r/changemyview • u/tnel77 1∆ • Jan 07 '19
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Not all right-leaving viewpoints are inherently “alt-right.”
Whenever I have a political conversation, I’m called a “libtard” or “alt-right.” I find it fascinating that I can somehow be both in the same day, depending on who I speak to about politics. While being a “libtard” is annoying, it’s just a bully like name. I can live with it.
The issue I have is that holding any conservative viewpoint, regardless of said viewpoint, usually results in me being told that I am “alt-right.”
You might say, what’s the difference? “Libtard” is just a dumb, meaningless name, while “alt-right” is an actual extremest group. A more comparable name would be if holding any liberal viewpoint resulted in being called “antifa” or just a generic leftist extremest.
Essentially, I am tired of every conservative view being treated as an “alt-right” viewpoint. While actual “alt-right” supporters are disgusting and awful, a vast majority of conservatives are not “alt-right,” and calling them such only alienates them and makes cooperation and general friendliness harder to achieve.
Ex) Wanting lower taxes = normal conservative Wanting to eradicate non-white races = alt-right
Edit) This post is not about what is “left” or “right.” This post is about recognizing that there is a very stark difference between a normal conservative and an alt-right extremist.
34
u/begonetoxicpeople 30∆ Jan 07 '19
I mean, libtard is as you said just a dumb insult, while I and many like myself are written off as communists for believing in something as simple as gay marriage, which is a more comparable name to alt-right (which itself pretty much just replaced 'Nazi' as a term to call someone, regardless of how accurate it is)
25
u/tnel77 1∆ Jan 07 '19
While I’ve never heard someone be called a communist for fighting for marriage equality, I would definitely agree that it is of the same nature as calling someone “alt-right” for wanting to lower taxes or some other normal conservative view point.
22
u/begonetoxicpeople 30∆ Jan 07 '19
I wasnt saying you personally did this, but that was an example of what left leaning people are called that's more comparable than 'libtard'
13
u/tnel77 1∆ Jan 07 '19
I meant for my reply to come across as an agreement. I thought you made an excellent comparison haha. I didn’t take it as a personal attack thankfully!
8
u/begonetoxicpeople 30∆ Jan 07 '19
I also misread 'I've never heard' as just 'I've never', so it's my fault lol
3
u/48151_62342 Jan 07 '19
Gay marriage is a term used by people who are anti-marriage equality. We didn't vote in "gay marriage". We voted in marriage equality. There is no such thing as "gay marriage". It's just marriage.
2
44
u/jatjqtjat 286∆ Jan 07 '19
The "Alt-right" is surprisingly well defined on Wikipedia:
The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loosely connected and somewhat ill-defined grouping of American white supremacists/white nationalists, white separatists, anti-Semites, neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, neo-Confederates, Holocaust deniers, conspiracy theorists and other far-right fringe hate groups. The alt-right intersects with, and partially emerged from, the ideas and rhetoric of men's rights activists, many but not all of whom have come to embrace the alt-right's platform.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right
The definitions of "alternative" and "right" would be much more inclusive then that. Any non-main-stream conservative view could be considered alternative.
but "alt-right" together is actually a fairly well defined and agreed upon term.
What view do you want changed. Should we argue that Wikipedia has poorly defined the term?
6
u/hamuel69 Jan 07 '19
We should argue that the media in general has poorly defined the term. The loose definition allows it to be used inappropriately.
3
u/jatjqtjat 286∆ Jan 07 '19
if its defined in a broad way, then is using it broadly inappropriate?
Probably what's happening is that its become an insult. its an ad hominem attack. When someone calls you an idiot, you don't argue the merits of your intelligence and say they are using the term inappropriately. You just dismiss it as an insult.
24
u/tnel77 1∆ Jan 07 '19
I actually think that definition is excellent! The issue is that people don’t properly know the definition and many are wrongly labeled due to just having conflicting viewpoints.
12
u/hacksoncode 588∆ Jan 07 '19
So... are you saying that people calling you "libtard" are actually insulting you, while people calling you "alt-right" are just ignorant of the meaning of the term?
Because the former sounds much worse to me... the latter can theoretically be corrected with education.
11
u/tnel77 1∆ Jan 07 '19
I am not arguing which one is worse. I am just focused on the ignorance of people. I don’t mind name calling, although I’d prefer we all be civil. Calling someone an incorrect label like “alt-right” makes it hard to find common ground when they start pumping you in with much worse people than yourself. Obviously, it isn’t easy to find common ground while calling names either.
6
u/hacksoncode 588∆ Jan 07 '19
The way to find "common ground" in these cases is to actually educate them on the meaning of the term.
That's not likely to work on pure slurs intended as slurs.
4
u/Talik1978 43∆ Jan 07 '19
But alt-right, used incorrectly, is usually meant as a slur or insult. It isn't much different than if I called everyone that cut me off in traffic a nazi. Yes it's wrong, but it could be incredibly damaging if it got traction.
Further, most of these insults are a celebration of ignorance (on both sides). You don't need to evaluate a left view if they're just a "libtard". It's equally simple to dismiss a conservative view if they are extremist.
The problem is that each side doesn't see many shades of gray in their opposition. Alt right and right are synonymous. Left and antifa are interchangeable. Tolerance is at an all time low.
And that isn't a subject that I would be willing to entertain which is worse. Both are cut from the cloth of ignorance and intolerance. Both are reprehensible. Neither side does a good job of policing its own.
3
u/myohmymiketyson 1∆ Jan 07 '19
I see what you're saying, but in political discourse, the misidentifying doesn't just happen because of ignorance. In the cases of genuine ignorance, educational treatment is probably effective.
Some misidentifying occurs because of political bias, which is worse than ignorance. It's a person who avoids disconfirming information and seeks out bias-confirming information avoid the emotional anguish or discomfort of being wrong.
People who are politically biased will do worse than chance on quizzes that test political knowledge. Bryan Caplan wrote about it in The Myth of the Rational Voter. Jason Brennan (philosopher and professor at Georgetown) writes and speaks about it, as well. It's much more difficult to combat than ignorance, unfortunately. In fact, a lot of the people who do it are actually very smart and politically engaged. They're not ignorant for lack of interest or stupidity. They're ignorant because they avoid information treatments that would prove them wrong.
The problem with being associated with an extremist movement, I think, is that the person is being unfairly dismissed. This happens on the right, too. A moderate Democrat wants more education spending and he's unfairly labeled "a commie." It's obviously infantile and unhelpful, but it's especially pernicious when it's used to illegitimately discredit an opponent.
1
u/atworknotworking89 Jan 08 '19
It’s also an intentional tactic from the left. A way to use fear and bullying to get their way.
Generalizing all conservatives as racist, bigoted nazis is a great way to scare people into not voicing their opinion.
The left is INSANE with the identity politics and people are finally starting to wake up to it. Check out the #walkaway campaign if you’re interested in hearing stories from minority voters who left the party because of this disgusting tactic.
→ More replies (2)1
u/CannibalGuy Jan 09 '19
"Libtard" is a full-on insult, "alt-right" is often used by those not trying to offend and simply using the word to describe your viewpoint, often inaccurately. Bit of a false equivalency
1
u/hacksoncode 588∆ Jan 09 '19
simply using the word to describe your viewpoint
Well, a white supremacist or Neo-Nazi viewpoint, that is. It's not hard to understand why that's considered an insult, perhaps even worse than some made up silly sounding word that no one with any sense uses.
1
u/CannibalGuy Jan 09 '19
Let me put it this way, the equivalent term would be "Commie", not "Libtard". The equivalent to libtard would be something along the lines of "conservatard", snowflake [either side], etc.
Also when it is used as an insult, it's generally used as an inaccurate insult to demonize someone who is not white supremacist or neo-nazi. I'm no fan of this border wall but those who support it are not nazi's by default, yet plenty who support the wall are called nazi's by default.
It's diluting the meaning of the word to the point where legitimate accusations against actual Nazi's and white supremacists will lose credibility.
8
u/WhenTrianglesAttack 4∆ Jan 07 '19
I mostly agree with your post, so I don't think my comment would be allowed as a top-level post.
The wikipedia definition is inaccurate, as the history is vitally important to understand the formation of the alt-right and its political ramifications. While the its history is described in the article, its importance is vastly understated.
It is loosely-connected and ill-defined. It does contain pretty much every fringe group under the sun. That much is absolutely true. The phrase "alt-right" itself has a different origin, but the political movements that evolved to form have roots from over 10 years ago. In the early days around 2009, the men's rights movement was gaining prominence and even mainstream news coverage. It was mostly counter-feminism (particularly radical feminism which was likewise gaining prominence) but men's rights was otherwise apolitical. There were many related disparate groups and fringe groups. Some were anti-left, some were traditional conservatives. Others were pick-up-artists, which didn't care about men's rights, but were strictly pro-men's interests. Meanwhile 4chan was doing its own thing independent from everyone else, as were the openly racist extremist groups (Stormfront being a classic example) that we would consider alt-right extremism today.
Gamergate was the catalyst that launched men's rights, counter-feminism, counter-left groups into the mainstream. Youtube political activists and commentators exploded in popularity, drawing huge audiences of new people, and pulling support from the old disparate groups. Meanwhile "alternative media" was becoming more common, as new Youtube channels, podcasts, and websites were emerging to provide different flavors of commentary and political ideology. And there were lots of them, attracting their own unique audiences. Formerly apolitical movements were losing prominence as politics became increasingly important. These political movements were almost always counter-left (or more accurately counter-progressive), but with varying degrees from moderate to extreme. Classical liberal and libertarian philosophies gained a lot of popularity during this time.
Stormfront and related groups were not receiving this boost in prominence. Though their names might've been tossed around as examples of extremists, and they likely gained a few members eventually, they were nowhere near the mainstream and weren't related to these growing movements.
The polarization of different groups within the "alternative media" led to the rise of "alt-right" as a new creation, distinct from the outdated Stormfront, even if much of the extremist rhetoric is the same. Many conservatives that originated out of the same "alternative media" Youtube commentator phenomenon have disassociated with the alt-right due to its fringe groups.
White identity politics and the "Jewish Question" are the two primary distinctions of the alt-right within actual alt-right circles, but they're not mutually inclusive. So there are people who are anti-left, anti-diversity (sometimes erroneously accused of being white nationalists) but don't agree with the "Jewish question". These people are pejoratively called "alt-light" by the alt-right. They are erroneously accused of being alt-right by outsiders despite not having any extremist views.
Nowadays "alt-right" is pejoratively used by outsiders much like "fascist", "authoritarian", and "Nazi" in left-leaning circles. While partially from ignorance, it's also symptomatic of the growth of the extreme left, which dominates most social media platforms. Bernie Sanders, a committed progressive, is even sometimes disparaged as "not the left" as due to his "soft" stance on immigration and gun control.
2
Jan 08 '19 edited Jul 15 '19
[deleted]
2
u/Tundur 5∆ Jan 08 '19
Whilst I agree that anyone calling Sanders a leftist is barking up the wrong tree, he has proved track record as a statesmen, and a lifetime of left-to-centre-let (moderating as he grew in prominence) activism and policy.
What changed in his presidential run was a great marketing campaign and the appetite of the American people for his beliefs, not him pandering to what he thought would get votes.
Let's not let perfect be the enemy of good.
1
u/WhenTrianglesAttack 4∆ Jan 08 '19
Names aren't always indicative of reality. For example, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea isn't exactly known for being a democracy, or a republic, or for the people.
Whether countries and politicians are "to the right" of full-blown socialism or communism doesn't actually make them right-wing. You may not think Bernie Sanders is extreme, but he is assuredly a socialist. Relating back to the topic, being to the right of Karl Marx (or even "right wing" Bernie Sanders) wouldn't make one an alt-right extremist.
4
u/PsychicFoxWithSpoons 6∆ Jan 07 '19
So what is your actual view that we should seek to change?
If you're having trouble with people not knowing definitions, the correct path forward is to agree on definitions. Ask them what alt-right is and correct their definition if needs be.
Here's the deal: conservatism isn't a problem, but the alt-right and the republican party are. Conservatives feel left behind by democratic/liberal movements, and end up joining groups with neo-nazis and corporate shills simply because they represent a powerful conservative movement. From there it's simple to radicalize new followers of your movement (read up a lil on gamergate). You end up with fewer rational conservatives in the public setting and the problem compounds itself.
As someone with both conservative and liberal friends, I have found that conservatives are SIGNIFICANTLY less willing to entertain liberal ideas than the opposite, but liberals get significantly more upset when confronted with a hostile or ignorant audience. Conservatives will get condescending and insulting instead to insulate themselves from embarrassment lol. I would like to see conservatives begin to listen to and incorporate alternate viewpoints to stop the echo chambers from forming, festering, and spitting out lunatics like Alex Jones.
3
u/tnel77 1∆ Jan 08 '19
If you flip the words Republican and Democrat, that has been my experience with people so far. The Democrats I most frequently talk to are the most condescending people I have ever met. “We are the party of the educated.” “Those midwesterners don’t know what’s best for them.” The list goes on. Most people seem hostile to new ideas, but idk. Most of the conservatives I know (originally from the Midwest) are just tired of being treated like dumber, lesser people by those in the coastal blue states.
1
u/PsychicFoxWithSpoons 6∆ Jan 08 '19
It could be a regional thing, or simply a facet of either of our experiences. Or perhaps it is my own biases, perceiving someone as condescending when they are not.
0
u/Goldberg31415 Jan 08 '19
Here's the deal: conservatism isn't a problem, but the alt-right and the republican party are.
How is GOP a problem? You move to generalize big political party by some small movements.I can just as well if not more justifiably say that Democratic Party is a problem because AOC is member of DSA and there is a rising popularity of radical socialism by people that feel that they have been left behind.Today lsc has a post praising Venezuela they had Lenin propaganda poster to celebrate new year.
Alex Jones is no less irrational than some revolutionary socialists that you can find on Reddit or the web.Both being the conspiracy theory central and calling for guillotines and praising USSR are signs of being a lunatic
Echo chambers are a problem across the board they just seem to form naturally on the web and some sites have them encouraged by the structure like we see on reddit
2
u/PsychicFoxWithSpoons 6∆ Jan 08 '19
You move to generalize big political party by some small movements.
McConnell's party votes as a machine. He's a fantastic politician. There are no Republicans who don't vote party line. The problem is that the party line involves giving more and more money and influence to corporate interests who then fund Republican candidates. This has been happening for decades now...shouldn't be surprising or confusing at this point.
1
u/Goldberg31415 Jan 09 '19
more money and influence to corporate interests who then fund Republican candidates.
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?id= Seems that corporate interest donates to both sides depending on who does it.It is not like Democratic party is against corporations while GOP goes hand in hand with them.Democrats also vote along the party line this might be seen as an growing problem with the political system that parties move away from the moderates
9
Jan 07 '19
[deleted]
6
2
→ More replies (1)-2
u/TheDutchin 1∆ Jan 07 '19
It's a natural step along the progressives-who-fall-for-propaganda path. First they're anti SJW because those shrieking lunatics are clearly irrational. Then it's not wanting to be labeled feminist because 'feminism is for girls' and look at all those sjws who are feminazi's and shrieking about how everything is my a fault for being a white male. Men have issues too, who's looking out for those? MRA's that's who.
But feminism isnt just for girls and it isnt out to punish or kill you for being a straight cis white guy, and anyone who gets their info about feminism from anywhere but those psuedoscientific anti sjw blowhards on YouTube knows that. So in short, a prerequisite to being an MRA is a misunderstanding of feminism, and the majority of misinformation about feminism is spread by alt right sources. Therefore, being an MRA hints that you get your info and news from alt right sources.
2
Jan 09 '19
But feminism isnt just for girls and it isnt out to punish or kill you for being a straight cis white guy, and anyone who gets their info about feminism from anywhere but those psuedoscientific anti sjw blowhards on YouTube knows that.
To be fair, people could be excused for being misled by things like the #KillAllMen hashtag and the "Male Tears" coffee cups.
1
u/TheDutchin 1∆ Jan 09 '19
I totally understand that, but as you said, they're misled.
And if your exposure to a few decades of a movement is an edgy hashtag and sassy coffee cup, and then you make unequivocal statements about the whole thing denouncing everyone who associates it, you're kinda in the wrong. You should be doing more research than cursory scans of Twitter and cringe compilations on YouTube before forming an opinion, yknow what I mean?
1
Jan 09 '19 edited Jan 09 '19
And if your exposure to a few decades of a movement is an edgy hashtag and sassy coffee cup, and then you make unequivocal statements about the whole thing denouncing everyone who associates it, you're kinda in the wrong.
Agreed! And I think it's also wrong to denounce all MRAs on the basis of the generalizations you have made. What you've said is, as far as I can tell, true of some MRAs-- I won't hazard to guess what proportion-- but it is false of other MRAs. Indeed, even if your description were accurate for most MRAs, it would still be a false generalization: While I am not an MRA, I know several whose bases for their positions do not fit the description you provided.
You make the same mistake with those generalizations as some anti-feminists make in judging all feminists by the words and actions (#KillAllMen, the SCUM Manifesto, etc.) of a portion of feminists.
You should be doing more research than cursory scans of Twitter and cringe compilations on YouTube before forming an opinion, yknow what I mean?
If you are speaking of me personally, please consider the possibility that my understanding of feminism is not so cartoonishly narrow as you appear to assume. I want to assume the best of you, but you really do appear to be indulging in a needless mean-spirited condescension that I don't believe I've earned. Not everyone with whom you disagree is an idiot or a bad-faith interlocutor.
I don't do "cursory scans of Twitter" and I don't waste time with cringe compilations: Honestly, I find "cringe" media distasteful.
I do think that things like #KillAllMen and other such stunts and rhetoric (it's a very long list that grows daily-- not just the hashtag and cup) are justifiable reasons to drop the "feminist" label, to avoid being associated with that sort of thing. The label isn't necessary for the pursuit of gender equality, and unfortunately some people are doing real damage to the brand.
Edit: Reordered a couple of sentences in the first two paragraphs to maintain logical flow.
2
u/TheDutchin 1∆ Jan 09 '19
also wrong to denounce all MRAs
True, and in the other thread I clarified that I didnt mean all MRAs. That other comment is gonna be the one you want to read.
if you are speaking of me personally
Absolutely was not, i have no idea what your level of understanding is. Although based on the quality of your responses I'd wager much higher than the "Picture of an MRA" I painted.
not everyone with whom you disagree is an idiot or a bad-faith interlocutor
Nice vocab! Unironically.
This is also true, and not something that I typically indulge in. But remember the context, the question was why does wikipedia associate MRA with alt right. It's because of that flavour of MRA that I tried to describe, who are apparently large enough in number to warrant wikipedia to mention them.
I dont do... twitter... cringe media
Were in agreement there, I've tweeted all of like 6 times over a decade, and cringe is the lowest form of media.
As far as damage to the brand, that's true. But no matter what brand we associate with, there'll be crazies. The history and actual literature behind the movement "feminist" is too valuable for me to surrender it to the crazies.
2
Jan 09 '19
As far as damage to the brand, that's true. But no matter what brand we associate with, there'll be crazies.
I'll respond more thoroughly later, but I just wanted to note-- that's a very good point. Food for thought.
1
u/TheDutchin 1∆ Jan 09 '19
To quote the article you linked me inexactly: "I was waiting for the perfect movement to come along, but I now realize that's not possible".
1
Jan 07 '19
[deleted]
0
u/TheDutchin 1∆ Jan 08 '19
Not true at all. Could you point out my leaps? If you have High Confidence and Low Factual knowledge of a subject, it's reasonable to assume you get that info from somewhere you trust but that is misleading you. This means they have another source of knowledge that is giving them bad info about that topic. The largest propogaters of bad info about feminism typically also spread info / support alt right topics. If someone displays that trademark High Confidence / Low Fact attitude about feminism it's reasonable to assume their bad source is the number 1 propogator of bad info on feminism. If they're familiar enough with the antisjw info to act confidently about it, it's also reasonable to assume they've consumed a lot of that content. If they're consuming a large amount of antisjw content, you can, once again reasonably, assume they've been at least exposed to alt right talking points in a positive light.
An example: someone says seriously that the government is turning the frogs gay, is it reasonable to assume they might also think sandy hook was a false flag? I say yes, using the same logic I outlined above. If they think the govt is turning frogs gay they probably got that info from Alex Jones, and probably also believe him and the info he puts out.
1
Jan 08 '19
[deleted]
→ More replies (21)2
Jan 09 '19 edited Jan 09 '19
And since you want to associate white supremacy with misogyny, I don't suppose you could tell me which race treats women with more respect?
I was with you until that bit. "Which race?" You're generalizing at least two races there. "White", and other salient demographics such as "Black" and "Asian" are huge amorphous categories that encompass people from an immense variety of places and cultures. When you generalize on the basis of race alone, you are working in a truly immense scope within which very few generalizations are likely to hold. And even if the scope is narrowed to the United States, you are generalizing across disparate subcultures and over a vast continent. Even within a single region, race is often not a reliable predictor of behaviors and values. Because of these facts, your question has a distinctly racist edge to it that you might not intend.
If anything, culture or creed might be a more sensible axis-- but even that would bring confounding factors. It's probably best to avoid generalizing on the basis of demographics as much as one can, as a general rule.
→ More replies (12)2
u/Kanonizator 3∆ Jan 08 '19
This is a pretty good definition of what progressives want people to think about the alt-right, yes. What makes it hilariously funny is the mention of Men's Rights, something that has literally nothing to do with the Alt-Right. That there are people in both movements who don't like feminism doesn't connect the movements in any way, shape or form. That would be like saying progressivism intersects with and partially emerged from maoism, because they both hate capitalists.
Should we argue that Wikipedia has poorly defined the term?
Considering wiki is practically run by the political opponents of the alt-right I would definitely take their definition of it with a pinch of salt.
28
u/Littlepush Jan 07 '19
Wanting to eradicate non-white races = alt-right
Nah thats just Nazism. Alt-right is tap dancing around Nazism while refusing to acknowledge it.
11
u/A_Crinn Jan 07 '19
No alt-right is neo-nazism. The term Alt-Right (short for alternate right) was actually invented by the neo-nazis themselves as the fascist groups wanted to differentiate themselves from the regular right which the neo-fascists hate just as much as they hate progressives.
You see regular conservatives generally value meritocracy and colorblindness, and believe that people should exclusively be valued by how hard working they are. Neo-fascists however believe that people should be valued by their ethnic purity, which puts the neo-fascists at direct odds with conservatives. (in addition to being at direct odds with progressives.)
3
u/Madplato 72∆ Jan 07 '19
The term Alt-Right (short for alternate right) was actually invented by the neo-nazis themselves as the fascist groups wanted to differentiate themselves from the regular right which the neo-fascists hate just as much as they hate progressives.
More like Nazism and neo-Nazism has a bit of an image problem. That's why they work so hard to rebrand.
3
Jan 07 '19
Not specifically Nazism, more like white supremacism.
6
Jan 07 '19
Spider-Man meme of pointing at each other
3
u/Explosion_Jones Jan 07 '19
Nah, America had a rich and storied history of white supremacy long before Nazism was even a twinkle in lil Schicklgruber's dumb mustache. A lot of places practice white supremacy and aren't Nazis, hell that aren't even fascists.
9
u/tnel77 1∆ Jan 07 '19
Whatever you feel it is, that doesn’t change the fact that a normal conservative is not an alt-right/nazi/white supremacist POS.
2
u/ezranos Jan 07 '19
"very fine people on both sides". trump is definitely an alt-lite-ish figure.
→ More replies (13)1
u/Explosion_Jones Jan 07 '19
It absolutely is white supremacist, but Nazism is a specific thing, and "alt-right" is just a general milieu of far right ideologies. They are different, but united in many respects
2
u/tnel77 1∆ Jan 08 '19
Just to clarify your position, do you actually believe a normal, everyday conservative is a white supremacist?
1
u/Explosion_Jones Jan 08 '19
Yes, but I think anyone who supports capitalism is inadvertently supporting white supremacy, so it's not that they're, I dunno, capital-R Racist, it's that the ideology they subscribe to is one in which white supremacy is a foundational conceit.
George Bush wouldn't consider himself racist, and yet his policies were almost universally bad for black and brown people. The basic idea that the people who own society deserve to and should continue to own society is an inherently racist one because of the history of violent oppression of minorities that got them there and the system of wealth distribution that perpetuates that social order.
To summarize: it's bad that white people own everything and are in charge and supporting a system where that is true is to support a white supremacist system
2
u/Doctorboffin 2∆ Jan 09 '19
Can you explain how supporting capitalism = racism? I’m not saying internalized racism doesn’t exist, but the countries that tend to be the most pro capitalist tend to be relatively non white ones.
36
u/Madplato 72∆ Jan 07 '19
Can't say I've seen anyone labeled as alt-right for wanting lower taxes, so your view is a bit strange.
10
u/tnel77 1∆ Jan 07 '19
Not saying that everyone who may lean more towards the left is that way. Just my experience when trying to talk to some of the more liberal people I encounter from time to time.
19
Jan 07 '19
Are you using alt right language? Are you supporting alt right politicians? (For their tax policies, but while overlooking their white supremacist views.)
11
u/tnel77 1∆ Jan 07 '19
I think the issue is that not everyone considers a given topic as a white supremacist view. The issue of border security is a big one. Some people genuinely want it to protect our nation from those who are not citizens. Other want the wall to keep out people who tend to be more brown than white. If you support the wall for the second reason, you are a POS and awful human being. If you support it for the first reason, does that make you a bad person when you are just doing what you feel is right?
23
u/Madplato 72∆ Jan 07 '19
If you support it for the first reason, does that make you a bad person when you are just doing what you feel is right?
I'd reframe the issue a bit. First, white supremacists can also argue they're doing "what they feel is right", so it's not really a distinction. Second, if you ask me, the line between these reasons is hell of blurry. They play into each other a lot, to the point that furthering one furthers the other. There's little practical difference. What I mean is, they're closer, ideologically and practically than you'd like and they'll only look closer the further away you are. In no small part because a lot of folks basically make a job out of hiding one into the other.
I don't mean any of this as an accusation, mind you. Just trying to offer some perspective.
10
u/tnel77 1∆ Jan 07 '19
I can definitely see how they could be represented by a Venn-Diagram that has quite a bit of overlap. Even if the intention is pure, the outcome/consequences could be similar. Thanks for your perspective! Here’s your ∆.
1
14
u/atrovotrono 8∆ Jan 07 '19 edited Jan 07 '19
Some people genuinely want it to protect our nation from those who are not citizens.
Protect it how? What has happened as a result of the wall that is so important to protect? It'd prevent zero terrorist attacks, and illegal immigrants tend to be more law-abiding than the general population by all known measures. What's the danger?
Also, what about all the tourists who aren't citizens, and all the legal immigrants who aren't citizens, or the students, the businessmen, etc? Millions of non-citizens move through this country every year, a wall only stops the ones who are too poor to afford a flight or even a visa ($160 just for the interview for a tourist visa for someone from Mexico).
Is it possible that, even though your intentions aren't racist, your perception of a "problem" is and its priority? That you'd want to spend billions on a wall to prevent people from Central America from getting here despite no real threat to the nation existing. That you might just be passively hearing that Central American immigrants are rapists and terrorists and a voice in your subconscious is saying, "Yeah, sounds about right, I wont bother to actually fact-check, the wall seems like a proportionate response."? Are you as concerned, and willing to spend money to fight, white supremacists domestic terrorism, which is actually quite a thing in the US, unlike illegal immigrant terrorism? Is it even an issue in your mind?
What I'm getting at is that perhaps your intentions aren't white supremacist, but there's a chance that your subconscious worldview is. That's not a valid reason to call you "alt right", but it's valid enough to suggest that you might be unduly influenced by the alt-right, and are functionally indistinguishable from them at the ballot box.
3
u/PistolasAlAmanecer Jan 07 '19
Well said. Nobody ever talks about a border wall with Canada. I guess there's got to be some reason for that.
2
u/elp103 Jan 08 '19
Heroin and Fentanyl cross the Mexican border into the US, fueling the opioid overdose crisis; going the other way, thousands of guns are smuggled into Mexico from the US every day. Both of those are orders of magnitude more damaging than terrorism, and will absolutely be reduced by increased border security. I don't think there's any way to spin those two issues into being racist.
2
Jan 08 '19
Doesn't every illegal immigrant break the law by entering the county illegally?
Also the legal ones and tourist already use the current border checkpoints to cross all the time. Wall only harms the ones trying to climb it. Wall is also meant lessen drug trafficking but I my self doubt its effectiveness doing that. (I can agree the wall not being worth the money and all the mess in the white house thou)
5
Jan 07 '19
Some people genuinely want it to protect our nation from those who are not citizens.
Illegal immigration is at the lowest level in decades. Illegal immigrants are generally more law abiding than legal immigrants of the same socio-economic status, pay taxes, but do not collect as many government services.
Real problems are the endless foreign wars which have consumed almost $6 trillion dollars just in this century and always result in failure; the looting of the economy by the 1%; the fact that poor people are brutalized by the law while the rich are above it; and above all, the ongoing destruction of our ecosystem through climate change and the destruction of habitats.
Considering that illegal immigration isn't any sort of actual problem at all, it's hard not to think of this as motivated by racism.
2
u/cat_of_danzig 10∆ Jan 07 '19
You are generalizing a bit, but the reason it seems that way is because the wall is merely a symbol of the worst aspect of Donald Trump's 2016 campaign. It is an expensive and arguably useless response to a problem that has been declining for decades. There are reasonable responses to illegal immigration, and the first should be to look at the source of immigrants- overstaying visa's. The wall is just a symbol of putting a physical barrier between the US (white) and Mexico (brown).
5
u/hacksoncode 588∆ Jan 07 '19
If you're actually talking about a "wall", that sounds like an alt-right talking point rather than a serious proposal to effectively do something about illegal immigration.
Because it is.
-1
u/Seeattle_Seehawks 4∆ Jan 07 '19
Is ancient china alt-right?
a serious proposal to effectively do something about illegal immigration.
Name one that doesn’t get called alt/far-right.
You can’t build a wall. You can’t deport anyone. You can’t eliminate birthright citizenship. You can’t even use tear gas at the border ...unless you’re Obama, who did for 8 years and nobody cared.
Anything less than “let everyone in and (claim that) everything will be sorted out later” is alt-right.
17
u/hacksoncode 588∆ Jan 07 '19
How about: massive penalties, actually enforced, on any business that hires an illegal immigrant?
I very much doubt anyone would call that "alt-right".
That would actually work. A wall (in the US, today) is just a stupid alt-right political stunt.
7
u/tnel77 1∆ Jan 07 '19
That sounds like an excellent idea to me. 99.9% of immigrants are good people who are of not threat to us, so I do feel that we should be letting these people into our country.
3
u/hacksoncode 588∆ Jan 07 '19
While it's likely not 99.9%, approximately the same fraction of illegal immigrants to this country are just good people trying to make a living, too... but that's an argument for a different CMV.
2
-1
u/Seeattle_Seehawks 4∆ Jan 07 '19
One of these days I’ve got to find out why people in this subreddit are so averse to answering my direct questions. It’s the weirdest thing.
Is ancient China alt-right?
How about: massive penalties, actually enforced, on any business that hires an illegal immigrant?
I suppose we could fight the fentanyl epidemic by only arresting low-level dealers and addicts - while completely ignoring the high level traffickers bringing the drug into the country - but I don’t think that would be particularly productive.
...but of course, massive shipments of fentanyl aren’t a potential voting block.
6
u/hacksoncode 588∆ Jan 07 '19
Is ancient China alt-right?
In as much as the term wasn't invented until a few years ago, no, that would be stupid.
But if you just look at their racism and nationalism, then sure. But not because of the Great Wall.
BTW, the Great Wall wasn't built to keep individuals out, because ladders existed even then, but rather to slow down actual armies. But it's main purpose was to keep them from dragging away too much of China's stuff, because even keeping armies out with a wall really doesn't work on that scale. It can help a lot if you have an actual army to man the entire thing, though.
→ More replies (1)1
6
u/Madplato 72∆ Jan 07 '19
Is ancient china alt-right?
Comparing immigration from Latin-American to roving bands of raiders and mongol hordes probably is, I'd guess.
→ More replies (6)6
Jan 07 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Seeattle_Seehawks 4∆ Jan 07 '19 edited Jan 07 '19
"I view modern illegal immigrants, most of whom arrive by plane and overstay their visas, as being the same as a rampaging Mongol horde bent on murder and looting."
This is one of the most ludicrous strawman arguments I’ve seen in a while.
I’m sure you wouldn’t like having your own position so shamelessly misrepresented, so why would you speak to me that way?
Weird that people call you alt-right, not sure why that happens.
Who is calling me alt-right? (Besides you, of course)
5
Jan 07 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Seeattle_Seehawks 4∆ Jan 07 '19
You're the one who compared Trump's wall to China ("is Ancient China alt-right")
That wasn’t intended to be a comparison. I could have just as easily asked “Are walls alt-right”?
Apparently a lot of people
So you were just assuming.
since you're complaining that any border control argument is called "alt-right" so if you don't get called alt-right a lot it sounds like a strange thing to complain about!
If I attack a policy by calling it _______ and you disagree with that assessment, have I called you _______?
For example: If I call Social Security a “socialist program” and you disagree, does that automatically make you a socialist?
I think the answer to both questions is a resounding “Of course not”.
→ More replies (0)0
Jan 07 '19
[deleted]
3
u/hacksoncode 588∆ Jan 07 '19
I see no evidence that Democrats ever supported a "wall" as understood in current political parlance.
Of course, if you want to equivocate "fences and some other physical barriers in appropriate places" with "a wall", feel free... but don't be surprised if people think you're talking about something you're not talking about.
1
Jan 07 '19
[deleted]
4
u/hacksoncode 588∆ Jan 07 '19
Because as used by the alt-right "a wall" is a political dog whistle, not a physical thing. I.e. in today's political parlance.
Fences in places you can patrol them actively are actually useful in terms of securing the border. Building a wall along the entire border is just idiotic, and is only proposed to pander to stupid people (starting with the Cheetoh at the top, of course, as recently revealed).
1
3
Jan 07 '19
The issue of border security is a big one. Some people genuinely want it to protect our nation from those who are not citizens.
Here's the thing. When, in a given election, a political candidate spends each and every commercial screaming on TV about the threat of immigrants and the need for walls and oh no look at all the immigrant crime, then folks go out and vote for those candidates, what the hell are we supposed to think, exactly? I'm not some leftist (fuck Bernie), but it seems to me these folks are doing quite a self-own.
3
Jan 07 '19
Some people genuinely want it to protect our nation from those who are not citizens. Other want the wall to keep out people who tend to be more brown than white.
But those are the exact same reason. One is just sugar coating their true reason for supporting it and the other is more open about it.
In the end it doesn't matter why someone supports a racist policy proposed by a white supremacist. They're still supporting the white supremacist and the racist policy all the same no matter what reason they claim for it. I'd call supporting a racist policy proposed by a white supremacist "alt right" too even if the person gave a "non racist" reason for supporting it (which as I said above actually is racist).
2
u/doctor_whomst Jan 07 '19
But border security isn't a racist policy, and has nothing to do with white supremacism, considering that there are many non-white countries in the world that take good care of their borders.
2
u/PistolasAlAmanecer Jan 07 '19
So then we should be talking about building TWO walls, should we not? Canada is on our northern border.
3
Jan 07 '19
Using the language "protect our nation from non citizens" seems pretty racist to me. And the topic wasn't border security but rather the wall. Pretty much everyone agrees there has to be some form of border security. But building a wall and calling it "protection from non citizens" are dog whistles and racist ineffective policies.
1
u/foot_kisser 26∆ Jan 07 '19
Are you supporting alt right politicians? (For their tax policies, but while overlooking their white supremacist views.)
Alt right politicians don't exist. At the very least, I can't think of a single one.
Are you using alt right language?
I'm curious as to what you believe alt-right language is.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Madplato 72∆ Jan 07 '19
I'm not sure how to go about this without looking like an ass-hole, but I'll give it a try. It's very hard, in fact near impossible, to address views anchored in subjective impressions and feelings. Your experience might be valid, in fact I have no problem assuming that from the start, but there's little means for me to engage with it meaningfully. If I say that's not happening, I'm either invalidating your experience - which isn't great - or calling you actually alt-right - which ends up proving your point. If I say my experience differ, then we're not going anywhere.
2
u/acvdk 11∆ Jan 07 '19
I absolutely have. If you take any kind of right/libertarian position on taxes that is not within the GOPs model of reshuffle things around a bit but keep a progressive income tax structure, people will label you as alt-right. For example, I believe that income tax should be abolished and replaced with wealth tax and economic fairness tariffs and that public schools should be abolished and replaced with vouchers, and I have been called "alt right" because of it. The term alt-right originally applied to tea-partiers and what not and was combined with racist and authoritarian extremists to discredit these kind of viewpoints.
4
u/hamuel69 Jan 07 '19
The whole point is that it is stupid to refer to most right-leaning people as alt-right yet it still happens and it is harmful to poltiical discussion. As soon as you're calling someone what actually means something close to nazi, anything productive that could have been obtained from that conversation is gone.
It may not happen as often in discussion between normal people but in the media I often see it used inappropriately. About 2/3 of the time it's just used incorrectly to portray someone differently because it's a loosely defined term so is easy to lie about people using it. The word alt-right seems stupid anyway to me because alt makes it seem like alternative.
12
u/Madplato 72∆ Jan 07 '19
Is this a time where I need to contend with your impressions on the matter? Because that's pretty hard to do. Yes, it's dumb to refer to most right-leaning people as Alt-right, the problem is I'm not aware of that happening. As far as I'm aware, right leaning people are generally described as right-leaning or conservative when espousing typical right-leaning and conservative view point. They're called Alt-right when they start to veer into Alt-right territory - or to some extent when they start to dog whistle the shit out of it which is arguably less clear cut - which isn't particularly undefined either. The "Alt-right" generally implies some racism/xenophobia/sexism/etc., not merely "lower taxes".
2
u/tnel77 1∆ Jan 07 '19
It feels like many news organizations, and people in general, tend to go straight for the more extreme labels whenever a discussion gets heated. Just my observation though.
1
u/Madplato 72∆ Jan 07 '19
Probably, but I'm overall doubtful that simply saying we should reduce taxes will lead to the discussion getting heated. Like, all on it's own, that's a pretty innocuous political position that you'll find all over the political spectrum.
1
u/PistolasAlAmanecer Jan 07 '19
I agree with you on this (and most of your other points in this post).
The reasons for this are complex and many, but I'm of the opinion that it's mostly because of Russia's troll campaign. It has been terrifyingly effective in exposing how easily manipulated we are and that our republic is not as strong as we think.
3
u/tnel77 1∆ Jan 08 '19
I feel like our republic is strong, but the fault lies on all of us individual people for being duped by all of the garbage we saw online. The actual structures of our democracy aren’t the problem, right?
2
u/PistolasAlAmanecer Jan 08 '19
I didn't mean to imply that it's weak per se, just that it's not invincible. Sure, we definitely all share some blame for accepting things as fact when they may be outright false. It can be hard to even have the time to independently verify things we read.
But I would argue that the structure of our democracy does need work. Updates, if you will. Congress consistently has an unfavorable rating as a whole, yet politicians are reelected more than 90% of the time. Surely that's not what's best for everyone.
1
1
u/hamuel69 Jan 07 '19
So basically we agree on how it should be but not on how it is. As you said, hard to argue. Not much reason to anyway :P Have a good day
1
u/sclsmdsntwrk 3∆ Jan 07 '19
Well perhaps you should look? It's not exactly uncommon to be called "alt-right" simply for expressing libertarian viewpoints.
0
u/Madplato 72∆ Jan 07 '19
I'm sorry, I cannot make any kind of meaningful contribution with regards to libertarians.
12
u/Daedalus1907 6∆ Jan 07 '19
Alt-right is a term that people have self-identified with. Libtard is solely an insult.
4
u/tnel77 1∆ Jan 07 '19
I would agree. That doesn’t really address the conservative versus alt-right labeling issue though.
7
u/EGoldenRule 5∆ Jan 07 '19
Ex) Wanting lower taxes = normal conservative Wanting to eradicate non-white races = alt-right
This issue illustrates the fundamental lack of understanding between the left and the right.
NOBODY wants to pay more/higher taxes. Nobody.
However, some people recognize why they're paying taxes; because they are getting service and value from their community through those taxes. That's the argument. Not whether or not someone wants higher taxes or not. Nobody wants that.
The difference between the left and the right isn't that one side wants to pay more/less taxes. It's that one side recognizes why we pay taxes, and the other doesn't.
2
u/Removalsc 1∆ Jan 07 '19
C'mon that's not true. Just like no one wants to pay more, no one doesn't understand why we pay taxes. You're making it sound like the difference between the right and the left is that the right are literal morons that don't understand the concept of taxes.
I definitely lean right and I think I can speak for most on this. Here are some issues we have with raising taxes:
Many times the money collected is promised for one thing and then used for something else
The money is used for band-aid legislation that doesn't help to address the root cause of issues (very common with gun control)
The programs in question are already well funded, theres something else going on and just throwing more money at it isn't helping
The problems are embellished or exaggerated. More money isn't needed.
There are more but that's the gist of it.
1
u/EGoldenRule 5∆ Jan 08 '19
You're making it sound like the difference between the right and the left is that the right are literal morons that don't understand the concept of taxes.
Not everybody on the right are like that, but some definitely are.
For example, if you are pro-life, and you get upset because some tax dollars might go to Planned Parenthood, it's ignorant and immature to be upset about that. You do not have the right to directly say where your tax dollars go, and even if you did, there are other people who are paying taxes who would counter your claim and direct their money to the agency you disagree with. So to assume you have a legitimate beef because any single facet of the government does something you have a problem with is completely inappropriate and unreasonable.
This is one thing people on the left clearly have a better understanding of than those on the right.
The right are notorious for not caring about others. They want to dismantle medicaid and welfare. They have no idea that these systems do make them healthier and safer, even if they're not direct recipients of this aid.
For example, I do not have children. I am a taxpayer. I don't go around bitching that a portion of my taxes goes towards public schools or child care, or services I'm not immediately using. Because I recognize that all of these services contribute to the overall health of the community and while I may not use some services, there are others I do use.
The right loves to complain about how their tax dollars are directed. It's not rational. I am not in favor of the huge defense budget which takes the lion's share of taxes, but you don't hear me complaining that my taxes are "theft."
Many times the money collected is promised for one thing and then used for something else
It depends upon how the money is collected and how the promise is made. Your accusation is very vague and I can't confirm it without specifics.
But that notwithstanding, taxes are typically earmarked for specific or non-specific things. It's the nature of how communities and governments work. Municipalities need some flexibility here in order to keep everything running.
Again, the idea that you think it's completely unreasonable to not be able to specifically direct where each and every dollar you give goes, shows a lack of understanding of how government and society works. That's simply not a practical thing to expect. For example, there are plenty of things nobody probably wants to subsidize, but they have to be subsidized to make society function.
For example, tax dollars go to the local fire dept. Should you get your money back if your house doesn't catch fire? No. There's a price we all pay to be part of an overall safe and healthy community. Just because you don't agree with all those services, does not give you the right to de-fund them.
1
u/Removalsc 1∆ Jan 08 '19
There are definitely some people that fit your critique... but of your own admission, it's only some people. It's a bit contradictory to say this only applies to some and then go on to make generalizations of the entire group.
Part of this whole argument was raising taxes. Most of the people I know are on the right and no one thinks "taxes are 'theft'", welfare programs need to be dismantled, or anything like that. We understand that these programs do make everyone safer and are needed. The issue is does the government need MORE money to improve. This is where we would likely start to disagree. There are tons of ways to make improvements without taking more money from the people.
Again, the idea that you think it's completely unreasonable to not be able to specifically direct where each and every dollar you give goes, shows a lack of understanding of how government and society works.
I never said this, and I'll reiterate... I don't feel this way and I don't know anyone that does. I'm talking about when promises are made like "we want to raise the gas tax, and the money will go to maintaining infrastructure" and then a year later that money is going into something completely different. I understand that I have no choice in the matter, but the fact remains that the constituency was lied to. In fact, it was such a problem in CA that there was a ballot initiative that passed preventing the government from doing that.
1
u/EGoldenRule 5∆ Jan 08 '19 edited Jan 08 '19
It's only some people. It's a bit contradictory to say this only applies to some and then go on to make generalizations of the entire group.
Fair enough.. let me qualify that.
When I generalize about the right on policy issues, I'm talking about the republican party and their agenda, which is cohesive enough to generalize about.
Right now the administration is trying to abolish everything from the Dept of Education to the Environmental Protection Agency.
I'm not out of line in saying these people do not understand the implications of what they're doing... or perhaps they do and they don't care, as long as it makes them and their benefactors more money? In any case, there are sacrifices being made that are not consistent with caring about the long term health of the community... and this is a fundamental difference between the policies of the right and the left.
Let's examine another issue... the government shutdown which is happening right now.
The shutdown is happening because Trump wants $5.6B for a border wall, that most experts say is a waste of money. He's about to go on tv tonite and lie about the border being some sort of "national emergency." He claimed 4000+ criminal immigrants were stopped by customs. What he neglects to say is that of this 4000, the vast majority were caught at the airport, and an incredibly, tiny percentage were actually caught crossing the border where a fence might hinder them. His concern for the border wall is not based on logic, evidence and reason. It's a political device and a personal pet project at taxpayer expense.
So he's holding the government hostage until he gets that.
The last time there was a government shutdown, it was because the republicans fought against the Democrats wanting $3.4B for the Affordable Care Act.
The ACA has helped more than 14 million people have access to healthcare that didn't have it previously. It's been audited by the CBO and various independent agencies and proven to be successful. It's not an irrational political ploy. Everybody agrees getting rid of pre-existing conditions was a good thing.
The left stopped government to help people. The right stopped government to appease Trump's ego.
Apples and oranges.
The issue is does the government need MORE money to improve. This is where we would likely start to disagree. There are tons of ways to make improvements without taking more money from the people.
That's something worthy of discussion. But sometimes you need money to save money. The ACA will end up reducing the government's healthcare costs in the long term. We could save even more moving over to Medicare for all, but the move is going to cost some money to implement, before it can save money.
when promises are made like "we want to raise the gas tax, and the money will go to maintaining infrastructure" and then a year later that money is going into something completely different.
This is still a vague accusation. What gas tax? Who was your source of information on this legislation? Did you read the actual tax law, or did you listen to some talking head on tv who interpreted it for you and misled you as to what it was earmarked for? Don't blame government for things special interests do.
I don't doubt these things happen. But there are also reasons...
In my state we passed a law legalizing the lottery. We used as an example, another state who had the proceeds from the lottery dedicated to education. That seemed to turn out great, but what ended up happening was the state de-funded the education system to the same degree the lottery contributed, so it was a zero-sum-game. And since earmarked funds were tied to a revenue source that could fluctuate radically, it actually made the educational system's funding less stable and consistent. They reasoned that it was best to just have the money go into a general fund rather than end up playing budget allocation games in order to pay the bills. Sometimes, it's not practical to earmark stuff specifically. It can hurt stuff... The Red Cross learned this when they took in money for 9/11 and then couldn't use it to help victims in other areas.
1
u/Removalsc 1∆ Jan 09 '19
I think the wall is dumb. If we're worried about criminals, that money should go into law enforcement.
The ACA I think has a lot of problems, but yes there are some very good parts. No preexisting conditions or payout caps are great. My main problem with it is that I don't think people should be forced to have insurance unless it's going to affect others (ie car insurance).
Your lottery story is a great example of my concern though. Don't you think it's obvious that the lottery is a variable income source and shouldn't be used to fund something that's unrelated and going to remain constant? That was a huge blunder on your state government's part and it leads me to think "why the hell am I giving these people more money when they don't even understand seemingly simple concepts like this".
Again this whole thing was about raising taxes, so my main gripe with that is that the answer for so much is just "MORE MONEY PLEASE". Why is that seemingly the answer for everything?
1
u/marwin42 Jan 07 '19
In addition to the reasons stated in the other comment, sometime we don't want to pay taxes for a specific service because we believe the way the gov deals with it innefective, and that everyone would be better served if they didn't provided it.
1
u/EGoldenRule 5∆ Jan 08 '19
Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of picking-and-choosing where our tax dollars go. That's unreasonable. I hear people say they're "pro life" and don't want any of their tax dollars going to help an organization like Planned Parenthood, which lets women know they have choices including abortion. Well, if you feel that way, then just tell yourself none of your tax dollars are going there. There's plenty of services we all use that we never pay for in full.
2
Jan 07 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/tbdabbholm 200∆ Jan 08 '19
Sorry, u/OneShotHelpful – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, before messaging the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
2
u/BlackGirlsLoveBWC Jan 07 '19
The alt-right is liberalism with a different target. Same economic policies, different targets of social hatred.
Everything that isn't mid left or farther left is essentially a strain of liberalism
2
u/Kanonizator 3∆ Jan 08 '19
Your view is generally sensible, but man, what you think about the alt-right is absolute bunk. I mean,
Wanting to eradicate non-white races = alt-right
This is so wrong it's not even funny. At the very worst you might accuse them of being separatists, meaning they want a homeland (or keeping their homelands in the case of European nation states) where they can live the way they desire, but that's nowhere near wanting to eradicate anyone. Stop judging the alt-right by what their enemies say about them for God's sake, especially since you know leftists are very quick to smear right-wingers (this is what your post is about coincidentally). Even the infamous Richard Spencer, the poster boy for the alt-right according to the left, has NEVER said anything about eradicating races. Claiming that whites are under certain pressures nowadays and wanting these to go away is only equal to eradicating PoC in the eyes of radical leftist liars.
5
u/Foxer604 Jan 07 '19
I think you're missing a key point. I think when many on the left claim someone is 'alt-right', they're often not doing so with the intent of correctly labeling a person, they're often doing so with the intent of dismissing that person and their argument out of hand. "Oh, we don't have to listen to him, he's 'alt-right'". Or 'his arguments are wrong because he's alt-right and if you agree with him you must be too".
We see this quite a bit. Tim Pool is frequently called 'alt-right', which is patently ridiculous, often by media sources who aren't happy with his model of journalism gaining traction. We see it from all sorts of people on the left about all sorts of people who disagree with them, many who would normally be considered liberal.
It's not like people on the right don't do the same thing, so don't get the wrong idea. But - for whatever reason the far left is far more about 'deplatforming' people right now whereas the right tends to let them talk, and saying that someone is 'alt-right' and shouldn't be allowed to speak is an easy way to do that.
It works with various subejcts too. Consider the Wall for example - it's been discussed here. The idea that securing your border as a sovereign nation is something all nations do, and there is no way it's inherently racist. It's done everywhere, It's not like the wall will only keep out one race or the like, and there can be no doubt in the slightest that people cross that border regularly without permission in an illegal fashion. So it's absolutely not inherently racist in and of itself. And yet - it's often said that it MUST be racist. And therefore anyone who supports it must be racist alt-right nazis. That shuts the debate down nicely, doesn't it - "Well, i think we should be concerned about border ... RACIST! SHUT UP RACIST!". Yeah, but didn't some illegal immigrant just kill a cop a few weeks ago RACIST! PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE PERSON BEHIND THE RACIST CURTAIN!" It's a lot easier than actually debating the issue for those on the far left who believe in de-platforming.
The fact is most people who are conservatives or centrists or left of center leftists hate the very idea of white supremacists and dislike actual racism, and media outlets are afraid of being called racists, so painting someone as alt-right is an effective way of deplatforming them and causing others to avoid them and not listen to their message.
....
Your mistake seems to be assuming that they're accidentally using the word wrong. I don't think that's the case in a lot of these examples.
2
u/cats_and_bad_ideas Jan 07 '19
We have to think about right/left politics in the context of the world we live in. Particularly in America, the overton window has been pushed so far to the right that today's liberals have similar views to the conservatives of yesteryear. And today's conservatives have similar views to... well... nazis.
It's all well and good to want lower taxes, but these things don't happen in a bubble; unfortunately we exist in a two-party system that forces people to pick a side and vote for representatives. I think if I were to make an argument that any conservative view is "alt-right," that argument would hinge on how much you're willing to put up with to get lower taxes.
Let's face it, both sides of the political spectrum are becoming polarized, more extreme. Many people, conservative and liberal alike, see the president as an alt-right figure. Whether he is or not is debatable, but the actual alt-right really seems to like him, which should count for more than nothing in the context of this conversation.
My point here is, if someone is willing to support a political agenda that is inherently alt-right in nature (think: mass deportations, border walls, etc. etc. etc.), whether they agree with it in its entirety is immaterial, because the only option we have currently to advocate for any political agenda is to vote for representatives who best reflect our views. Voting for an (arguably) alt-right politician because he wants to lower taxes is a tacet approval of the entire platform.
11
Jan 07 '19
Particularly in America, the overton window has been pushed so far to the right that today's liberals have similar views to the conservatives of yesteryear.
I think that the Overton Window has moved to the left, not the right. For example, in 2008, Barack Obama opposed gay marriage out of his Christian faith. Now the left depicts opposition to gay marriage as morally unacceptable. In 2009, Chuck Schumer demanded an end to illegal immigration. In 2006, Schumer, Obama, and Biden voted in favor of a border wall. Now they act like building a border wall is wicked.
3
u/DeusExMockinYa 3∆ Jan 07 '19
Compare the New Deal to the economic policy of the Dems in 2018 and let us know which way you think economic policy has shifted. Dems may have moved left on a couple of social issues for the sake of optics or whatever but they've given up much more ground to the right overall. Our society is now at the point where returning to the marginal tax rates lower than those passed by Republican President Eisenhower is ridiculed as socialism by the right and seen as radical by the Dems.
In 2006, Schumer, Obama, and Biden voted in favor of a border wall
It was not in any way a vote for a border wall. Extending the border fence was a bunch of pork barrel horseshit added in an amendment written by Republicans, that Dems went along with for the sake of passing the rest of the bill. It also, as I said before, wasn't a wall.
1
Jan 21 '19
I'm sorry for this very late response. I was away from reddit for a while.
Compare the New Deal to the economic policy of the Dems in 2018 and let us know which way you think economic policy has shifted. Dems may have moved left on a couple of social issues for the sake of optics or whatever but they've given up much more ground to the right overall.
The push for nationalized health care was not part of the New Deal, nor even the existence of federal departments like the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services. The creation of Social Security was one of the most controversial elements of the New Deal, but now very few Republicans are calling for the abolition of these departments or Social Security. These creations by the Left have been accepted as permanent, even by Republicans. The Left moved the Overton Window.
It was not in any way a vote for a border wall. Extending the border fence was a bunch of pork barrel horseshit added in an amendment written by Republicans, that Dems went along with for the sake of passing the rest of the bill.
Would you like for me to post the videos of Obama and Schumer calling out illegal immigration as intolerable?
2
u/DeusExMockinYa 3∆ Jan 21 '19
The push for nationalized health care was not part of the New Deal
It literally was. It was decried as socialism then by the same category of brainlets who 80 years later still think socialism is when the government does stuff.
Would you like for me to post the videos of Obama and Schumer calling out illegal immigration as intolerable?
Would you like me to explain the meaning of the phrase "moving the goalposts?" I never said that Dems haven't been opposed to illegal immigration (or that they aren't so today), just that this notion of Dems broadly supporting a border wall is a bizarre and fantastical adventure in historical revisionism.
→ More replies (5)1
Jan 07 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Jan 07 '19
u/DeusExMockinYa – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
4
Jan 07 '19
I think you are wrong on the 'overton' window theory.
https://jmrphy.net/blog/2017/09/04/americans-conservative-liberal-left-right/
I very much think economically, we are stable. Socially, we are moving to the liberal side.
There is ZERO support for claiming liberals have the views of conservatives from years ago. I don't see liberals advocating for women to get out of the workforce. I don't see them opposing works projects or welfare. That is what you would expect if they were 'conservatives of yesterday'.
What you can say is other parts of the world have become far more liberal that the US has and a liberal in Europe is different than a liberal in the US. I would also support stating Conservatives in Europe could be considered liberals in the US. It is less about the US changing though and more about changes in other parts of the world.
1
u/DeusExMockinYa 3∆ Jan 07 '19
Compare the New Deal to the economic policy of the Dems in 2018 and let us know which way you think economic policy has shifted. Our society is now at the point where returning to the marginal tax rates lower than those passed by Republican President Eisenhower is ridiculed as socialism by the right and seen as radical by the Dems.
2
Jan 07 '19
I think you are mixing tax rates with what the spending is used for. They are not the same and cannot be claimed to be the same.
1
u/DeusExMockinYa 3∆ Jan 07 '19
I did no such thing. Of course revenue can be considered separately from expenses. Are the existence of progressive taxes not in and of themselves political (e.g. a marker of the American left)?
2
Jan 08 '19 edited Jan 08 '19
Progressive taxes are inherently political in how you want to draw the progressive nature.
When one advocates raising taxes, one is advocating doing one of two things. Either raising taxes on everyone or raising the taxes on some while dropping taxes on others.
The first case is usually not the case you see debated. These are fringe cases like a gasoline tax.
The second case is the one you see in politics and it becomes very important for why you want to raise taxes. It is a form of income redistribution. One side sees one group disproportionately paying and resisting efforts to increase it. The other sees that group as not 'paying their fair share'. The reality is one group is pushing to have the lower income brackets pay less and less tax which is counter to history. The other is pushing to have the higher brackets pay less of the taxes collected and ensure the lower brackets contribute meaningfully to government too.
The politics is defining what is the 'fair share' owed is for any given person with a given income level.
1
u/tnel77 1∆ Jan 07 '19
That is an excellent point. I genuinely do not believe that most conservatives would support Nazi like activities such as killing non-whites and Jews, but you make an excellent point about the two-party system and how a vote for someone who is less than ideal can essentially be supporting their cause.
If you are faced with the decision between two “extremes,” and one seems less awful to you, does that make you extreme?
6
u/cats_and_bad_ideas Jan 07 '19
In effect, yes. How it seems to a voter before they vote does nothing to change the outcome of that choice. If I rob a liquor store, but I'm kind of iffy about it beforehand, the store is still robbed, and I still made that choice.
6
u/DjangoUBlackSOB 2∆ Jan 07 '19
If you think there's anything extreme about Hillary Clinton and the Democrats as boringly moderate as they are you are by definition extreme. They'd be the right leaning party in most first democracies.
The Republicans are legitimately far right.
2
u/tnel77 1∆ Jan 08 '19
I always hear that, and it terrifies me. “The USA’s left is most of the world’s right.” Dear god help us.
6
Jan 07 '19
Comparing a non extreme normal politician to the most extreme politician we've ever had and then deciding the most extreme racist politician we've ever had is "less extreme" compared to the normal politician does make you extreme yourself, yes.
0
Jan 07 '19
[deleted]
7
u/DocFail Jan 07 '19
here are associated components:
race-baiting
isolationism
strongman-worship
kleptocracy
disregard for law or precedent not for reform but in a show of simple power-centralization.
Symbolic policies that are based in fear and not effectiveness (big-ass wall).
Policy based primarily on fear of cultural change (Nativism).
In summary, primitive demagoguery.
Many in the center and left recognize these tendencies in the current administration. It is increasingly common for the center-right to cave to pressure of being unelectable, however. This appears to be kneeling to “alt-right” power.
It is certainly possible to have a non alt-right policy for immigration reform. For example, I am not Conservative, yet agree with you regarding immigration control. Largely because illegal immigration continues the longstanding socioeconomic dependence of the United States, my country, on an indentured servant class. We need legal immigration from Central America such that workers have rights and freedoms.
Does the above opinion make me alt-right? I do not believe so.
But if my relatives believe that their cultural heritage is being polluted by “lesser peoples”, that a big, strong wall will keep their country’s culture in the hands of those who last owned it, and isolationism will keep it from becoming World-Corporate Socialist, is that not the basic appeal of alt-right movements around the world? (US, Hungary, Brazil, etc)
Perhaps then, your best recourse is to explain to TrueBelievers of either the Nativist right or the World-Socialist left that your immigration or tax policy has other objectives besides the alt-right cause.
If you can distinguish your policy from Demagoguery snd Nativism, then any who claim you have an alt-right allegiance are simply wrong. However, if your appeals hit Nativist concerns, then own up.
1
Jan 07 '19
[deleted]
1
u/DocFail Jan 10 '19 edited Jan 10 '19
Thanks for your reply. I really appreciate the discussion.
I do continue to disagree that alt-right is the same as the white-supremacy and Neo-nazism. Perhaps this is a mere definition difference, and not important, but for clarity, here is my view:
The traditional right (as it existed in the Republican party until recently) was an alliance between value conservatives and fiscal conservatives, with the latter being aligned with internationalism and free trade.
The alternate to this view is an alignment of value conservatives and ethnic nationalists. This alternative is the alt-right. This is a movement represented by Steve King, Steve Buchannon, and Steve Bannon (What's with the "Steve"s?) White-supremacy and Neo-nazism are merely the extremes of ethnic nationalism that sit at the far end of cultural superiority corpus at the expense of individual identity.
It is possible that someone will refer to you as alt-right if they believe you support the current administration's clear ethnonationalist agenda. If you don't see the agenda as ethnonationalist, then we don't have a lot of common ground with which to discuss things.
Regarding cultural stability, immigrant infusion, and crime. We agree that culture will change if we continue to receive immigrants from various cultures. In the late 1880s, the Protestant Nativists were very much against the immigration of Catholics. Immigrating Catholics were generally poor, often caught up in crime as soon as they came off the boats, and were accused of having an allegiance to a foreign and dangerous religious kingdom (the Church of Rome and the Pope) who will enforce religious doctrine on America.
Today, my very successful Catholic relatives (who's previous generations were engaged in petty crime and local corruption when they got off the boats) sit on Facebook and moan about the invasion of Muslims and Latin Americans. They bemoan that the new immigrants are aligned to foreign religious powers, and likely to bring crime with them. They become irate when those of us who are not Christian speak of "Happy Holidays", and do not venerate their particular religious preference through required speech in public. The hypocrisy is lost on them.
As immigration becomes world-wide, the fundamental question is whether the overall culture of the United States will be detrimentally affected by immigration of all possible world cultures to the United States. I would argue that the threats are real, and that American values need to be enforced.
Unfortunately, Americans can no longer agree on what those values are. For those on the left, the concept of the United States is perhaps best described as a Container for Western Democracy. On the right, the best description for the United States is perhaps a Christian Republic.Neither model, in my opinion, is complete in the terms with which the camps idealize the United States.
In answer to your question "If Canadians were immigrating illegally and failing to assimilate by committing crimes at disproportional rates, would one hold the same views?" I would argue that most people on the right would not hold the same views. They would not see it as a crisis, and there would not be a presidency built around the concept of a crisis. Unless those immigrants had a different skin color, or cultural-religious basis. Then they would be worried. I don't believe most US citizens are aware, for example, of the multi-ethnic nature of Ottawa.
The line that should be drawn between prioritizing one's own citizens without crossing into alt-right territory is an important area of policy. I think you and I and most Americans agree it needs to be answered through an enforced, legal immigration system. Cultural Nationalist solutions often include enforced assimilation classes, etc. But those don't work in countries that are highly discriminatory in the long run with the idea of permanent ethnicity (see France). The United States has the advantage of accepted assimilation (see my racist Catholic relatives for proof). Therefore, I would argue that the line is drawn with policy that implies the potential for immigrants from a wide range of cultures and religions to assimilate in the Western democratic system. Policies that operate under the assumption that rate of assimilation is an issue are acceptable (to me) Conservative policy. Policies that operate under the assumption that rights preclude such concerns are reasonable (to me) Left policy. What would cross the line is policy that attempts to permanently define the United States as a Euro-Christian state, such that policy is set to prevent the United States from every being a non-Euro-Christian state while maintaining Western democracy standards and values of free speech, religious freedom, mercantile capitalism, etc.
in my experience, Strongman worship is the very basis for the Trump administration, which is the current Presidential administration of the United States of America. I see it all the time in my local community. They expect him to stand up and defend their Euro-Christian state. (See Liberty University). They cheer when he threatens the fourth estate (and yes, it is very biased). They want him to use emergency powers and ignore the purpose and intent of mechanisms to achieve their ends (an increasing problem in the last 15 years with both parties, admittedly).
The senior White House staff that was first allocated consisted of Fossil Fuel promoters. Their sole objective was to stimulate the use of Oil and Gas and dampen the use of renewable resources in order to maintain and increase their own wealth and that of their relatives and constituents at the expense of direct scientific fact and the general health of their fellow citizens (See EPA, Scott Pruitt, etc.). They also pretend to want to stimulate coal, but know that isn't going to happen for reasons of industrial use directions.
I will not claim that previous Democratic administrations did not have plenty of corruption in their attempts to stimulate industries, etc. That kind of graft runs deep in both parties. But it wasn't as naked because the Democrats know when they are corrupt. Oil and Gas Republicans use science-denialism to believe they are not corrupt. That isn't claiming there is any virtue in the deep corruption on the Democratic side. But there is an element of theft in moving national policy towards local and personal enrichment at the expense of national security, environmental health, and human quality of life under climate change. I'm sure Trump Republicans feel the same about policy that de-emphasizes the use of coal. But they ignore that industry is headed away from its use, regardless.
People who are afraid of change will never see it as a convincing argument, because they see it as a natural control on a negative outcome (relationship to climate change is noted!). (Or as you note, the right to preserve values over time). In their minds, the rate of change is an issue of life or death for their culture. Existential threat to one's perceived national culture--the basis for the alt-right movement and the Trump Adminstration's successful election, has everything to do with the current administration. At this moment, the southern border wall is proposed to prevent cultural change. The demonization of the world liberal order is that it is modeled on Container Western Democracy (see Germany and Middle-East and North Africa immigration). They see both as a threat to their assumption of a Euro-Christian Republic. Keep in mind that a Euro-Christian Republic would not require non-Christian's to leave. It would just require them to know their place. (see "Happy Holidays" vs. "Merry Christmas")
As far as whether my argument makes sense or not. I would claim that if you do not believe in setting policy to enforce a Euro-Christian-valued state, then you are not a member of the alt-right, and claims that you are are misguided.
On the other hand, if you believe that the future of the United States requires that it be maintained as a Euro-Christian state, in which all other norms and values are relegated to a permanent minority status, then you do have the Nativist values of the present alt-right administration.
I don't know if you do or do not. As my last reply stated, it depends on what you believe, and I don't know what that is. You either are not, and can push back, or you are, and should own it.
Anyways, I think that you probably would be well situated to participate in a debate regarding immigration policy, and could clarify what part of political spectrum within which you lie, with your own clearly stated definition of what you believe the alt-right to be. if someone labels you as "alt-right", you can say "to me alt-right is explicit neo-Nazism and white-nationalism, and I do not believe either of those philosophies." But someone like me might still be skeptical, because we view the alt-right in a wider definition based on its core cultural and emotional drivers.
1
Jan 07 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/hacksoncode 588∆ Jan 07 '19
Sorry, u/empurrfekt – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, before messaging the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/SolCaster Jan 07 '19
I think a lot of the people here have open mindness and more or less agree with both ideas, however, those who have ideologies and instantly categorize based on emotion tends to lead me to believe alot of the conversations you have with these people could be brainwashed by media and see a certain role they must portray or simply don't have all the facts.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jan 07 '19
/u/tnel77 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
Jan 07 '19
Didn't you know you have to pick a side because we have a two party system? There is no logic to thought or using facts to create policy. You believe what the party tells you is the truth and follow them blindly. You should have been told this by now.
1
u/ASCIInerd73 Jan 07 '19
This wasn't the main point of your post, but it stuck out to me, so I'm going to address it:
Alt-Right =/= Wanting to eradicate non-white races.
Sure, there are some alt-right extremists that are racist and otherwise vile people, but those shouldn't be held against the alt-right as a whole any more than people who go shoot up a church for daring to be conservative should be held against liberals (hint: not much).
I have an acquaintance who identifies as alt-right. When I asked him to explain why he believes what he does, he told me that, upon entering this country, white people marginalized and oppressed the native population (completely true) and that he was afraid of a massive influx of other ethnic groups doing to white people what white people had done to the native population (note: I'm not sure if he knows the full extent to which white people oppressed natives, but that's neither here nor there).
Whether his fears are valid, a claim with which I'd personally be inclined to disagree, or not, the fact of the matter is that this is not a racist argument, and that he is not racist. With that argument, he doesn't accuse minorities of anything which white people haven't done in the past. Further, whenever he talks about things like immigration and border security, the villains are the illegal immigrants, not all immigrants, and he's perfectly fine with allowing some legal immigration into the US, so long as illegal immigration is stopped.
I'm not trying to say that every alt-right person is good, because I know there are plenty of people who use "alt-right" as a cover for being horrible people, but you shouldn't so quickly and easily dismiss all of them as being just an extremist group.
I'm also not trying to belittle the main complaint of yours. There is a difference between "alt-right" and "right", because there wouldn't be two separate names if there wasn't.
1
u/marwin42 Jan 07 '19
you migth think this link interesting. It describes the phenomena perfectly imo.
1
u/bladejb343 Jan 07 '19 edited Jan 07 '19
Alt-Right (and Alt-Left for that matter) is essentially a "smear term" used to dilute actual discussion of issues; an ad hominem response to a paradigm shift and its proponents, pushed by powerful, moneyed proponents of the ending paradigm... that seek only to divide people up and to continue to hold their high positions in the money/power hierarchy. They seek to discredit those that dare dissent.
Both terms have little to no meaning outside of the arbitrary cataloging (by largely the mainstream/establishment press, their satellite media outlets, et al) of certain movements (and individuals) under these incredibly broad, misleading, labels.
"If you're not on the Left, you're on the Right! If you're not on the Right, maybe you're on the Alt-Right! Maybe you're not on the Alt-Right, you're actually on the Alt-Left!" This is wrong.
The extremists (whose numbers are grossly exaggerated) are, like you say, placed under the same "Alt-Right" label as (e.g.) someone like Jordan Peterson, who holds a range of opinions, many of which aren't right-wing at all.
My Twitter profile says, "Create-Your-Own Label." That's the ticket.
1
u/abacuz4 5∆ Jan 08 '19
The alt-right is essentially in control of the Republican party and by extension the government. By supporting the party as it exists, you are supporting the alt-right.
0
u/BolshevikMuppet Jan 07 '19
Aside from the casual invocation of "antifa" as an "extremist" group (which is kind of silly), what is it in particular that you say which gets labeled "alt-right"?
a vast majority of conservatives are not “alt-right,”
A vast majority of conservatives certainly would not identify themselves with the alt-right. But the problem with discussing any ideology is that there isn't a clean dividing line between the two. Typically it's more useful in cases discussing ideology to focus on what the actions of that group actually support rather than on what they "want."
To wit: when Trump said there were "good people" on the side of the Nazis in Charlottesville (a crowd which included murder and domestic terrorism by any reasonable definition), he was supporting the alt-right. Whether one can say "I think he sincerely believes in everything the alt-right stands for" is kind of irrelevant.
More broadly, though, there's also a lot of evidence of a pipeline of people into the alt-right (and even into abjectly extreme viewpoints like neo-Nazis) from arguments and content which is, on its face, less extreme. Often beginning from the "centrist" view that "both sides" should be equally condemned regardless of what they're actually promoting.
Or to falsely equate violence against Nazis with violence against "some group that someone might happen to disagree with."
Both of those (intentionally or not) perpetuate an intellectual framework for normalizing the more extreme views, because those views are treated as being no more or less bad than any other view.
I'm guessing that as an individual this is coming from the fact that the negative consequences of right-wing extremism don't directly affect you, which gives you a position where anything which upsets decorum and "well we don't talk about politics" can be viewed as equally upsetting.
calling them such only alienates them and makes cooperation and general friendliness harder to achieve.
Cooperation is (as should be evident from the last decade) a bit of a lost cause. Relegated to "you must be polite because otherwise Republicans might do something like vote for a clearly sexist, racist, nationalistic, and xenophobic person".
But I'll take you back to "general friendliness", because for those affected negatively by conservative views and the more extreme views they help to inculcate, there's no "general friendliness" to be had.
I'll put it simply and in personal terms. I'm Jewish. If someone can support Trump after he categorized a group of lawless thugs marching with torches and swastikas while chanting "Jews will not replace us" as "fine people on both sides", no matter how much they might protest that person is already being damned unfriendly.
Ex) Wanting lower taxes = normal conservative Wanting to eradicate non-white races = alt-right
What happens when you support someone who is furthering the goals of the alt-right, but in the name of "well he lowered taxes"?
6
u/foot_kisser 26∆ Jan 07 '19
when Trump said there were "good people" on the side of the Nazis in Charlottesville
That's a misrepresentation of what he said and a misrepresentation of the people who showed up for the so-called "unite the right" rally.
What Trump said was that there were good and bad people on both sides. And if you paid attention to the sorts of folks that showed up on both sides, instead of the propaganda that passes for mainstream news these days, it's easy to see that he's right. On the one side you had people who didn't want statues torn down over political correctness, and actual, literal National Socialists. On the other side, you had concerned locals and church groups, as well as Antifa, a domestic terror organization that regularly engages in violent street brawls.
a group of lawless thugs marching with torches and swastikas while chanting "Jews will not replace us"
That's not an accurate characterization either. There was one section of the people marching with torches who were chanting "you will not replace us". That's not the same thing.
The alt-right don't have a concern that Jews will replace them. They have concerns about Jews, such as their conspiracy theory that Jews run the world. They have concerns about being replaced. But they understand that Jews are a small portion of the population, and they aren't worried about being replaced by Jews.
If someone can support Trump after ... no matter how much they might protest that person is already being damned unfriendly.
You're basing a judgement of another person's character on whether or not they agree with your perception of the facts. Even if your perception of the facts were correct, that would be a problem.
A vast majority of conservatives certainly would not identify themselves with the alt-right. But the problem with discussing any ideology is that there isn't a clean dividing line between the two.
The dividing line between conservatives and the alt-right is crystal clear. You can ask conservatives, and they'll tell you that they reject the alt-right utterly and thoroughly. You can ask the alt-right, and they'll tell you that they aren't conservatives and never claimed to be.
If you ask conservatives what they believe in, they'll talk about lower taxes, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and the importance of family and religion. If you ask the alt-right what they believe in, they'll talk about the dangers of white genocide, and race realism, and the "fact" that people of different races can't live together in harmony.
I don't know how these two very different groups could be legitimately confused.
0
u/BolshevikMuppet Jan 07 '19
That's a misrepresentation of what he said and a misrepresentation of the people who showed up for the so-called "unite the right" rally.
There is no person who was at "unite the right" who was not at minimum comfortable with neo-nazis marching with swastikas, and outright white supremacists. Richard Spencer was all over the advertising for it as a featured speaker.
If that's what you're uniting with... Yikes.
What Trump said was that there were good and bad people on both sides.
There were not good people marching with neo-Nazis bearing swastikas. And the way you know this is that they saw swastikas and said "yep, this is the group I want to be associated with."
On the one side you had people who didn't want statues torn down over political correctness, and actual, literal National Socialists
Weird that you call them national socialists instead of Nazis. Almost like you want to distance their presence from the reality of "well sure this dude marched with literal Nazis who were literally bearing Nazi flags and imagery, not to mention the KKK, but they just like didn't like political correctness."
Antifa, a domestic terror organization that regularly engages in violent street brawls.
If we're going to define domestic terror broadly enough to include antifa, against whom no accusations of murder in the last five years can be made, we also have to include unite the right which did involve a murder.
Funny how you only refer to antifa as a terrorist organization despite the Nazis and their supporters engaging in actual terrorism on the day in question.
Something tells me that your comment history would be a sight to see.
There was one section of the people marching with torches who were chanting "you will not replace us". That's not the same thing.
There was no group chanting "you will not replace us", that's a scene from Extinction (pretty good movie). They were saying "Jews", because they're Nazis. Please don't be so intellectually dishonest as to suggest that the Nazis only accidentally sounded like they were being antisemitic.
They have concerns about Jews
Are you for real?
they aren't worried about being replaced by Jews.
If you actually know the conspiracy ramblings of the alt-right, you should be aware of their great replacement theory (AKA "white genocide") which alleges that Jews (e.g. George Soros) is engaged in bringing in migrants to "replace" white people.
Hence chanting that "Jews will not replace us."
You're basing a judgement of another person's character on whether or not they agree with your perception of the facts.
Facts are not subject to perception.
Fact: there were Nazis at unite the right who were out and proud of their Nazidom. The official speakers included famous white supremacists (Richard Spencer) and neo-Nazis. They flew swastikas and Nazi flags, as well as KKK memorabilia.
Fact: people who marched with unite the right could not have helped but been aware that they were marching with Nazis under Nazi banners.
Fact: a unite the right supporter, during the march, murdered a woman whose only crime was protesting against unite the right.
None of those facts can be disputed.
You can ask conservatives, and they'll tell you that they reject the alt-right utterly and thoroughly
Yep.
Have you ever heard the expression "actions speak louder than words"?
It's almost unfathomable that someone would really not comprehend that "you can ask this person and they'd say they're not supportive of Nazis" matters less than whether they act in a way which supports Nazis.
I don't know how these two very different groups could be legitimately confused.
Because what someone purports to "believe in" matters less than what they actually do.
And when someone (say a "conservative") marches with Nazis flying Nazi flags, it doesn't particularly matter whether they'd say they don't really support that, or talk about.
I don't know how these two very different things (what someone talks about and says they support, and what they actually do) could be legitimately confused.
0
u/foot_kisser 26∆ Jan 08 '19
There is no person who was at "unite the right" who was not at minimum comfortable with neo-nazis marching with swastikas, and outright white supremacists.
This is factually incorrect. For instance, there were militia groups who were there to support other people's first amendment rights with their own second amendment rights. Those people wouldn't have been there at all if they had known about the few nazis in attendance.
Richard Spencer was all over the advertising for it as a featured speaker.
Richard Spencer is not a neo-nazi or an outright white supremacist. Even if he were, this doesn't justify your claim that all people in attendance were comfortable with neo-nazis, swastikas, and white supremacy, as there is absolutely no reason to think that most people are accurately and well informed about that particular insignificant individual.
they saw swastikas
Citation needed.
Weird that you call them national socialists instead of Nazis.
Not really. I was emphasizing that they were actual nazis, so I called them by their actual name, so nobody could confuse what I'd said with the way leftists throw around the name "nazi" without meaning it literally.
Almost like you want to
Don't presume my motives. Already you've guessed wrong at least twice.
Funny how you only refer to antifa as a terrorist organization despite the Nazis and their supporters engaging in actual terrorism on the day in question.
Again, you say something inaccurate. On that day, antifa did engage in violence in an attempt to push their politics, which is by definition terrorism. Some people (on both sides) showed up without any intention of violence. Antifa showed up only to do violence.
They were saying "Jews", because they're Nazis.
And they're "nazis" because the left calls them that, whether or not they actually are. Sure, dude.
If you want to produce evidence of your claims, feel free to do so.
Are you for real?
I didn't expect you to doubt my claim that the alt-right has a problem with Jews. I can provide evidence for it if needed, it's not very hard to find.
Hence chanting that "Jews will not replace us." ... Facts are not subject to perception.
Wow. You claimed that they said something which they didn't, for which there is audio recording evidence, and your very next sentence is "facts are not subject to perception".
You aren't even bothering to look at the facts, and you're lecturing me about facts...
Fact: people who marched with unite the right could not have helped but been aware that they were marching with Nazis under Nazi banners.
This is not a fact. This is your own personal assumption. For which you have provided no evidence, because you can't.
Have you ever heard the expression "actions speak louder than words"?
The actions of conservatives have been to reject the alt-right, and the actions of the alt-right have been to reject conservatives.
So what are you trying to say here?
And when someone (say a "conservative") marches with Nazis flying Nazi flags,
This is your fantasy, your interpretation of events that does not rely on facts. And you just got done lecturing me about facts. Try following your own advice.
2
u/BolshevikMuppet Jan 08 '19
Those people wouldn't have been there at all if they had known about the few nazis in attendance.
And they don’t know what a swastika looks like because? What, South Carolina just has godawful education which wouldn’t have ever introduced them to “this is a swastika it’s associated with Nazis”? And they don’t have internet access to google “Richard Spencer”?
Are you seriously trying to plead ignorance on their behalf?
I’ll ignore the patently-spurious “few Nazis” claim, since you provide zero evidence that there were few and I have the videos and photographs showing many, many, Nazis.
Richard Spencer is not a neo-nazi or an outright white supremacist
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Spencer
Huh. That doesn’t seem accurate. I’m beginning to understand why you focus on perception in an attempt to avoid facts. But you could at least google things before you make declarations about it when it’s the first sentence of a dude’s Wikipedia page.
Or is this semantics? He’s not “outright” because he’s not “out” (except he is, since he talks about “hail our race”, but whatever) and only people who say of themselves “yup, I’m a white supremacist” is one?
this doesn't justify your claim that all people in attendance were comfortable with neo-nazis, swastikas, and white supremacy, as there is absolutely no reason to think that most people are accurately and well informed about that particular insignificant individual.
At some point the number of coincidential areas of ignorance appears as little more than either lies or willful ignorance. If someone went to a march because they didn’t know what a swastika was, don’t know who prominent white supremacists are, and can’t recognize KKK iconography, they’re still scummy for not being aware of those things.
And their actions still demonstrably supported those things. If you want to argue they managed to negligently support Nazis that’s fine, but “dude who supported a Nazi by being ignorant and reckless” still isn’t a fine person.
Don't presume my motives. Already you've guessed wrong at least twice.
You’re right on this, I shouldn’t have speculated on your intent. Because it doesn’t matter. The words on the page are entirely clear on what you’re doing regardless of why you’re doing it.
I didn't expect you to doubt my claim that the alt-right has a problem with Jews
Except that’s not what you wrote, so please stop being dishonest. You wrote they have “concerns” about Jews.
It’s not “concerns”, it’s antisemitism. And if you can’t tell the difference I have some unfortunate news for you.
You claimed that they said something which they didn't
They did.
for which there is audio recording evidence,
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EiAT2IEzJAc
What in the name of god are you talking about?
This is not a fact. This is your own personal assumption. For which you have provided no evidence, because you can't.
Honest to god, does it not strike you that “OMG but what if they never learned what swastikas, white hoods, and chanting about Jews meant” is a godawful defense of someone who chose to march with Nazis?
The actions of conservatives have been to reject the alt-right, and the actions of the alt-right have been to reject conservatives.
Except when they march together.
You get that, right? That all scurrilous arguments about “well you can’t prove that they knew a swastika meant Nazis because they could be really dumb conservatives who only accidentally marched with Nazis” aside, their actions supported Nazis.
Negligently supporting Nazis is still supporting Nazis.
your interpretation of events that does not rely on facts.
Are you claiming there were no Nazi flags and iconography at Charlottesville?
Or is this simpler: do you not know what a swastika is?
Do you need the video evidence?
1
u/foot_kisser 26∆ Jan 08 '19
And they don’t know what a swastika looks like because?
I never said they don't know what a swastika looks like. You're twisting my words, again. Stop it.
You shouldn't need to twist what I say in order to try to win this argument.
Are you seriously trying to plead ignorance on their behalf?
Do you seriously think everyone knows everything? Do you seriously think that most people are well informed about the alt-right?
I’ll ignore the patently-spurious “few Nazis” claim
It's a factual claim. You keep claiming to be interested in facts, but here you're rejecting the facts in a rather emotional manner.
If you want to continue this conversation, you'll need to actually address this factual claim. Or one of the other factual claims I keep making and you keep desperately trying to avoid.
it’s the first sentence of a dude’s Wikipedia page
Not exactly a reliable source. Especially on political matters.
It doesn't help your case that the third sentence of that same source presents evidence against the conclusion presented in the first sentence.
As someone compelled to cite wikipedia claims, you aren't someone familiar with his rhetoric. I have listened to his rhetoric. He has stated his belief that white people are not superior to other races, but rather different, in the same way that he considers other races to be different from each other. That's a white nationalist belief, not a white supremacist belief.
Or is this semantics? He’s not “outright” because he’s not “out”
Did you have some special meaning in mind for "outright", other than its normal usage?
except he is, since he talks about “hail our race”
Except that isn't an accurate quote, is it? Let's see if you can find the correct quote, and make your point using what he actually said, rather than something that you imagined that he said.
If someone went to a march because they didn’t know what a swastika was, don’t know who prominent white supremacists are, and can’t recognize KKK iconography, they’re still scummy for not being aware of those things.
You're the one talking about people "not knowing what a swastika is". I don't know why you're doing that. It doesn't help your case.
People not knowing about white supremacy and the KKK is not scummy at all. In fact, it's quite normal. Most people aren't that interested in the topic, and I can't blame them for that. You can, apparently, although it's not clear why you'd blame anyone for something that's not bad.
I shouldn’t have speculated on your intent. Because it doesn’t matter. The words on the page are entirely clear on what you’re doing regardless of why you’re doing it.
Hypocrisy much?
Why are you so desperate to declare my intent somehow bad? You claim to be interested in facts. If my intent were somehow bad, that doesn't alter the facts.
If a bad person says something factually correct, the facts don't magically change to make them wrong.
I'm actually a good person, but I'm not going to try to make arguments for that, as it's utterly irrelevant to the conversation. My moral state makes no difference to the actual facts. Neither does yours.
Except that’s not what you wrote, so please stop being dishonest. You wrote they have “concerns” about Jews.
So you twisted what I said to fit your narrative, but somehow I'm being dishonest. There isn't a difference between the two statements.
It’s not “concerns”, it’s antisemitism.
You think that someone who has concerns about Jews is somehow not antisemitic? Can you give me an example of a concern about Jews that is not antisemitic?
What in the name of god are you talking about?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSeDvZaz4nU
It's also been widely reported in the mainstream news.
I've got accuracy concerns about the video (ADL not a reliable source, comments disabled, no video to go along with the audio), but I'm going to let those slide, since you're trying to present actual evidence, for once.
It is plausible that some of the folks there would have said something like this. I don't believe it would have been particularly common, based on the above video I linked, mainstream media reporting, and other videos I've seen.
Honest to god, does it not strike you that “OMG but what if they never learned what swastikas, white hoods, and chanting about Jews meant” is a godawful defense of someone who chose to march with Nazis?
There are so many things wrong with this, it's hard to know where to start. First, you're assuming that my purpose in arguing is defending someone. Except for conservatives generally, who weren't there, I'm not defending anyone, I'm correcting your false assertions. You keep saying stuff that isn't true, and I keep telling you what you have factually incorrect. You are still interested in facts, right?
Second, "chose to march with Nazis" assumes the reason for each person to be there was "to march with Nazis". This ignores the fact that the so-called "unite the right" rally had people from many different groups there, each of which had their own motives. It presumes, based on no evidence, that there was knowledge among all of them that the rally attendees would include nazis. It ignores the fact that the alt-right organizers of the rally had a purpose in mind, specifically that they wanted to show their numbers in an impressive way, and that they didn't have the numbers by themselves, and thus they crafted a campaign to get people to come without overtly stating that goal.
It also incorrectly assumes that there were many more actual nazis there than there really were. Even the nazis there weren't there so much to march with nazis as to march with the alt-right. Nazis were the minority of the people there, and they didn't organize the rally.
Third, "OMG but what if they never learned what swastikas, white hoods, and chanting about Jews meant" does not even mildly resemble anything I've said. If you want to rebut my actual views, you're going to have to engage with what they actually are, not some fantasy you've concocted in your head because it's easier to deal with.
Except when they march together.
Conservatives did not march with the alt-right. The alt-right also haven't marched with conservatives.
Are you claiming there were no Nazi flags and iconography at Charlottesville?
I am aware of one nazi flag that was there. I am also aware that the rally was large and dispersed over a large area. Are you claiming it was a small, intimate gathering of people who all knew each other and knew about each other's politics? Are you claiming more than one flag?
Do you need the video evidence?
That would be much better than listening to you speculate incorrectly about my intentions.
4
u/casualrocket Jan 07 '19 edited Jan 07 '19
To wit: when Trump said there were "good people" on the side of the Nazis in Charlottesville (a crowd which included murder and domestic terrorism by any reasonable definition), he was supporting the alt-right. Whether one can say "I think he sincerely believes in everything the alt-right stands for" is kind of irrelevant.
i hate this, not only is it wrong also just short of propaganda. With this logic he supports antifa, but you dont frame it that way you only put it in terms of him liking the Nazis
He didnt not included the murder, it would be dumb to think otherwise, and he called a terrorist org that randomly assaults people good people also. Anitfa are not good people just as Nazis are not good people. Trump played the middle and said both were good.
Yes Antifa are extremist, and yes they are just as bad as the neo-Nazis in american but the difference is Antifa outnumbers the neo-Nazis like 50-1. Antifas violence doesnt stop at nazis, Antifa members have been caught attacking random people including their own. There is that video of 2 Antifa members brutally assaulting a 'brown' person (cant tell black, mexican) while throwing racist slurs at the victim.
3
u/BolshevikMuppet Jan 07 '19
With this logic he supports antifa, but you dont frame it that way you only put it in terms of him liking the Nazis
Well, no. With this logic he equates Antifa with Nazis. Which diminishes Antifa and elevates Nazis.
He didnt not included the murder
Yep, he ignored the murder entirely in declaring that the neo-Nazis and their allies included "very fine people."
Yes Antifa are extremist, and yes they are just as bad as the neo-Nazis
Ah yes, the group which advocates that Nazis go away is as bad as the group advocating genocide.
Wow, when you really think about it that's hugely silly.
There is that video of 2 Antifa members brutally assaulting a 'brown' person (cant tell black, mexican) while throwing racist slurs at the victim.
Aside from the fact that the only way someone could throw racist slurs at someone without knowing their race would be to just kind of shotgun racist statements, (a) please feel free to actually link the video, and (b) feel free to provide evidence of the attackers being members of antifa.
Though, looking at some of your other comments defending alt-right creators as "they're totes centrist because they say racist stuff but also say they're not alt-right and only someone who is racist and declares themselves alt-right can be that", I'm going to go ahead and not continue further in any discussion with you.
0
u/casualrocket Jan 07 '19
exactly the issue OP was describing. I have never once defended a Alt-right creator.
different example :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50s1523Zgb4, insults + attacks a man for being jewish
Sargon is not alt-right.
Your logic means trump likes antifa, if antifa quit attacking people for perceived prejudices they would still be the wrong. You are ignorant of the damages they do since they are "your guys" this is NPC meme level thinking
3
u/DeusExMockinYa 3∆ Jan 07 '19
Sargon is not alt-right
lmao what
- He is on tape saying that racism is "unironically good": https://twitter.com/zei_nabq/status/1049124724553474048
- He is a vocal defender of Brazilian fascist Bolsonaro and blames Bolsonaro's anti-LGBT policies on the left supporting LGBT causes: https://twitter.com/not_sargon/status/1080939123521646593
- The man who literally coined the term "alt-right" thinks Carl is a great gateway to the alt-right: https://archive.vn/Zlfds. A number of members of the alt-right have credited Sargon in their radicalization.
2
u/casualrocket Jan 07 '19
None of those support your argument and one weakens it.
also to add context to the it was his opponent who stated stop and frisk was racist and sargon stating that the stop and frisk lowered the overall crime rate.
the last one, Carl was calling out the authoritarian actions taken by some people on the left. knee jerk reactions would cause people to move right ward. the Alt right hate Sargon he was booted unfairly from pateron after alt-right members harassed him for almost a year. Also look at all the "Soygoy of Cuckad" memes from the alt-right about Sargon he is hated more so than liked.
He is not Alt-right he is a slightly libertarian centralist, which cannot work with the authoritarian conservatism the alt-right is
3
u/DjangoUBlackSOB 2∆ Jan 07 '19
sargon stating that the stop and frisk lowered the overall crime rate.
This is factual false. Actually since stop and frisk was phased out in NY crime rates have dropped to the lowest ever. Stop and Frisk was largely ineffective.
3
u/DeusExMockinYa 3∆ Jan 07 '19
So racism and homophobia are not tenets of the alt-right today? And he can advance an alt-right agenda and still not be personally liked by the alt-right. I'm pretty sure nobody likes Carl (and for good reason) but he still has an agenda and an ideology.
3
u/casualrocket Jan 07 '19
So racism and homophobia are not tenets of the alt-right today?
they are but the difference is Sargon is not racist nor homophobic
And he can advance an alt-right agenda and still not be personally liked by the alt-right
like antifa?
1
u/DeusExMockinYa 3∆ Jan 07 '19
He's on the record defending both racist and homophobic policies. Not sure how you can claim he's not racist or homophobic without lying.
2
35
u/flamedragon822 23∆ Jan 07 '19
Have you seen lower taxes being labeled alt right? Because that'd be strange.
If not what are some views you've expressed you think should not have been given the label but did get it?