Is the Alt-Right bad?

[Spiffier]

Nazism is completely incompatible with fascism. Nazism orbits around nations as concrete facts that ideologies should conform to, fascism orbits around nations as non-factual, purely idealist constructs that must be actively created and maintained or else cease to exist.

I think you need to reread your DoF, buddy. Nations are inherently self-creating expressions of the will of a people in fascist theory, last I checked. Simply because Italian Fascism regards who belongs to 'the nation' as a question of association, loyalty, and culture, while Nazism regards it as a question of bloodline, does not make either regard it in a wholly materialist or idealist manner.

Fascism is purely idealist, The Theory of Mind as Pure Act is the Fascist Das Kapital.

[Atham]

Yes.

Look what kind of things they do:

https://www.rt.com/usa/379268-roc-jewis ... vandalism/
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... tive-right
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/ ... ay-attacks

[Atlanticatia]

are white supremacists bad? yes

[Ostroeuropa]

are white supremacists bad? yes

What do you think causes it?

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

I fail to see how a movement focused on upholding western values could be inherently bad. The problem is only really in the minds of people who are happy to conflate the alt-right with neo-nazis. Believe it or not, they're not one and the same.

[Atlanticatia]

are white supremacists bad? yes

What do you think causes it?

Racism ???

[Conserative Morality]

I fail to see how a movement focused on upholding western values could be inherently bad. The problem is only really in the minds of people who are happy to conflate the alt-right with neo-nazis. Believe it or not, they're not one and the same.

I didn't realize "Western values" were an adoration of strongmen, a distaste for democracy and liberalism, and racism.

Which West are we taking as our base here? Rome? No, even Rome was better than that.

[Hirota]

The problem is only really in the minds of people who are happy to conflate the alt-right with neo-nazis. Believe it or not, they're not one and the same.

There are some folks for whom a nuanced approach simply doesn't work. Their cognitive bias makes it impossible to believe that their worldview isn't reality. They incorrectly believe that because one might somehow be vaguely supportive of some aspects of the alt-right, they must be racist. They are delusional, and there isn't much that can be done to educate delusional folks of their delusions.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

I fail to see how a movement focused on upholding western values could be inherently bad. The problem is only really in the minds of people who are happy to conflate the alt-right with neo-nazis. Believe it or not, they're not one and the same.

I didn't realize "Western values" were an adoration of strongmen, a distaste for democracy and liberalism, and racism.

Which West are we taking as our base here? Rome? No, even Rome was better than that.

Ugh, you're so 2016.

The problem is only really in the minds of people who are happy to conflate the alt-right with neo-nazis. Believe it or not, they're not one and the same.

There are some folks for whom a nuanced approach simply doesn't work. Their cognitive bias makes it impossible to believe that their worldview isn't reality. They incorrectly believe that because one might somehow be vaguely supportive of some aspects of the alt-right, they must be racist. They are delusional, and there isn't much that can be done to educate delusional folks of their delusions.

I'm a glutton for punishment.

[Conserative Morality]

There are some folks for whom a nuanced approach simply doesn't work. Their cognitive bias makes it impossible to believe that their worldview isn't reality. They incorrectly believe that because one might somehow be vaguely supportive of some aspects of the alt-right, they must be racist. They are delusional, and there isn't much that can be done to educate delusional folks of their delusions.

There is a significant difference between the ideas of Neo-Nazis and the alt-right. There's even a significant difference between their styles of racism.

That doesn't mean they aren't racist.

The alt-right is largely a reactive movement - see Pantuxia on here, who went from a left-anarchist to a authoritarian apologist because 'muh liberals'. People who take the positions of the alt-right are rarely ideologically oriented enough to remain separate from the rest of its toxic influence.

[Conserative Morality]

Ugh, you're so 2016.

I've been following the alt-right since '15, and Nrx since before that. '12 I think. These 'groups' don't change their thinking.

[Ostroeuropa]

What do you think causes it?

Racism ???

The specific attitudes of the alt-right and such. Preferably don't give me a boilerplate recitation that'd work at literally any time in history.
I wanna know what you think caused this movement to emerge, specifically, over the last decade or so.

Because i'm pretty sure I know.

Ugh, you're so 2016.

I've been following the alt-right since '15, and Nrx since before that. '12 I think. These 'groups' don't change their thinking.

2015 is kind of late, but okay.
I actually have some hopes you might be worth talking about on it. If you could also answer the above, i'd be interested.

[Jello Biafra]

I fail to see how a movement focused on upholding western values could be inherently bad. The problem is only really in the minds of people who are happy to conflate the alt-right with neo-nazis. Believe it or not, they're not one and the same.

It's a very cherrypicked selection of western values.

[Conserative Morality]

The specific attitudes of the alt-right and such. Preferably don't give me a boilerplate recitation that'd work at literally any time in history.
I wanna know what you think caused this movement to emerge, specifically, over the last decade or so.

Because i'm pretty sure I know.

The fall of traditional and far-right outlets as institutions of rebellion against 'the liberals'?

Tories support gay marriage. Basically no one endorses racism anymore. There's no love for the KKK and like movements, unlike in the 60s and even into the 70s and 80s, when you could get away with it to some degree. The alt-right is the expression of these fearful, reactive urges as channeled through the internet. They're the same people who smiled and nodded as the Nazis came into town, even though they weren't Nazis. They were the people voting Strom Thurmond in '48. They were part of (though not the majority of) the 'moral majority' before evangelicals became too strict for them to drown themselves in escapism.

There's nothing new about the alt-right except its label. It used to be that they were what you got when scraping the bottom of the right-wing barrel, like Weathermen for the left. Now they're just a barrel all of their own, and proud of it.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Too my understanding, they are some crazy reactrionaries with a lot of views I disagree with, but they aren't completely authoritarian,

[Conserative Morality]

Too my understanding, they are some crazy reactrionaries with a lot of views I disagree with, but they aren't completely authoritarian,

They're authoritarian when it suits them, which is little better than being authoritarian all the time.

[Ostroeuropa]

The specific attitudes of the alt-right and such. Preferably don't give me a boilerplate recitation that'd work at literally any time in history.
I wanna know what you think caused this movement to emerge, specifically, over the last decade or so.

Because i'm pretty sure I know.

The fall of traditional and far-right outlets as institutions of rebellion against 'the liberals'?

Tories support gay marriage. Basically no one endorses racism anymore. There's no love for the KKK and like movements, unlike in the 60s and even into the 70s and 80s, when you could get away with it to some degree. The alt-right is the expression of these fearful, reactive urges as channeled through the internet. They're the same people who smiled and nodded as the Nazis came into town, even though they weren't Nazis. They were the people voting Strom Thurmond in '48. They were part of (though not the majority of) the 'moral majority' before evangelicals became too strict for them to drown themselves in escapism.

I Disagree, kind of. You're using a narrative and view that implies that some people are just like that, rather than wondering what causes their radicalization. I think It's an agency uniquely applied to white males that wouldn't really be applied to other demographics, please consider if that's true. (Jihadists aren't considered to be "Just the same sort of person as all these historical folk who did the same." rather, it's acknowledged there are push and pull factors.) The growth of the alt-right also undermines your suggestion that this is a satisfactory answer. But it's one that's being used more and more often, to simply write them off.

[Randsbeik]

"Bad" is subjective.

I'm not a personal fan myself, though.

[Hirota]

The alt-right is largely a reactive movement - see Pantuxia on here, who went from a left-anarchist to a authoritarian apologist because 'muh liberals'.

Hang on, if he was an "authoritarian apologist" he'd also be vaguely supportive of the authoritarian left - you know, the ones who think know better and want to make sure everyone conforms. Perhaps, (and they should have the right of reply rather than having me defend their stance) Pantuxia sees one of the contributing causes of the alt-right is the increasing authoritarianism within the left (you could even call it the ctrl-left if you felt like making a keyboard-related joke off of alt-right). Perhaps Pantuxia sees the Alt-right as a necessary evil to deal with the insidious authoritarian sentiment amongst the left, a reactionary necessary evil that will almost inevitably run out of steam as soon as the ctrl-left are put in their place.

Maybe Pantuxia sees the inevitable mutual destruction of both of these flawed ideologies as a route towards something more liberal. I know I can personally understand the appeal of that.

[Conserative Morality]

I Disagree, kind of. You're using a narrative and view that implies that some people are just like that, rather than wondering what causes their radicalization. I think It's an agency uniquely applied to white males that wouldn't really be applied to other demographics, please consider if that's true. (Jihadists aren't considered to be "Just the same sort of person as all these historical folk who did the same." rather, it's acknowledged there are push and pull factors.)

They aren't? And here I thought religious extremism leading to violence caused by marginalization, isolation, and powerlessness was a common occurrence throughout the ages.

And the alt-right isn't all white men. Reaction knows no color.

[Ostroeuropa]

I Disagree, kind of. You're using a narrative and view that implies that some people are just like that, rather than wondering what causes their radicalization. I think It's an agency uniquely applied to white males that wouldn't really be applied to other demographics, please consider if that's true. (Jihadists aren't considered to be "Just the same sort of person as all these historical folk who did the same." rather, it's acknowledged there are push and pull factors.)

They aren't? And here I thought religious extremism leading to violence caused by marginalization, isolation, and powerlessness was a common occurrence throughout the ages.

Right.
That's the point i'm trying to make. You ascribe factors to Jihadists which we can minimize to bring these people back into the fold instead of just writing them off.
Do you think there are similar factors leading to the alt-right, or are they just bad people in your view?

[Conserative Morality]

Hang on, if he was an "authoritarian apologist" he'd also be vaguely supportive of the authoritarian left - you know, the ones who think know better and want to make sure everyone conforms.

If I'm a democrat apologist for defending Obama, does that mean I must also be a defender of, say, Merkel?

Protip: no.

Perhaps, (and they should have the right of reply rather than having me defend their stance) Pantuxia sees one of the contributing causes of the alt-right is the increasing authoritarianism within the left (you could even call it the ctrl-left if you felt like making a keyboard-related joke off of alt-right). Perhaps Pantuxia sees the Alt-right as a necessary evil to deal with the insidious authoritarian sentiment amongst the left, a reactionary necessary evil that will almost inevitably run out of steam as soon as the ctrl-left are put in their place.

"Let's be racist to convince people to be less racist"

Yeah, no. The excuses given for the alt-right are weak. Observe their positions outside of the context of outside scrutiny; their day-to-day political comments, their conversations with one another.

Maybe Pantuxia sees the inevitable mutual destruction of both of these flawed ideologies as a route towards something more liberal. I know I can personally understand the appeal of that.

Pantuxia hates liberalism. They're made that pretty clear.

[Succrates]

The alt-right is not bad. I would never try to say that expressing your own opinion is a bad thing. However, if it gets out of hand and brings harm to another person, then something needs to be done about it. But simply having your own, and expressing you, beliefs is not a bad thing.

[The Central Outback]

Our entire state is founded on going against Alt-Right ideals.

Education, gun control, nationalization, big government, automotive bans, LGBT+ rights, minorities, no capital punishment, public works, etc, etc.

All things we support and the Alt-Right doesn't.

[Jello Biafra]

The alt-right is not bad. I would never try to say that expressing your own opinion is a bad thing. However, if it gets out of hand and brings harm to another person, then something needs to be done about it. But simply having your own, and expressing you, beliefs is not a bad thing.

Really?

"I think violence should be done to Succrates."
"I think Succrates should be thrown in jail, just because."
"I think we should bully Succrates until Succrates commits suicide."
"I think we should kill Succrates."

All of these opinions are okay to express?