The alt-right

[LordRahl2]

tbh, despite everything posted here, I still refuse to accept anyone seriously believes what they post. I'm still over 50 on rozalia simply posting satire.

 

I am 90% sure Roz is serious.  CG is trolling though.

[Ayayay]

I am 90% sure Roz is serious. 

See man, that's how they get ya. He's playin' the long con.

[Rozalia]

So your main news source comes from the utubers or somewhere else?

 

I'm not aware of all of them but from the ones I know I assume they're all left wing guys but ones who reject what has been talked about here. The "Alt-right" as it's called is from what I have experienced filled with plenty of left wing folk, folk who want a Socialist leader to lead them who doesn't subscribe to globalism/multiculturalism/mass immigration. 

 

Though I am wary of this line of questioning because it feels as if you won't accept as legitimate any source that isn't mainstream, aka the sources that subscribe almost utterly to the current status quo. If you're outside the mainstream then quite naturally your sources are less credible (ironically the most credible for someone who wants a counter view would be Russia's and Qatar's news on certain issues). 

[Sketchy]

Man this thread got nutty af while I was asleep.

[durmij]

Remember that time the USSR killed 60 million of their own people?

I usually avoid this cesspit of a subforum, but please actually look up the statistics instead of just parroting them. As an anarchist, I hate Stalin in ways most people can't fathom, but facts are facts. Even the most generous estimates place the number around 20 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Calculating_the_number_of_victims

 

Also, everyone stop saying 111 billion. It's so wrong it hurts.

[durmij]

"Most other estimates from reputed scholars and historians tend to range from between 20 and 60 million.

 

In his book, “Unnatural Deaths in the U.S.S.R.: 1928-1954,†I.G. Dyadkin estimated that the USSR suffered 56 to 62 million "unnatural deaths" during that period, with 34 to 49 million directly linked to Stalin."

Yes, the one based on estimates, not facts from after the wall fell. There is a summary of the reasoning why the 20 million number is the reputable one at the bottom of the section.

 

edit:spelling

Edited August 21, 2016 by durmij

[Spite]

Alt-right people want news sources that see the world for what it is. This does not come in the form of your regular news sources, even Breitbart or RT can be no go zones for some alt-right people. Most Alt-right people want news delivered from regular people (who generally also happen to be in some way alt-right) because that's what they see as 'the truth'.

 

I'll give you an example. Remember that time that mentally ill kid shot about 9 people in front of McDonald's? Initial reports from major news sources cited the attacker as a 'tanned German man', when later reports identified him as Iranian and yelling Allahu Ackbar before firing, but the hysteria had already died down by then so no one except alt-right people cared.

 

They see the reports of these attacks and call the wording 'damage control', I'm not sure if you've heard of the term. Alt-right people use it a lot. It's used to identify a piece of writing that is obviously left-wing biased, and its content usually includes such lines as "he was a good boy" or "but look at what the Christians did!" Or "the right wing drove him to do this!". All lies. And the alt-right don't like it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/23/munich-shooting-german-iranian-gunman-targeted-children-outside/

 

Are you serious? The McDonalds attacker was not only far-right and inspired by Breivik (it was the fifth anniversary ffs) he deliberately targeted muslim teenagers. How you crazies can re-interpret that as him being a fundamentalist Iranian I don't know. Literally the only reason you'd think that is because he is brown skinned.

 

 

I'm not aware of all of them but from the ones I know I assume they're all left wing guys but ones who reject what has been talked about here. The "Alt-right" as it's called is from what I have experienced filled with plenty of left wing folk, folk who want a Socialist leader to lead them who doesn't subscribe to globalism/multiculturalism/mass immigration. 

 

Though I am wary of this line of questioning because it feels as if you won't accept as legitimate any source that isn't mainstream, aka the sources that subscribe almost utterly to the current status quo. If you're outside the mainstream then quite naturally your sources are less credible (ironically the most credible for someone who wants a counter view would be Russia's and Qatar's news on certain issues). 

 

 

Populism is populism, it has strains of all ideologies, poorly processed and understood.

 

Btw the quote in your annoying sig uses "it's" when it should be "its".

[Rozalia]

The full situation isn't known but him being German was so sad. Those "foreign" who have no care for their countries nationality it's no hard thing for them, they see <insert people> of their parents as being theirs, they belong. Those however who do care are stuck in the middle in a terrible place. They want to belong to the main group but they're hit in two ways by said group. You have on one side the obvious racists who do not believe they belong, and the other side who postures themselves as virtuous but treats them differently because they ain't quite <insert nationality" because they're Black, Arab, or whatever. This combined with the bullying from Arabs/Turks who he perhaps hated beyond just a personal level (political) put him in a bad state and he did terrible things. Other people see it differently but thats how I see it. 

 

I've met many "non white" or simply naturalized Nationalists myself and they put many "natives" to shame. They will be very important in the fight against the insidious globalists. 

 

Populism is populism, it has strains of all ideologies, poorly processed and understood.

 

Btw the quote in your annoying sig uses "it's" when it should be "its".

 

Oh hello Spite. I haven't talked to you or seen much of you here since Brexit. I hope you're doing well now. 

 

I do believe we've been over this before so I am aware of your stance on this, but to repeat my position on that is that Populism is one of those words that has been pushed by the elites to strictly be a negative thing. Of course having the policies the common person supports is a bad thing... they go counter to the interests of the elite after all. Is the leader of the popular movement charismatic? Popular? Famous? Strong speaker? Then he's a demagogue also. You can add racist on top also these days. It's all very elitist. 

 

Yes you're right what a silly mistake. Thanks for that and the compliment too, much appreciated.

 

[LordRahl2]

Alt-right people want news sources that see the world for what it is. This does not come in the form of your regular news sources, even Breitbart or RT can be no go zones for some alt-right people. Most Alt-right people want news delivered from regular people (who generally also happen to be in some way alt-right) because that's what they see as 'the truth'.

 

Interesting that you lump RT in there.  You do know that it is formal propaganda outlet for Moscow?

Are you saying Breitbart is too left wing for many?

 

Your example seems to have gone awry.  Lets avoid to much of that or we may get sucked down rabbit holes.

 

So what legitimizes these youtubers as news sources for the alt-right?

[Big Brother]

What do you want to call it then, a communist area? As long as nations with borders exist, there needs to be a name for an area of land to identify it by. Fir the sake of simplicity, we'll call it China. Sound fair? Classless societies will never exist. God damn right, if there is land that doesn't have a leader, it will be annexed. That's just the way of imperialism. What's the point of an ideology if the principles it's founded will never happen? That's the definition of pointless right there. If a country is run (and countries need to be run, else they'll be taken over), and it uses far left policies like a 100% hell yeah it's a communist state. Until it takes over the world and tears down all borders, it will always be a communist state.

 

You still don't understand. "A communist state" is an oxymoron because Communism and states cannot exist at the same time, which you have agreed with above. As long as nations with borders exist, there cannot be a classless society and Communism is a classless society. After Lenin and his Marxism-Leninism (and the theories that built on this) it became commonly accepted among Communist parties around the world that in order to sucsessfully create a Communist society, one would need a period of "the dictatorship of the proletariat", a period of change while still maintaining a hierarchy for the sake of better organization of the revolution and prepare the populace, among other things. So, what happened when Communist parties took power in the Soviet Union and China was not an instant abolition of classes and existing power structures, because they recognized as you have that if any single country attempted to transition into a Communist society while there remained other countries with their own hierarchies and power structures, it would inevitably be opposed and have its effort hampered by those other countries, because the people with power in them fear that the same classless society could spread across their borders, and also just opportunism. A Communist party having power simply does not automatically mean that a Communist country or a Communist society exists. The ideological definition doesn't allow for a Communist state to exist. Communist parties may very well run states but to refer to it as a Communist state is still inaccurate. You could call it an authoritarian leftist or socialist one-party state but a Communist state cannot exist.

 

The working class are paid bugger all because their governments are still developing. That, or they have no economic foundation at all. There's no excuse for China to give its lower class citizens hardly any money (or whatever communists give to workers) because it is a rich country. All western nations pay well enough to supply you with everything you need - and then some! The best part about capitalism - consumerism! You get to pick what you want and some government puppet master doesn't.

 

The working class exists in every country there is, no matter how developed. They're not a class that exists solely in developing countries, which should be obvious. The working class are paid bugger all because they have people like CEOs and capital investors that take most of the wealth, at least in most parts of the world. This isn't the only problem either but the world is dominated by capitalism and capitalism is wired so that capital owners get more and workers get less. It's a fundamental problem that causes a lot of other problems to arise as well. Do you know who pays the least money to their workers in China? Private enterprises from Western nations who have outsourced jobs. The people behind the consumerism you're so fond of. The government isn't the puppet master you should worry about, the people who push consumerism, the businessmen who's primary function is to enrich themselves and no one else.

 

"More or less everything they needed" yeah to keep them alive - hardly at that. How many people died in the USSR because they starved to death? There's a number that you cannot even begin to imagine envisioning. How many corpses piled one on another? They had "homes" yeah, if there was a communist revolution right now, there'd be commissar Jamal and commissar Cletus walking into my room and setting up. They'd tell me "you will have a shared bedroom and a private area (probably a corner somewhere) to hold personal items." And then homeless people would stream in and suddenly my house has 15 people living in it because "I have what I need". I want what I EARN. Also government housing is an option. Soviet Union buddying up with... East Asia and bits of Africa. What is there that you'd want? Raw material I suppose, not much else. Alright, my soviet international economic policy knowledge isn't up to scratch, please excuse me on that. Open borders and globalisation is number 1 for communism? Why am I not surprised. What would you call all these 'fake' communist nations then? "communism has never been tried" no it's been tried, and it failed every time. What is it you don't get? Ex-communist nations are ex-communist for a reason - pseudo-communism sucks. What makes you think full on communism would be better? Quality of life for everyone would just go down the drain man. The whole ideology is based on greed. "I can't be rich so I'll just make everyone poor" man outta here,

 

Your hostility towards the ideology prevents you from understanding it and rationally analyzing it. It's like you're more interested in shitting on something you barely know anything about than you're interested in actually knowing something about it, expanding your understanding. And you realize Capitalism is the ideology based entirely on greed, right? Supporters of Capitalism openly claim that greed is good. Capitalism is a system of greed and exploitation, where capital owners sit at the top, raking in the money their workers earn for them, keeping most of it while only giving what they deem is necessary or what they are forced to, back to the workers. That's greed for you. If private businesses really wanted what's best for the consumers, which are also the workers, things like worker's right and minimum wage wouldn't be necessary. But they don't really care about workers or consumers, whatever you call them, as long as they get their money. Do you honestly believe that private enterprise is completely free of corruption and dishonest people, and that all those people are in the government?

 

Sure, many people died from starvation during famines in the USSR. How many people were killed and whether or not the government of the USSR was actually responsible for it has been debated for a long time and remains ambiguous. There aren't enough objective sources for me to hold an opinion on it one way or another.

 

It seems your Soviet international economic policy knowledge isn't all that isn't up to scratch. You have a lot of misconceptions about how a Communist revolution works and what it seeks to attain. Even looking at examples of revolutions of such a nature that have happened to this date is only of limited usefulness, because one could argue that the many of the revolutions that happened were corrupted and veered away from Communism and the ideals they originally sought were discarded. Communism certainly doesn't mean you have to share everything and it doesn't mean you can't have personal property either.

 

I would call these "fake communist nations" as you say.. authoritarian/one-party states with Socialist/Leftist tendencies. China actually practices what's basically state capitalism, exerting higher control over the capitalist economy and the market than what is "normal" in other nations. I cannot honestly say whether or not the Chinese Communist party is actually Communist anymore or if it actually seeks to create a Communist society. I simply have no way of knowing this for sure. Marx did write that a Communist revolution cannot happen before Capitalism has developed to a sufficient point, so perhaps that is the point they seek to reach. I can only speculate though.

 

Pseudo-Communism sucks, I agree. Communism has never actually been tried though. To answer your question, I think full on Communism would be better because theoretically, it provides everyone with an abundance of whatever they could need, it allows for truly democratic control of society and the economy, and because it allows people to develop themselves as human beings to the utmost degree. I have not yet been convinced that a genuine and properly done Communist revolution and the ensuing society would not function and the benefits of such a society are almost boundless, at least in theory.

 

Have you even left school? Do you know how hard it is to find work because people see you as lesser if you haven't completed secondary education - at least that's the case here. Can't speak for America. If you want to talk about the big picture, you've got to fix the little issues. It all adds up. I know you want to colonise Mars or something because you're thinking waaaay bigger than I am. The best jobs are exclusive to people with advanced knowledge, that's only given in the form of degrees. Sure you can have 'decent' jobs, and that could sustain you for the rest of your life, but why would you stop there when you can earn much more? Knowledge is an investment. Worldly knowledge is more important than academic knowledge in a day to day environment, only without any qualifications you don't make a strong application for yourself. It makes you look, well, dumb, quite frankly.

 

I have completed all mandatory education in my country many years ago though I'm still studying and intend to do so for several more years. Here however, I know that if I didn't have a degree and needed a job, I could most likely get one and I could make a decent amount of money as well. You're not even 18 though, how do you have any idea how employers perceive applicants with little to no qualifications? I know for a fact employers don't think that way at all here, at least not in my experience. Most people generally don't go around thinking that uneducated or unqualified people are dumb and/or useless, that's the outcome of a distinctly negative and cynical mind. It's also a useless perspective, the truly pragmatic point of view would be that everyone has their uses and all you need to do is find them.

 

I'd agree with everything you say about knowledge if it wasn't for the fact that a lot of people are in situations that simply don't allow for them to pursue degrees. A lot of people. Some of them cannot afford it, some of them are in social, legal, health or economical situations that prevent them from going to school. There's a lot of factors that come into play when it comes to education being available for the population. And even with a degree, Capitalism is still a fundamentally exploitative system. You're still going to have your boss or CEO (which is basically the guy the workers pay to tell them to work faster) at the top and he's still going to take the very largest piece of the cake, leaving you and your fellows workers to scramble over the rest. Even the pest paid workers of today's world are paid shit compared to the best paid CEOs, and the workers are who do the actual work.

 

ok welfare MUST be different in Australia because I looked up the prerequisites to welfare before I wrote that. You understand that, at a certain point, people stop seeing the need to work because they can just get welfare that gives them more than what they work for?

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1nN1HqAps4Y

 

It's called a perverse incentive.

The relation was meant to have comedic value. As in, leftists can't even wipe their own ass anymore because their economy sucks. Without work, there's no tax. Without tax, there's no government spending. Without government spending, collapse, basically. That's what happened in Venezuela. People use their notes as napkins because their currency is worth nothing. The reason for that is no one works.

I don't have a problem with the sick or injured getting welfare. It's able bodied people who'd rather not work, and from the list of prerequisites I showed you, the criteria is befitting a LOT of people.

 

If your country's welfare system allows for people to benefit from it indefinitely, if your system and your criteria are inadequate, then that is the problem. Many welfare states don't have these problems and function just fine. If you think the welfare system in your country is terrible and bad, that's one thing, but it doesn't really say anything about welfare states and their systems in general and it doesn't mean that welfare is doomed to lead to people not working.

 

That's how it works here man. Healthcare is a government requirement, and most healthcare funds are government owned here. In that, government takes tax and turns it into Medicare help for people who have colds or whatever.

 

By helping others they help themselves. That's the whole point of capitalism don't you understand? Entrepreneurs create jobs! People work for bosses and the business turns a profit. That money gets taxed whatever I'm not going through the whole process. The richest people in the world? Yeah I'd say I have a problem there. I know Kissinger and Soros don't give a rats about me, but private business owners HAVE to care about me, their business depends on it. If they give me crap service, I'll just go to another business. Running a business is being responsible for your employees so yeah I believe business owners should earn more than their employees. It's a hierarchy mate. However I do have a problem with limited liability laws, that just means big boys at the top of the hierarchy don't have to responsible for anything and I reckon that's wrong. Wage slavery is better than no wage man, just saying. You can be an entrepreneur too, if you wage slave it out for long enough. Get a benefactor, it might help you out. I won't go into my thoughts on black civilisation that's a topic for another time. Mate Reagan was good, his policies worked for as long as he was in presidency. Unemployment went down by about 2% when he enacted trickle down, and then it went back up 2% when he got replaced. The numbers are there.

 

I'm sorry, but the point of capitalism is unfortunately not to help others by helping themselves. It's everyone for themselves, everyone against everyone. It's competition and greed, it's trying to climb the top of the ladder and squishing everyone under you (or even better, making a profit from them). Private business owners don't have to care about you. That's almost an adorably naive thing to believe. Strangers, running some company, trying to make money, care about you, personally more than they care about making sure their business makes money? I think you know that's just not true. The richest people in the world are people you haven't even heard of, who don't want you to hear about them and certainly don't want you to know much money they have compared to everyone else. Business owners don't need to exist, they don't have to take responsibility for their workers. Workers are perfectly intelligent and capable people, who know their work better than anyone else. They can run things just fine without paying their business owner to do things they can do themselves. By not having to give up most of the profits of their work to someone else, the workers themselves will stand to share a larger amount of wealth between them. Maybe wage slavery is better than no wage but we don't have to be in either situation. We can find a better way and so we should find a better way. As for Reagan, no matter what he did to the unemployment rate, he was still pretty much a fascist who's foreign policy caused a lot of shit for the world.

 

 

Business serve me, the consumer. Without consumers businesses mean nothing dude. Governments can always fall back on taxes to bail them out, businesses can't do that so they HAVE to be nicer to the people than the government does. When the government seized the production it meant mass starvation and that's all I need to know man. Miniscule taxes? Mining tax is something like 40%, and the government doesn't have to anything but own the land. Sounds like a good deal to me, government can focus on stuff it was made for - like law making. Government was never meant to own businesses. 40% of profits is a decent chunk I'd say, seems more than fair. I'm happy with kookaburra coal wrecking the 90% of uninhabitable land so I can get richer yeah man idgaf. that company gets taxed for what it does on my land, and takes money from China. Hell yeah I'm happy with that. I got 40% of China's money OH YEAH!

 

Business serves business, not you. Capitalism is a system where each man makes his own fortune, so what makes you think they're looking out for you? Sure, maybe they want to keep you happy so they can make money from you but they don't really care about you. Business has to be nicer than the government does? You realize that when governments aren't nice, riots and revolutions tend to happen, right? Governments need to stay nice too, otherwise they lose their support. "When the government seized the production it meant mass starvation and that's all I need to know man". Then you don't know much and you also discredit your own arguments by such a statement. How am I to take anything you say seriously if I cannot be sure that you'll actually bother learning something about the things you have an opinion about? As for mining, the sensible thing would be to nationalize the mining industry. Why does private enterprise get to get rich on what's buried in land that belongs to the citizens of whatever country the resources are in? Why do the people only receive 40% in taxes when the national resources belong to them? The government should be in control of all the country's national resources so that they can use the profits to benefit the people they represent. This is exactly the sort of things governments are supposed to do, they're supposed to protect the interests of their people. I think you understand that it's not a simple as "all the bad puppets masters are in governments and none of them are in private business". The world isn't that simple, bad eggs are always to be found.

 

Nations are important they'll always exist and they always have. These ones might crumble, but new ones will rise in their place. Did you turn into a nihilist in like 10 seconds of rambling? You like thinking pointlessly "yeah man it all means nothing" yeah we'll make your life better, help people who need to be helped, do some charity whatever I don't care. Humanities power is limitless, but I will never, ever reach those points in our existence under the rule of communism.

 

And the new ones will crumble and so it goes on and on until there's no humanity. This doesn't take anything away from the point, which is that nations don't matter in the full spectrum of human, and the universe's history. I've been an existential nihilist ever since I stumbled over the idea years ago. Recognizing that everything is without meaning in the end doesn't mean I'm dissatisfied with my life. Most of the time I enjoy it as much as anyone else does, I see personal meanings in things and people around me. Recognizing that it "all means nothing" doesn't mean that my life needs to be made better, it's no more important that recognizing that gravity exists and that the sky is blue. It's the meaninglessness that allows for people to choose their own life. If we knew we had a specific meaning, all we could do would be to choose to fulfill said meaning no matter how much we may dislike it or knowingly reject it, going against that which you know you were meant to do. Because I recognize that all of human history and everything any of us have ever done will eventually be completely forgotten, because I don't believe that there's some sacred meaning of life that I and everyone else have to follow, I am completely free to choose. I'm rambling again though, let's move on.

 

I don't believe that humanity's power is limitless but I do believe it's possible that in a Communist society, more people would be able to develop themselves to a far greater degree, becoming everything they want to be, perhaps pushing the limit of what humanity is capable of in the process. And I believe that we will always be stronger when we work together as a species and set aside our differences. If a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

 

"You're going to have to go back to the golden age with this" fragile? Maybe I dunno I'm pretty sheltered not gonna lie, finna get a taste of reality and join the military soon. Yeah I would love it, everyone loves me because I have presence, morals values etc and I'm not a communist holy moly yeah 1940s more like heaven.

 

Oh yeah, racism and eugenics, genocide, poverty, misogyny and world war, really terrific stuff! Figures that you'd love to return to that world. I bet you'd feel safe there and not so fragile and threatened.

 

Yeah hard tuff bro keep it up. Get him Roz! Nail the sum!@#$! "Nonsensical opinions" mate look in the mirror you're defending communism.

You think that defending Communism is such a horrible act on its own, as if I'm some kind of devil-worshiper performing a terrible and immoral act. You are the one that has shown you don't even actually know what Communism is, yet you're trying to rip on me for supporting it. Claiming my opinions are nonsensical when you clearly don't even know what makes sense when it comes to Communism. That says more about you than it does about me. If you actually had idea what Communism is besides all the propaganda nonsense you have been taught, you'd understand why people support it. But you don't, so you won't. Fortunately, it's your loss more than anyone else's.

[LordRahl2]

Anybody can see Trump struggling in the media. The much more interesting question, is the why.

 

Autoanswering with MSM or "liberal bias" seems weak given historical data.

[Sketchy]

No no, you misunderstand. I'm saying right wingers love those news sources and cite them constantly, but alt-right people don't like any form of media, RT and Breitbart included.

 

Nothing really, alt right spokespeople are just regular people with an interest in politics who see events that happen in the world as they are. I'm gonna use disdain for plebs as an example because his early works are really top notch. DfP uses articles from predominantly left wing news sources such as Washington post or nytimes and calls out foul play as he sees it. An example. "The largest broadcasting corporations have jettisoned all pretence of fair play. Their fierce determination to keep trump out of office has no precedent. Indeed no foreign enemy, no terror group no criminal gang suffers the daily beat down that trump does."

 

Would you say that's an accurate representation of what is hapening? It doesn't take a genius with a degree in political science to see that.

 

My issue with Breitbart is they tend to do similar things to what the leftist media outlets do, downplay certain things when it looks bad for the right and exaggerate or embellish things when it looks bad for the left.

 

It's worse because I often find myself agreeing with them on certain issues, especially Milo Yiannopoulos, but they go overboard a fair bit and like to ignore reality when it suits them. 

 

Youtubers, not all but many of the ones I follow anyway, tend be more impartial.

 

Also, in response to LordRahl, who is the judge of what is considered a legitimate new source? What is the criteria? Considering most of the mainsteam media is biased towards the left, and the ones that aren't are usually biased towards the right, I'll take any impartial sources I can get.

[LordRahl2]

People use various means to determine legitimacy.  You seem to feel that impartiality is the key?

[Sketchy]

People use various means to determine legitimacy.  You seem to feel that impartiality is the key?

Not really. I just prefer the news I consume to be impartial and factual.

 

Some people prefer, on both sides of the fence, to be fed news that agrees with their viewpoint, and ignore anything that isn't in line with their facts.

 

In the context you provided you made it sound like some new sources are "legitimate" and by implication some aren't.

 

What is your criteria for a legitimate news source?

[LordRahl2]

You make it seem like legitimate sources are impartial ones. Honestly, you all seem to imply that the ones you consume have a monopoly on this. I am merly asking and have passed no judgement.

[Sketchy]

You make it seem like legitimate sources are impartial ones. Honestly, you all seem to imply that the ones you consume have a monopoly on this. I am merly asking and have passed no judgement.

 

And I returned the same question back at you after answering it.

 

What is the issue?

[LordRahl2]

I don't really have one.

 

I read, or skim, everything more or less depending mostly on time available.  Everything has bias.

 

I guess the issue is that you are being salty when all I am doing is asking questions.  Why?

Edited August 22, 2016 by LordRahl2

[Sketchy]

I don't really have one.

 

I read, or skim, everything more or less depending mostly on time available.  Everything has bias.

 

I guess the issue is that you are being salty when all I am doing is asking questions.  Why?

When did you get the impression I was being salty or was passing judgement?

 

I asked you a question because you made a comment about legitimate news sources, as I wanted to know what you considered to be a legitimate news source.

 

You then responded with an assumption and a question, so I answered your question, I then asked you the same question again since you didn't answer it the first time.

 

You then responded with another assumption, and claimed you were only asking questions and passed no judgement, when I never said you did and only asked you a question.

 

I explained that all I did was answer your question, and that I have no idea what you are so defensive about.

 

You then finally decided to answer the question, and came to the  conclusion I was being salty?

 

I advise you back and read everything I've said. I haven't once claimed you were being judgmental. I asked you a legitimate question and even continued to be civil while you ducked and dodged it with more questions.

 

To paraphrase you: I guess the issue is that you are being defensive when all I was doing is asking a question.  Why?

[Spite]

Wallowing in echo chamber ignorance and denouncing anything that disagrees with their narrow perspective as being the biased mouthpiece of the Liberal elites seems to be the modus operandi for the alt-right.

[Sketchy]

Wallowing in echo chamber ignorance and denouncing anything that disagrees with their narrow perspective as being the biased mouthpiece of the Liberal elites seems to be the modus operandi for the alt-right.

 

You just described a decent portion of the regressive left. They even have a name for their echo chambers, they are called "safe spaces".

 

Well according to your description, I can't possibly be an alt-right, since I prefer open debate, freedom of ideas, and I've never accused anyone of being "a mouthpiece for the liberal elite".

 

Seems to me like you haven't met very many alt-right people, and are probably only shown a small portion of the more "radical ones". Similar to how moderate feminists and people with more reasonable and centrist views on the left exist (opinion obviously, but I find if you don't explicitly state that people get butthurt), the same can be said for alt-right.

 

Frankly, from my experience, alt-right people are generally more sensible, rational and grounded then normal people from the right. That's just my personal experience though, I'm sure the right is full of reasonable people.

 

It's interesting that you use the term echo chambers considering your response suggests to me you might want to step out of the echo chamber you are in yourself.

[Spite]

I agree that armchair social commentators on both the right and left tend to enjoy the cosy warmth of approval from others who share their views. I could explain that as someone who gets out their armchair and into the community, I am exposed daily to a variety of views across the political spectrum. Most of those views are moderate, whether they are left or right. I find that people who belong to small factions (communists are the ones I know best but the right too) are particularly subject to echo chamber ignorance, where they believe that everyone must agree with them because they are only ever exposed to people with the same beliefs. The few times they are exposed to alternative beliefs or ideas (for example from the notorious MainStreamMedia) they put this down to the Liberal elites/jews/right wing corporate globalists owning these news outlets and point instead to blogs and online platforms with little legitimacy and/or investigative reporting skills to support their position.

[Sketchy]

I agree that armchair social commentators on both the right and left tend to enjoy the cosy warmth of approval from others who share their views. I could explain that as someone who gets out their armchair and into the community, I am exposed daily to a variety of views across the political spectrum. Most of those views are moderate, whether they are left or right. I find that people who belong to small factions (communists are the ones I know best but the right too) are particularly subject to echo chamber ignorance, where they believe that everyone must agree with them because they are only ever exposed to people with the same beliefs. The few times they are exposed to alternative beliefs or ideas (for example from the notorious MainStreamMedia) they put this down to the Liberal elites/jews/right wing corporate globalists owning these news outlets and point instead to blogs and online platforms with little legitimacy and/or investigative reporting skills to support their position.

 

I'd argue you are generalizing.

 

I'm going to pick apart your statement though.

 

I agree that armchair social commentators on both the right and left tend to enjoy the cosy warmth of approval from others who share their views.

 

Basically we agree on that, I said so myself above.

 

I could explain that as someone who gets out their armchair and into the community, I am exposed daily to a variety of views across the political spectrum. Most of those views are moderate, whether they are left or right.

 

Naturally. Keep in mind that a good amount of people aren't all that politically involved either, they have opinions on issues they care about, are ignorant to the specifics of issues they don't. I've seen a good amount of people on either side of the aisle with varying views on different subjects. 

 

 

I find that people who belong to small factions (communists are the ones I know best but the right too) are particularly subject to echo chamber ignorance, where they believe that everyone must agree with them because they are only ever exposed to people with the same beliefs. 

 

I don't really disagree on that either. They are definitely more subject to echo chamber ignorance. But your initial post made it seem like they ARE ALL "Wallowing in echo chamber ignorance and denouncing anything that disagrees with their narrow perspective".

 

I notice you don't mention the left in your statement. If you can honestly tell me with a straight face that those factions don't exist on the left and that they aren't just as bad then I have to doubt your claim about seeing a wide variety of political viewpoints.

 

The thing about factions, as you described them, is that they tend to be made up of people who DO involve themselves politically and as such have stronger views on various different issues. That isn't to say that people can't be politically involved AND moderate, it's just that it's far more likely in my experience for that to be the case.

 

 

The few times they are exposed to alternative beliefs or ideas (for example from the notorious MainStreamMedia) they put this down to the Liberal elites/jews/right wing corporate globalists owning these news outlets and point instead to blogs and online platforms with little legitimacy and/or investigative reporting skills to support their position.

 

I'm not sure about America, I prefer not to speak about things I'm unaware of if I can help it, but in Australia, the media outlets generally skew to the left. Not always radically, in fact usually moderately, but it is still a bias towards one side of the aisle.

 

I don't really associate that with "rich liberal elites" or "jews" or "right wing corporate globalists". I mean we barely have any jews in Australia so that's more of an American example I suppose.

 

All of that out of the way, online blogs and other platforms aren't necessarily anymore "illegitimate" then actual news outlets. In many cases they are more legitimate. You've framed it like mainstream media is a generally trustworthy source whilst online platforms aren't when in many cases online platforms go through just as much "investigating" as mainstream media does.

 

Also, can you honestly tell me the mainsteam media, not all but many, are biased? They never frame things in a certain way to support a certain narrative? I can literally point you to a recent event and example of this, and I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to drudge up plenty of examples, but I'm just clarifying whether or not that is actually your position,

[Spite]

So a few points I'll respond to:

1. Spite, you are generalising

 

I agree that I am generalising. Any topic about "the alt right" is going to be a topic where I discuss the general characteristics of that group whilst acknowledging these do not apply to all individuals in that group. The same would be true of discussing any group of people.

 

2.The non mainstream left are just as bad

 

No disagreement that they are just as prone to echo chambers

 

3. Moderates are less politically active

 

I'd disagree: most politicians are moderates, most political activists and campaigners are moderates. I've spent ten years in political campaigning and can confirm that when it comes to knocking on doors, the radical is more likely to be the member of the public than the campaigner. In most countries the biggest parties tend to be moderate ones.

 

4. The MSM is biased (to the left)

 

The mainstream media has a recognisable bias in their reporting and always has. Once you are prepared to recognise that bias you can see past it.

 

It is a common feature of people that they always feel that there are more negative than positive stories about them. For example, I would say that since Rupert Murdoch owns a sizeable chunk of the UK (and Australian) media and is certainly conservative then you'd expect the bias of his papers to be to the right.

 

Obviously the more radical you are the more people will disagree with you. If you are to the extreme left or extreme right you will find most media outlets critical of your position.

 

5. Small outlets have the same quality journalism and receive as much critical oversight as the MSM

 

I honestly don't know how anyone can make this claim, I tend to find small outlets (like the Canary in the UK) tend to be extremely biased, regurgitate information from the MSM and just put their own spin on it.

[Rozalia]

Interesting that you lump RT in there.  You do know that it is formal propaganda outlet for Moscow? 

 

RT (and AJ) are both propaganda outlets so people know they're soft on certain issues. However on other issues they tend to be quite good as they have no special interests involved in the matter. For example if other news sources are reporting on say, the "moderate rebels of democracy", RT is reporting more on the reality of the matter. Even propaganda outlets can be truthful if you know what they can and can't be truthful on.

 

Anybody can see Trump struggling in the media. The much more interesting question, is the why.

 

Autoanswering with MSM or "liberal bias" seems weak given historical data.

 

It's a perfectly valid answer. UKIP were in a similar position you could say in that they got a large amount of coverage, but it was made virtually all negative to try and push the anti-Brexit message.

[Thalmor]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/25/politics/alt-right-explained-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/

 

So, today, Hillary Clinton is going to address and ''blast'' the alt-right because we're literally Hitler.

 

She's stupid. How can she not realize that all that is going to do is give the alt-right movement legitimacy?