Right-wing Extremism: Online Radicalism, Radicalization

[Southern Republic of Dixie]

Which state? That's a broad question. The Southern United States Spanning from the Dixie Divide to Texas, and I believe Maryland, and Delaware should be incorporated as they are in this map https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_United_States + Missouri

Should Oklahoma count?

It's on the map.

[North Korea Choson]

Should Oklahoma count?

It's on the map.

That is a lot of electoral votes.

[Southern Republic of Dixie]

I would say Media Does more radicalizion than any Website can do...

You uh... do realize "website" is a subcategory of "media," right?

Yes.

[Optopias]

I don’t think buying into one side completely is wise. Both parties are not logically consistent. That said, I have adopted more conservative values in the past month. I’ve listened to a lot of conservative YouTubers and have gleaned some respect for their values. They seem to really emphasize the importance of families, and that’s foundational to society.

I'm not sure what the worst place to learn about politics is, but YouTube is up there.

YouTube is what you make of it. There are moderate conservatives on the platform. I can think for myself so I don’t mind if some of it is just fear mongering or rhetoric.

[Melrovia]

I haven't noticed anything in the manner of right-wing extremism. I'm not sure if that should be concerning or not. As a gay man, I've had more insults bore towards me from left-minded individuals than anyone associated as a centrist or right-leaning. I've met very few individuals who could be called right-wing extremists, but these individuals were normal around the time I grew up so their mannerisms and way of life do not alarm me. They also do not insult nor challenge me for being a different sexual lifestyle, if asked at all.

I'm not sure if it's because of being a Libertarian that I'm unable to see what the fuss is about with these extremists groups, defined normally as "right-wing" or "alt-right". I definitely don't concur or agree with the right-wing teachings most of the time, but I also don't mind discussing them as most of those groups are tolerable and have some manner of respect for debate. I've had a heck of a time even chancing a debate in left-wing groups. Whenever I'd ever suggest something counter or contrary to a popular notion, I would be the one labeled as the outcast or extremist. I've also been called some very offense language and my own sexual orientation challenged because of it.

That's not to say I don't read the stories concerning individuals who have claimed to be berated or harmed by right-wing groups. My sympathies to them. I, personally, have never experienced such treatment.

In regards to online discourse and radicalization: how many of you fallen down the alt right pipeline?

• How have you gotten out of it?
• Have you know anyone that has gone further?
• Is there an end?

In response, in order:

1. I never fell down an "alt-right" pipeline, but I was once a religious extremist. I denounced gay people and had hurtful thoughts. I was 12 at the time and a member of a very radical baptist church. This was also around the time of my first boyfriend. By age 14 I grew out of it and began to explore myself, albiet in a more challenging time than now especially considering how dangerous it was back then to even be labeled as "gay". Back then, yes, definitely right-wing extremists and quite racist groups. Now? I don't see nor have interacted with any. Not in the right-wing mindset at least. Left-wing is a totally different story.

2. In regards to my fundamentalist and extremist past as a baptist, I got out of it by realizing I liked men. I never got out of being a man. I never got out of enjoying the outdoors, being an individual, celebrating diversity or the action of a man to work out or go hunting or fishing. All these things are me, and are who I am, and I celebrate others who enjoy that view. I do not celebrate others who berate someone else for their lifestyle choices.

3. Quite a few, but again these are left-wing individuals who had a more extremist mindset of....dealing death to individuals who thought different. I have known only two right-wing related individuals of such caliber, and that was when I was way younger. They're either in jail or dead, and at this juncture I do not care which.

4. An end? Perhaps. That takes a rational mind. That seems to be at a loss these days, unfortunately.

I think a big part of it is that regardless of where you stand politically, most people are just trying to live their lives and pay the bills, and aren't out to get others who are different from them.

[Kalivyah]

In regards to online discourse and radicalization: how many of you fallen down the alt right pipeline?

• How have you gotten out of it?
• Have you know anyone that has gone further?
• Is there an end?

I was never Alt-Right neither did I consider myself "Far-Right" as a fascist. I always (and will still always) maintain that fascism is a syncretic ideology and cannot be categorized as either leftist nor rightist.

[The New Rio Grande]

Which state do 'Dixie' comprise in real life?

Which state? That's a broad question. The Southern United States Spanning from the Dixie Divide to Texas, and I believe Maryland, and Delaware should be incorporated as they are in this map https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_United_States + Missouri

Texas is not Dixie, Texas is Texas.

[Kalivyah]

Which state? That's a broad question. The Southern United States Spanning from the Dixie Divide to Texas, and I believe Maryland, and Delaware should be incorporated as they are in this map https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_United_States + Missouri

Texas is not Dixie, Texas is Texas.

Texas is not Dixie but Texas is most certainly southern.

[The New Rio Grande]

Texas is not Dixie, Texas is Texas.

Texas is not Dixie but Texas is most certainly southern.

Yes of course. But they are not Dixie. We are not Hillbillies or whatever you’d call the Dixies.

[Kalivyah]

Texas is not Dixie but Texas is most certainly southern.

Yes of course. But they are not Dixie. We are not Hillbillies.

I would much rather associate with the blue collar hillbillies before associating with the white-collar northerners.

[Southern Republic of Dixie]

Texas is not Dixie but Texas is most certainly southern.

Yes of course. But they are not Dixie. We are not Hillbillies or whatever you’d call the Dixies.

Facts don't care about your wants Texas (much as I agree)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie

Alabama
Mississippi
South Carolina
Louisiana
Georgia
North Carolina
Tennessee
Arkansas
Texas
Florida
Virginia
Sometimes included:

Kentucky
Missouri
Oklahoma
Maryland
West Virginia

[The New Rio Grande]

Yes of course. But they are not Dixie. We are not Hillbillies or whatever you’d call the Dixies.

Facts don't care about your wants Texas (much as I agree)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie

Alabama
Mississippi
South Carolina
Louisiana
Georgia
North Carolina
Tennessee
Arkansas
Texas
Florida
Virginia
Sometimes included:

Kentucky
Missouri
Oklahoma
Maryland
West Virginia

The map shown does not include Texas. It only lists it on the Wiki page. Therefore, I win.

[Southern Republic of Dixie]

Facts don't care about your wants Texas (much as I agree)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie

Alabama
Mississippi
South Carolina
Louisiana
Georgia
North Carolina
Tennessee
Arkansas
Texas
Florida
Virginia
Sometimes included:

Kentucky
Missouri
Oklahoma
Maryland
West Virginia

The map shown does not include Texas. It only lists it on the Wiki page. Therefore, I win.

I'll continue this through telegrams since this doesn't seem the place to discuss this.

[The New Rio Grande]

The map shown does not include Texas. It only lists it on the Wiki page. Therefore, I win.

I'll continue this through telegrams since this doesn't seem the place to discuss this.

I’ve lost my telegram privileges actually. Mods took it after I trolled Socialist No Anime Police guy.

[Southern Republic of Dixie]

-snip-

Welp, guess it's where the discussion ends.
I don't want to threadjack....

[Ostroeuropa]

Of course the right wing has radicalized, the left wing is trying to oppress white males. It's a fairly simple epistemic concept in play here.

Who defines what entails equity?

Once you honestly answer that, we can conclude then that the left wing became a radical and extremist movement long before this backlash emerged. The right, much like the left, seeks to define equity in such a manner that the testimony of certain demographics is not deemed as valid, but rather, members of those outgroups who do not wholly accept and internalize a definition of equity their class lacked input in defining are cast as defective.

The epistemic basis for being an alt-right incel is as strong as the epistemic basis for being a progressive feminist. Stronger even, as the Incel is less pretentious and their epistemic claims are a lot more well founded because they do not rest upon epistemic injustice. "This would be best for our group and we shouldn't care about the other group" is a markedly stronger statement than "This is best for both of our groups, but we're not going to allow you to decide if that's the case or give your input on equal terms.". The former is a statement that might entail injustice as a goal, but is not in itself an act of injustice to utter.

There is no option for equality on offer thanks to the left wing and the progressive movements hostility to the mens rights movement in favor of their upholding an epistemically unjust movement. There is simply demographic conflict.

We can quibble over scale, but substance is fundamentally the same. Where the right pushes abortion bans, that is of the same substance to the left upholding things campus kangaroo courts. Both remove rights from demographics considered the outgroup due to their epistemic exclusion from the worldview being advanced.

The "End" can only occur when people support an actual equality movement, namely the MRM, which would seek to suppress both the progressive movement and the alt-right. The alternative is the continued radicalization and polarization and descent into demographic conflict, which white males would assuredly win for a variety of reasons.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Notwithstanding my misgivings about the model of radicalisation....

I certainly had some of my social and cultural views move rightwards during the same time where this happening more generally became a bit of a moral panic, but the dynamics didn't really apply.

It was more frustrations of being LGBT and economically left-wing at a time where the online conversations (and the real life conversations to an increasing extent) in both communities were becoming more and more gatekeepery and full of purity testing on issues I didn't agree with or care about. I fully admit to having a contrarian streak and this meant I decided I'd rather talk to other people who were willing to have a conversation rather than the first instinct being to have a pre discussion about whether the discussion was allowed. Even if it was sometimes a bit uncomfortable when they said some nasty names about LGBT and even if I disagreed with them on as much as I agreed since they were an eclectic mix of fascists, right wing social democrats, theocrats, conservatives and libertarians who didn't really have much in common except they were also fed up with some of the same people I was.

In terms of algorithms, I got to the point of some of the supposed "gateways" being recommended but quickly tired of them and blocked them because the parts I was interested in were the ones with some degree of anti capitalist sentiment and generally those sentiments became obvious very quickly as pretty tokenistic and not very structural (pointing out the limits of progressivism in actually improving things for people, saying "this doesn't help" and then not actually proposing anything themselves to help).

[Michel Meilleur]

Of course the right wing has radicalized, the left wing is trying to oppress white males. It's a fairly simple epistemic concept in play here.

Who defines what entails equity?

Once you honestly answer that, we can conclude then that the left wing became a radical and extremist movement long before this backlash emerged. The right, much like the left, seeks to define equity in such a manner that the testimony of certain demographics is not deemed as valid, but rather, members of those outgroups who do not wholly accept and internalize a definition of equity their class lacked input in defining are cast as defective.

The epistemic basis for being an alt-right incel is as strong as the epistemic basis for being a progressive feminist. Stronger even, as the Incel is less pretentious and their epistemic claims are a lot more well founded because they do not rest upon epistemic injustice. "This would be best for our group and we shouldn't care about the other group" is a markedly stronger statement than "This is best for both of our groups, but we're not going to allow you to decide if that's the case or give your input on equal terms.". The former is a statement that might entail injustice as a goal, but is not in itself an act of injustice to utter.

There is no option for equality on offer thanks to the left wing and the progressive movements hostility to the mens rights movement in favor of their upholding an epistemically unjust movement. There is simply demographic conflict.

We can quibble over scale, but substance is fundamentally the same. Where the right pushes abortion bans, that is of the same substance to the left upholding things campus kangaroo courts. Both remove rights from demographics considered the outgroup due to their epistemic exclusion from the worldview being advanced.

The "End" can only occur when people support an actual equality movement, namely the MRM, which would seek to suppress both the progressive movement and the alt-right. The alternative is the continued radicalization and polarization and descent into demographic conflict, which white males would assuredly win for a variety of reasons.

That's a very americano-centric view of the situation, which is a bit surprising coming from a brit.

[Ostroeuropa]

Of course the right wing has radicalized, the left wing is trying to oppress white males. It's a fairly simple epistemic concept in play here.

Who defines what entails equity?

Once you honestly answer that, we can conclude then that the left wing became a radical and extremist movement long before this backlash emerged. The right, much like the left, seeks to define equity in such a manner that the testimony of certain demographics is not deemed as valid, but rather, members of those outgroups who do not wholly accept and internalize a definition of equity their class lacked input in defining are cast as defective.

The epistemic basis for being an alt-right incel is as strong as the epistemic basis for being a progressive feminist. Stronger even, as the Incel is less pretentious and their epistemic claims are a lot more well founded because they do not rest upon epistemic injustice. "This would be best for our group and we shouldn't care about the other group" is a markedly stronger statement than "This is best for both of our groups, but we're not going to allow you to decide if that's the case or give your input on equal terms.". The former is a statement that might entail injustice as a goal, but is not in itself an act of injustice to utter.

There is no option for equality on offer thanks to the left wing and the progressive movements hostility to the mens rights movement in favor of their upholding an epistemically unjust movement. There is simply demographic conflict.

We can quibble over scale, but substance is fundamentally the same. Where the right pushes abortion bans, that is of the same substance to the left upholding things campus kangaroo courts. Both remove rights from demographics considered the outgroup due to their epistemic exclusion from the worldview being advanced.

The "End" can only occur when people support an actual equality movement, namely the MRM, which would seek to suppress both the progressive movement and the alt-right. The alternative is the continued radicalization and polarization and descent into demographic conflict, which white males would assuredly win for a variety of reasons.

That's a very americano-centric view of the situation, which is a bit surprising coming from a brit.

It might be anglo-centric, but it's broadly true in the UK as well.

[Nilokeras]

It's a rather simple process, really: in the latter parts of the 20th century popular leftist movements were either coopted into capitalism or crushed, closing off an entire wing of political analysis which correctly diagnoses the problems society faces. At the same time, the hegemony of the centre and right was completed and they successfully stripped out the material gains won by those leftist popular movements earlier in the century. Quality of life declined, deindustrialization sprung up, unions were cut out of peoples' lives and the dissonance between the rhetoric out of the centre/right coalition in charge across the West and peoples' lived experience grew ever larger.

In the absence of left messaging, the only political current that acknowledged anything was wrong and that peoples' lives were getting worse, not better, was the far right. Their analysis of exactly what was wrong and how to fix it is hopelessly wrong, of course, but that hardly matters. It's also a useful phenomena for the powers that be: since rightist analyses are hopelessly wrong and fail to direct their adherents at the real foundation stones of the neoliberal order, they are a tolerable enough diversion that takes energy that could have gone towards, say, unionization drives and divert it towards 'campus kangaroo courts' or doxxing trans Twitch streamers.

It's all very sad and avoidable, really.

[Sordhau]

It's a rather simple process, really: in the latter parts of the 20th century popular leftist movements were either coopted into capitalism or crushed, closing off an entire wing of political analysis which correctly diagnoses the problems society faces. At the same time, the hegemony of the centre and right was completed and they successfully stripped out the material gains won by those leftist popular movements earlier in the century. Quality of life declined, deindustrialization sprung up, unions were cut out of peoples' lives and the dissonance between the rhetoric out of the centre/right coalition in charge across the West and peoples' lived experience grew ever larger.

In the absence of left messaging, the only political current that acknowledged anything was wrong and that peoples' lives were getting worse, not better, was the far right. Their analysis of exactly what was wrong and how to fix it is hopelessly wrong, of course, but that hardly matters. It's also a useful phenomena for the powers that be: since rightist analyses are hopelessly wrong and fail to direct their adherents at the real foundation stones of the neoliberal order, they are a tolerable enough diversion that takes energy that could have gone towards, say, unionization drives and divert it towards 'campus kangaroo courts' or doxxing trans Twitch streamers.

It's all very sad and avoidable, really.

Further proof that the wrong side won the Cold War.

[The New Rio Grande]

It's a rather simple process, really: in the latter parts of the 20th century popular leftist movements were either coopted into capitalism or crushed, closing off an entire wing of political analysis which correctly diagnoses the problems society faces. At the same time, the hegemony of the centre and right was completed and they successfully stripped out the material gains won by those leftist popular movements earlier in the century. Quality of life declined, deindustrialization sprung up, unions were cut out of peoples' lives and the dissonance between the rhetoric out of the centre/right coalition in charge across the West and peoples' lived experience grew ever larger.

In the absence of left messaging, the only political current that acknowledged anything was wrong and that peoples' lives were getting worse, not better, was the far right. Their analysis of exactly what was wrong and how to fix it is hopelessly wrong, of course, but that hardly matters. It's also a useful phenomena for the powers that be: since rightist analyses are hopelessly wrong and fail to direct their adherents at the real foundation stones of the neoliberal order, they are a tolerable enough diversion that takes energy that could have gone towards, say, unionization drives and divert it towards 'campus kangaroo courts' or doxxing trans Twitch streamers.

It's all very sad and avoidable, really.

Further proof that the wrong side won the Cold War.

I’m sure Pol Pot would agree with you. I bet He would of loved to cause another Cambodian genocide.

[Bovad]

Further proof that the wrong side won the Cold War.

I’m sure Pol Pot would agree with you. I bet He would of loved to cause another Cambodian genocide.

Pol. Pot. Was. Not. A. Fucking. Communist. Period.

[Erablegensstan]

I’m sure Pol Pot would agree with you. I bet He would of loved to cause another Cambodian genocide.

Pol. Pot. Was. Not. A. Fucking. Communist. Period.

"But it wasn't real communism"

[Southern Republic of Dixie]

I’m sure Pol Pot would agree with you. I bet He would of loved to cause another Cambodian genocide.

Pol. Pot. Was. Not. A. Fucking. Communist. Period.

As far as I see.
"Pol Pot was a political leader whose communist Khmer Rouge government led Cambodia from 1975 to 1979. During that time, an estimated 1.5 to 2 million Cambodians died of starvation, execution, disease or overwork."

I don't know who they are so I wouldn't know much about a pol pot