereotypes about whites and males progressives peddle, but them glorifying those aspects in an act of rebellion against the cultural narrative.

The white terrorist and glorification/fascination with them among a certain group is the equivalent to the gang member in that regard. The constant portrayal of a demographic having those characteristics and insisting on their evil and so on for the benefit of others produces a situation where some go; "Okay, we are this. And it's a good thing, unlike what they say". Same for LGBT and so on, though there you don't get the emphasis on violence, so it didn't produce the same effect.

[-MAFDET-]

Thing is this is a thread to talk about right wing terrorism within the movement known as the “alt right.” Not a venue for you to go off on the “feminist hate movement” you allege is insidiously in power.

A large part of alt-right ideology is driven by the collapse in faith in good faith dialogue with the progressive left, and alt-right violence can be argued to be Camusian in some sense. (As in, Camus reasons for deciding that there was no point in trying to engage with the French and instead joining the Algerian resistance was the way forward.).

The Alt-Right does not fundamentally believe in the value of a good argument. No hate movement does. All arguments put forward will always be fallacious because of the inherent absurdity in bigotry. Jean-Paul Sartre brings up that fact in his essay on anti-Semitics. Any attempts at good faith discussion with these people can never be serious.

[Liriena]

I'm gonna stop you right here. This is a terrorism thread, not a state violence thread or a violence-in-general thread.

Then your question is worthless isn't it.

Not really? This being a terrorism thread, I was talking about how some far right terrorists cited memes in their manifestos. You brought up ironic memes from feminists and progressives that you disliked in an attempt to argue that they're equivalent to ironic far right memes. I, I think quite reasonably, asked you whether someone had committed a feminist-progressive terrorist attack while citing your "no u" memes, because, again, this is a thread specifically about terrorism.

[Ostroeuropa]

A large part of alt-right ideology is driven by the collapse in faith in good faith dialogue with the progressive left, and alt-right violence can be argued to be Camusian in some sense. (As in, Camus reasons for deciding that there was no point in trying to engage with the French and instead joining the Algerian resistance was the way forward.).

The Alt-Right fundamentally does not believe in the value of a good argument. No hate movement does. All arguments put forward will always be fallicious because of the inherent absurdity in bigotry. Jean-Paul Sartre brings up that in his essay on anti-Semitics. Any attempts at good faith discussion with these people can never be serious.

You're looking at an end product rather than an inherent quality of the people who join it.

The Algerian independence fighters fundamentally didn't believe in the value of dialogue either.

You're so close to having a revelation here. Yes. Good faith discussion is pointless with a hate movement, you're catching on, so what do you do if they get into power and just gaslight you over it and keep using state violence to fuck you over while pretending that isn't what they are doing?

[Liriena]

Thing is this is a thread to talk about right wing terrorism within the movement known as the “alt right.” Not a venue for you to go off on the “feminist hate movement” you allege is insidiously in power.

Alt-right terrorism and the growth of the alt-right, their motives and what drives them and their memetic viability and so on, can only be understood within a broader social context, not in isolation.

A large part of alt-right ideology is driven by the collapse in faith in good faith dialogue with the progressive left, and alt-right violence can be argued to be Camusian in some sense. (As in, Camus reasons for deciding that there was no point in trying to engage with the French and instead joining the Algerian resistance was the way forward.).4

Moreover, the progressive left through it's hatred of men and white people and its constant pollution of culture with its own bigotry has produced a situation similar to gang culture in the US for white males in terms of some males being pressured into the stereotypes about whites and males progressives peddle, but them glorifying those aspects in an act of rebellion against the cultural narrative.

The white terrorist and glorification/fascination with them among a certain group is the equivalent to the gang member in that regard. The constant portrayal of a demographic having those characteristics and insisting on their evil and so on for the benefit of others produces a situation where some go; "Okay, we are this. And it's a good thing, unlike what they say". Same for LGBT and so on, though there you don't get the emphasis on violence, so it didn't produce the same effect.

We are all well-acquainted with your "feminists and progressives are the primary cause of everything wrong in the world because they're all bad faith actors in a hate movement" hot take. Nice of you to try to clumsily fit it into this discussion after you failed to make it relevant on the first try, though.

[Ostroeuropa]

Then your question is worthless isn't it.

Not really? This being a terrorism thread, I was talking about how some far right terrorists cited memes in their manifestos. You brought up ironic memes from feminists and progressives that you disliked in an attempt to argue that they're equivalent to ironic far right memes. I, I think quite reasonably, asked you whether someone had committed a feminist-progressive terrorist attack while citing your "no u" memes, because, again, this is a thread specifically about terrorism.

A thread about terrorism that doesn't acknowledge broader contexts isn't very informative. To be fair, I didn't realize that was your angle though, so fair enough.

[Ostroeuropa]

Alt-right terrorism and the growth of the alt-right, their motives and what drives them and their memetic viability and so on, can only be understood within a broader social context, not in isolation.

A large part of alt-right ideology is driven by the collapse in faith in good faith dialogue with the progressive left, and alt-right violence can be argued to be Camusian in some sense. (As in, Camus reasons for deciding that there was no point in trying to engage with the French and instead joining the Algerian resistance was the way forward.).4

Moreover, the progressive left through it's hatred of men and white people and its constant pollution of culture with its own bigotry has produced a situation similar to gang culture in the US for white males in terms of some males being pressured into the stereotypes about whites and males progressives peddle, but them glorifying those aspects in an act of rebellion against the cultural narrative.

The white terrorist and glorification/fascination with them among a certain group is the equivalent to the gang member in that regard. The constant portrayal of a demographic having those characteristics and insisting on their evil and so on for the benefit of others produces a situation where some go; "Okay, we are this. And it's a good thing, unlike what they say". Same for LGBT and so on, though there you don't get the emphasis on violence, so it didn't produce the same effect.

We are all well-acquainted with your "feminists and progressives are the primary cause of everything wrong in the world because they're all bad faith actors in a hate movement" hot take. Nice of you to try to clumsily fit it into this discussion after you failed to make it relevant on the first try, though.

Not everything wrong, just the specific problems we're discussing here.
It's not just my hot take. It's a primary driver for the alt-right, though they take this observation to different conclusions. If you don't want to discuss the alt-right and their tenets, don't talk about it in a thread about the alt-right?

Especially in terms of terrorism and what drives them toward it.

[Liriena]

Moreover, the progressive left through it's hatred of men and white people and its constant pollution of culture with its own bigotry has produced a situation similar to gang culture in the US for white males in terms of some males being pressured into the stereotypes about whites and males progressives peddle, but them glorifying those aspects in an act of rebellion against the cultural narrative.

Unironically legitimizing the "Anita Sarkeesian and black people in muh vidya gamz made me a nazi even though I totally wasn't a bigot in the first place" excuse. Great optics.

[Ostroeuropa]

Moreover, the progressive left through it's hatred of men and white people and its constant pollution of culture with its own bigotry has produced a situation similar to gang culture in the US for white males in terms of some males being pressured into the stereotypes about whites and males progressives peddle, but them glorifying those aspects in an act of rebellion against the cultural narrative.

Unironically legitimizing the "Anita Sarkeesian and gay people in muh vidya gamz made me a nazi even though I totally wasn't a bigot in the first place" excuse. Great optics.

Why don't you deal with the point? Other than that you didn't understand it, ofcourse, because it's not about "Gay people in my video games", it's about "Whites and males being portrayed a certain negative way relentlessly.".

You might have understood that if you read the next bit;

The white terrorist and glorification/fascination with them among a certain group is the equivalent to the gang member in that regard. The constant portrayal of a demographic having those characteristics and insisting on their evil and so on for the benefit of others produces a situation where some go; "Okay, we are this. And it's a good thing, unlike what they say". Same for LGBT and so on, though there you don't get the emphasis on violence, so it didn't produce the same effect.

[Liriena]

We are all well-acquainted with your "feminists and progressives are the primary cause of everything wrong in the world because they're all bad faith actors in a hate movement" hot take. Nice of you to try to clumsily fit it into this discussion after you failed to make it relevant on the first try, though.

Not everything wrong, just the specific problems we're discussing here.
It's not just my hot take. It's a primary driver for the alt-right, though they take this observation to different conclusions. If you don't want to discuss the alt-right and their tenets, don't talk about it in a thread about the alt-right?

Especially in terms of terrorism and what drives them toward it.

Given that the terrorists in question tend to cite anti-semitism and fears of "muh great replacement" by way of Islamophobia, I'm really interested to see how you manage to tie this directly into "male tears", and somehow find a way to argue that the rabid racism, misogyny and queerphobia of the alt-right wasn't really there until le evil progressives caused it all on their own.

[Liriena]

Unironically legitimizing the "Anita Sarkeesian and gay people in muh vidya gamz made me a nazi even though I totally wasn't a bigot in the first place" excuse. Great optics.

Why don't you deal with the point? Other than that you didn't understand it, ofcourse, because it's not about "Gay people in my video games", it's about "Whites and males being portrayed a certain negative way relentlessly.".

You might have understood that if you read the next bit;

The white terrorist and glorification/fascination with them among a certain group is the equivalent to the gang member in that regard. The constant portrayal of a demographic having those characteristics and insisting on their evil and so on for the benefit of others produces a situation where some go; "Okay, we are this. And it's a good thing, unlike what they say". Same for LGBT and so on, though there you don't get the emphasis on violence, so it didn't produce the same effect.

Where are whites and males being portrayed a certain negative way relentlessly? And keep in mind, just citing UK examples won't do and if the best you can come up with is some NYT journalist saying mean things on Twitter...

[-MAFDET-]

The Alt-Right fundamentally does not believe in the value of a good argument. No hate movement does. All arguments put forward will always be fallicious because of the inherent absurdity in bigotry. Jean-Paul Sartre brings up that in his essay on anti-Semitics. Any attempts at good faith discussion with these people can never be serious.

You're looking at an end product rather than an inherent quality of the people who join it.

The Algerian independence fighters fundamentally didn't believe in the value of dialogue either.

You're so close to having a revelation here. Yes. Good faith discussion is pointless with a hate movement, you're catching on, so what do you do if they get into power and just gaslight you over it and keep using state violence to fuck you over while pretending that isn't what they are doing?

The Alt-Right is the end product of legitimized racist rhetoric - courtesy of our President - as well as American society's increasing awareness towards the existence of white privilege.

So, what must be done in response to state violence? The systems of power that created the environment for these ideas to thrive must be brought down. The system which is built upon white supremacy.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Clearly this is a sign of reactionary ideology in response to crisis caused through capital

[Liriena]

Clearly this is a sign of reactionary ideology in response to crisis caused through capital

This is correct to some extent... although I'm a bit hesitant about making it a primary explanation. Not every "alt-right" extremist is an alienated worker. A lot of "alt-right" extremists, in fact, would seem to be rather wealthy but personally mediocre pieces of shit.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Clearly this is a sign of reactionary ideology in response to crisis caused through capital

This is correct to some extent... although I'm a bit hesitant about making it a primary explanation. Not every "alt-right" extremist is an alienated worker. A lot of "alt-right" extremists, in fact, would seem to be rather wealthy but personally mediocre pieces of shit.

certainly, but its quite clear that alienation is breeding desperation, and desperation is fueling reactionary ideology. I would claim that inaction is to blame for their rise.

[Fedel]

Actually yeah it is. Many different religions had a swastika until they decided to dump it due to a specific Historical figure utilizing it. The swastika of Nazi Germany was a symbol of unity, strength, discipline, and law and order. But it's main representation was unity.

Whatever meaning the Swastika had in the western world pre-1933 is irrelevant.

Sounds like you're not being very respectful of other people's culture.

[-MAFDET-]

Whatever meaning the Swastika had in the western world pre-1933 is irrelevant.

Sounds like you're not being very respectful of other people's culture.

Sounds like you're a very unsubtle Nazi.

[Ostroeuropa]

Not everything wrong, just the specific problems we're discussing here.
It's not just my hot take. It's a primary driver for the alt-right, though they take this observation to different conclusions. If you don't want to discuss the alt-right and their tenets, don't talk about it in a thread about the alt-right?

Especially in terms of terrorism and what drives them toward it.

Given that the terrorists in question tend to cite anti-semitism and fears of "muh great replacement" by way of Islamophobia, I'm really interested to see how you manage to tie this directly into "male tears", and somehow find a way to argue that the rabid racism, misogyny and queerphobia of the alt-right wasn't really there until le evil progressives caused it all on their own.

If you think the great replacement narrative is absent commentary on feminism you aren't paying attention. Moreover, that is the end product. You can't get people to buy into that stuff without going through a process of radicalization beginning with legitimate grievances.

Why don't you deal with the point? Other than that you didn't understand it, ofcourse, because it's not about "Gay people in my video games", it's about "Whites and males being portrayed a certain negative way relentlessly.".

You might have understood that if you read the next bit;

Where are whites and males being portrayed a certain negative way relentlessly? And keep in mind, just citing UK examples won't do and if the best you can come up with is some NYT journalist saying mean things on Twitter...

The dominant political narrative on the subject is difficult to ignore as an influence.

You're looking at an end product rather than an inherent quality of the people who join it.

The Algerian independence fighters fundamentally didn't believe in the value of dialogue either.

You're so close to having a revelation here. Yes. Good faith discussion is pointless with a hate movement, you're catching on, so what do you do if they get into power and just gaslight you over it and keep using state violence to fuck you over while pretending that isn't what they are doing?

The Alt-Right is the end product of legitimized racist rhetoric - courtesy of our President - as well as American society's increasing awareness towards the existence of white privilege.

So, what must be done in response to state violence? The systems of power that created the environment for these ideas to thrive must be brought down. The system which is built upon white supremacy.

That's ignorant of the history of the alt-right and the timeline of events for one thing, because it begs the question of who legitimized it and how. In reality the alt-right has been mobilizing for a while and growing for a while. They boosted Trump and he boosted them in return.

Increasing assertion of a political narrative is not the same thing as increasing awareness, but yes, progressivism being more prominent has led to radicalization.

Can you name some white privilege for me as an example? Just three issues would do.

Would you also say feminism needs to be brought down and the environments that created the ideas for it to thrive and so on? I agree we need to end discrimination and hate ideologies and so on. But if you're one sided with that, then conflict becomes inevitable again.

[West Leas Oros 2]

I would argue that we should understand the Alt-Right and it's rhetoric if we hope to combat them. We need to find out what drives them to their beliefs.

[Free Arabian Nation]

I would argue that we should understand the Alt-Right and it's rhetoric if we hope to combat them. We need to find out what drives them to their beliefs.

Being a shithead is something that we need to understand and study?

[Fedel]

Sounds like you're not being very respectful of other people's culture.

Sounds like you're a very unsubtle Nazi.

Wow. You're the one talking about how people's religious symbols are irrelevant and I'M the nazi. You guys are quite something.

[West Leas Oros 2]

I would argue that we should understand the Alt-Right and it's rhetoric if we hope to combat them. We need to find out what drives them to their beliefs.

Being a shithead is something that we need to understand and study?

Yes, actually. One does not simply become one through fairy magic. we need to analyze this from a psychological and sociological perspective. The problem is that no tactic thus far has yet to actually defeat the idea behind the shitheadery

[Ostroeuropa]

Being a shithead is something that we need to understand and study?

Yes, actually. One does not simply become one through fairy magic. we need to analyze this from a psychological and sociological perspective. The problem is that no tactic thus far has yet to actually defeat the idea behind the shitheadery

Because many refuse to acknowledge it may be a reaction to legitimate grievances, since their worldview is constructed to place all social ills and vice as rooted in whites and males while absolving minorities and women of wrongdoing by transferring their culpability onto their ideological scapegoat.

The alt-right primarily doesn't describe a just society as an ideology. It describes a list of grievances. To understand the alt-right is to understand those grievances, at which point you can either deny the problem and keep pushing the same nonsense, or abandon progressive identity politics and pursue dialogue instead.