The Alt-Right - The Off Topic Sperging Containment Thread

[Joan Nyan]

blackshirts and NatSocs of the Alt-Right

Everything else you said is right but I'm not going to sit here and be called a Socialist. Socialism is a leftist system anyway.

 

[AlanRickmanIsDead]

The alt-right definitely exists.

However what a lot of people (Including Hillary Clinton -- which is pissing me off since I'm already only voting for her because fuck Trump) are doing is just lumping in everybody who dares to disagree with a SJW or a SJW mentality online or elsewhere as part of it.

Nobody's really voting for Hillary Clinton. They just want Bill "Bubba" Clinton back in the White House. Too bad he's got AIDS now.

 

[Too Many Crooks]

The alt-right feels almost like the new Gamergate. On one side, you've got the self-important autists who feel like they're part of the next cultural revolution, and on the other, there's the folks who simultaneously deride them as neckbeard losers and genuinely fear they're going to bring the apocalypse.

Apocalypse? All these twits do is shit-post.

 

[Euphues Evenlede]

Jazzhands McFeels, host of the Alt-Right's absolutely-literally-and-in-no-way-a-meme #1 podcast Fash the Nation, is holding an AMA on reddit.

Do what you want with that information.

 

[Bosnian Wizard]

Jazzhands McFeels, host of the Alt-Right's absolutely-literally-and-in-no-way-a-meme #1 podcast Fash the Nation, is holding an AMA on reddit.

Do what you want with that information.

I do think it's funny that of the last few AMAs on Reddit from figures on the Alt-Right, instead of being in the usual /r/iAMA subreddit, they've all been hosted in tightly moderated Alt-Right subreddits where all dissenting comments are deleted and critical users are banned (Trump and Milo AMAs in /r/the_Donald, for example).

I would say that's because those subreddits act as some sort of 'safe space' where member of the Alt-Right can limit freedom of speech in order to avoid any views critical of their own, but I've been told the Alt-Right are totally against that sort of thing, so what do I know?

 

[Euphues Evenlede]

I do think it's funny that of the last few AMAs on Reddit from figures on the Alt-Right, instead of being in the usual /r/iAMA subreddit, they've all been hosted in tightly moderated Alt-Right subreddits where all dissenting comments are deleted and critical users are banned (Trump and Milo AMAs in /r/the_Donald, for example).

I would say that's because those subreddits act as some sort of 'safe space' where member of the Alt-Right can limit freedom of speech in order to avoid any views critical of their own, but I've been told the Alt-Right are totally against that sort of thing, so what do I know?

This is not consistent throughout the movement, but most Alt-Righters view Free Speech as a means rather than an end.

 

[Bosnian Wizard]

This is not consistent throughout the movement, but most Alt-Righters view Free Speech as a means rather than an end.

True, and the reactionary right have been doing it for years. It's why libertarianism suddenly became popular for the 1964 Presidential Election and the libertarian Goldwater stood for the Republicans. It was no longer proper to say 'we support segregation', but you could say 'we support less government intervention' and give a wink, just to confirm to people that removing government intervention would mean removing the prohibitions on segregation.

And, again, I'd just like to point out the hypocrisy of a movement which is apparently full of 'straight talkers' constantly hiding their true intentions behind dog whistles and vague comments.

 

[Joan Nyan]

I do think it's funny that of the last few AMAs on Reddit from figures on the Alt-Right, instead of being in the usual /r/iAMA subreddit, they've all been hosted in tightly moderated Alt-Right subreddits where all dissenting comments are deleted and critical users are banned (Trump and Milo AMAs in /r/the_Donald, for example).

I would say that's because those subreddits act as some sort of 'safe space' where member of the Alt-Right can limit freedom of speech in order to avoid any views critical of their own, but I've been told the Alt-Right are totally against that sort of thing, so what do I know?

Places that are only for people of a certain opinion are fine as long as they're upfront about it. Hillary supporters, if there were any, could have their own "safe space" as long as they're upfront about who they do and don't want. Also keep in mind that The_Donald also has another sub AskThe_Donald for actual debates and discussions that anyone's welcome to join.

 

[Bosnian Wizard]

Places that are only for people of a certain opinion are fine as long as they're upfront about it. Hillary supporters, if there were any, could have their own "safe space" as long as they're upfront about who they do and don't want. Also keep in mind that The_Donald also has another sub AskThe_Donald for actual debates and discussions that anyone's welcome to join.

From all the alt-rght complaints I've seen about 'safe spaces', I've never got the impression that people only oppose them because they're not clear on who is welcome, rather they dislike them specifically because they're often openly more welcoming to people who the alt-right disagree with. It's a purely partisan move to attack political opponents as being unwilling to debate their ideas hidden behind a veil of being pro-freedom-of-speech.

And you mention/r/AskThe_Donald, but that only has 6,400 subscribers compared to the 205,000 subscribers /r/The_Donald has, which suggests only a small fraction of the main 'movement' are willing to leave their 'safe space' and actually discuss their views with others.

Furthermore, /r/AskThe_Donald is still dominated by Trump supporters, with pro-Trump talking points being the ones most upvoted. It isn't a neutral space for proper debate to happen, it's just another front for Trump supporters to affirm their views, only there they can fool themselves into thinking they're getting somewhat 'unbiased' opinions.

 

[Vaclav]

At the end of the day, "They're a member of the alt-right" is just the new SJW dismissive slur, since they've utterly ruined "You're sexist" or "You're racist," which really means nothing anymore due to their abuse of the accusation. Just like with those two, calling someone part of the alt-right is just what SJWs do when they dismiss anything disagreeing with them immediately without having to prove it.

The "alt-right" accusation will have an even shorter useful life than "sexist" and "racist." Sexism and racism have a long history as concepts, and SocJus essentially consumed their legacy, burning it up as fuel for their self-righteousness. Alt-right doesn't have nearly as much history, being little more than an internet hashtag.

Also, re: the Trump and Clinton voters ITT, if you support Clinton the best thing to do in this election is vote Trump, and if you favor Trump then you should vote Clinton.

Explanation: Trump's ideology will be stronger if he loses than if he wins. If he wins, he will have to actually govern, and all the hopes and dreams of his voter base will come into sudden contact with reality. He will inevitably betray them in epic fashion, their resolve will be broken and they'll drift apart. There isn't enough of a political base to drive an agenda like Trump's platform on a national scale at this time, whether or not Trump really wants to do so, so he'll have to knuckle under to the political establishment. After Trump's presidency, which will likely be a legendary series of fuck-ups, the right will have burned every remaining shred of its political capital and the US will be ready for a lasting turn to the left.

On the other hand, if Clinton wins, it is quite likely that all left-wing ideas will be irreparably tarnished after she takes a sledgehammer to the middle class. Concepts like "civil rights," "equal opportunity" and of course "social justice" will be remembered by a generation as the sweet nothings that were whispered in their ears while their last safeguards against lifelong poverty were demolished. After Trump's loss, conspiracy theories about Clinton stealing the election will abound, whether or not they're true. The former Trump followers will feel like persecuted underdogs speaking truth to power, with a passion play narrative about their martyred leader. In a country as economically distressed as the US is likely to be in the coming years, this is a recipe for a powerful and lasting movement, and within 4 or 8 years they could very well build up a following large enough to influence national politics and put another presidential candidate forward, perhaps one with better message discipline.

 

[AlanRickmanIsDead]

I do think it's funny that of the last few AMAs on Reddit from figures on the Alt-Right, instead of being in the usual /r/iAMA subreddit, they've all been hosted in tightly moderated Alt-Right subreddits where all dissenting comments are deleted and critical users are banned (Trump and Milo AMAs in /r/the_Donald, for example).

I would say that's because those subreddits act as some sort of 'safe space' where member of the Alt-Right can limit freedom of speech in order to avoid any views critical of their own, but I've been told the Alt-Right are totally against that sort of thing, so what do I know?

You're confusing alt-right with libertarians. There's some Venn diagram overlap, but less than you think.

 

[Savryc]

So it's the pubescent edge lord elements of the e-right that have adopted the sensitive, easily triggered safe space squatting ways of the SJW.

How multicultural.

 

[Ebola]

The alt-right has more to do with just teenage edge-lords. It's all about keeping the left in its place by using the same tactics they use to covertly oppress and influence us. In other words, it is all about forcing people to open their eyes and see the corrupt nature of both controlling parties, not just the libs. The alt-right will die when better controlling parties are formed. It's not about being edgy for the sake of being edgy, but causing so much chaos that everyone is forced to see and accept their own insanity.

 

[idosometimes]

I would say that's because those subreddits act as some sort of 'safe space' where member of the Alt-Right can limit freedom of speech in order to avoid any views critical of their own, but I've been told the Alt-Right are totally against that sort of thing, so what do I know?

Perhaps it is because their opponents suck at funny and internet, so they just disrupt in a way that is lame and annoying. The right has better trolls than the left. The left goes straight to hate and accusations of bigotry. They get really loud and emotional. It isn't even fun.

 

[The Giver]

Are we discussing the alt-right as if it is actually anything like a coherent movement with defined traits, goals, and beliefs? Because I think that way of looking at it is misleading.

From what I can tell, the alt-right is something of a catch all term for groups online that have some set of common traits. What traits these are and how many you need to have, however, are extremely ill-defined and vary depending on who you ask. For instance, some folks might classify /r/The_Donald as alt-right, while others wouldn't.

The upshot I guess I'm driving at here is that if it seems as though there is a lot of contradictions or inconsistencies in the alt-right, that is because there is no real unified definition of what it even means to qualify as alt-right. At the end of the day, there are just a lot of groups online with a lot of different views that the media have somewhat arbitrarily lumped together as alt-right. These groups include critics of PC culture, far right libertarians, MRA, and apparently even collectors of rare pepes on /b/. Honestly, it would be shocking if these groups didn't contradict each other on a ton of points.

So, if we are gonna talk about the alt-right, I think we need to either (1) focus on specific subsets or (2) talk only in terms of very broad trends that we shouldn't necessarily expect to be terribly informative about any specific forum or member of the alt-right.

 

[AnOminous]

From what I can tell, the alt-right is something of a catch all term for groups online that have some set of common traits. What traits these are and how many you need to have, however, are extremely ill-defined and vary depending on who you ask. For instance, some folks might classify /r/The_Donald as alt-right, while others wouldn't.

If you are the nominated candidate of one of the two major political parties you are not "alt." You are as "alt" as Metallica at that point. You are, by definition, mainstream.

He may be the nominee because a frustrated minority of Republicans was able to achieve a plurality over a weakened and pathetic gaggle of losers the GOP tried to cough up as challengers, but this still means primary Republican voters chose him by a substantial enough majority of the party to make challenging his coronation at the convention an exercise in futility.

This makes Hillary's attempts to tie Donald Trump to the alt-right using cartoon frogs even more ridiculous.

I can see the logic of painting your opponent as fringe, as this happens every election. It usually doesn't happen after you have a public seizure and, while trying to appear normal, start screaming about cartoon frogs and imaginary boogeymen.

(The real boogeyman was Lee Atwater and he died some time ago.)

 

[The Giver]

If you are the nominated candidate of one of the two major political parties you are not "alt." You are as "alt" as Metallica at that point. You are, by definition, mainstream.

He may be the nominee because a frustrated minority of Republicans was able to achieve a plurality over a weakened and pathetic gaggle of losers the GOP tried to cough up as challengers, but this still means primary Republican voters chose him by a substantial enough majority of the party to make challenging his coronation at the convention an exercise in futility.

This makes Hillary's attempts to tie Donald Trump to the alt-right using cartoon frogs even more ridiculous.

I can see the logic of painting your opponent as fringe, as this happens every election. It usually doesn't happen after you have a public seizure and, while trying to appear normal, start screaming about cartoon frogs and imaginary boogeymen.

(The real boogeyman was Lee Atwater and he died some time ago.)

Oh I absolutely agree.

Though, honestly I think it isn't a bad play by the Clinton campaign. The "alt-right" is so poorly defined that you can maintain Trump (or a significant number of his supporters) are members and convince quite a lot of folks who just casually watch the news that the Trump campaign is emblematic of some "radical" movement. Sure it doesn't hold to any real scrutiny, but the average voter doesn't really scrutinize this sort of thing.

 

[Ahffline]

Though, honestly I think it isn't a bad play by the Clinton campaign. The "alt-right" is so poorly defined that you can maintain Trump (or a significant number of his supporters) are members and convince quite a lot of folks who just casually watch the news that the Trump campaign is emblematic of some "radical" movement. Sure it doesn't hold to any real scrutiny, but the average voter doesn't really scrutinize this sort of thing.

Agreed. She has to find a way to make Trump so odious to the average voter who pays little to no attention to politics so that voter will choose her by default, ignoring the skeletons in her own closet. It's no doubt why she made the "deplorables" comment. Are some of Trump's supporters deplorable? Yes. David Duke is a piece of shit, and so are the Trump supporters who beat up protesters at his events. But that's not half of his base by any stretch of the imagination. Still, it plants the seed in the minds of some people that Trump is dangerous, instead of just a buffoon. And that's what she needs to do, because she's such a shitty candidate.

 

[AnOminous]

Oh I absolutely agree.

Though, honestly I think it isn't a bad play by the Clinton campaign. The "alt-right" is so poorly defined that you can maintain Trump (or a significant number of his supporters) are members and convince quite a lot of folks who just casually watch the news that the Trump campaign is emblematic of some "radical" movement. Sure it doesn't hold to any real scrutiny, but the average voter doesn't really scrutinize this sort of thing.

They actually do, though, in the small time window that normies actually pay attention to elections. Screaming about cartoon frogs during that tiny period is not great strategy. This is why she lost the primary to Obama in 2008. Dumb strategy.

She'll probably win anyway and go on to a shitty presidency. Welcome to Hellnation.

 

[The Giver]

Screaming about cartoon frogs during that tiny period is not great strategy.

Yeah, I wasn't talking about the cartoon frog stuff per se. I was more talking about the general strategy of linking Trump to an ill-defined, hard to pin down "radical" group. I don't think the average normie cares enough to dig online and figure out what is going on with the alt-right, since a simple google search will likely just turn up ill-informed CNN articles.

Hell, senior citizens vote at a very high rate, and I know lots of them who can't even really operate a computer.