• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

What is the purpose of the term "alt-right"?

pramod

Member
Oct 24, 2017
1,806
1,642
500
I'm just curious why the left has popularized this term so much. I mean, people on the right don't use that term. It's mostly the left and progressives who like to label people as "alt-right".

I mean the term itself is pretty vague, if you try to google "what does alt-right" mean you won't even get a clear answer. But when the left uses the term, it's pretty obvious they are talking about racists. Or people who they think are racists (like Trump supporters). So why not just say "racist" instead of "alt-right"? If that's what they really mean? Why beat around the bush?

If you think Trump supporters are racist, why not say so? If you think all these Youtubers being banned are racists and Nazis, why not say it? Because you can't handle the ugliness of your own accusations?

I mean there is no equivalent term "alt-left", because people on the right aren't afraid to call out "cucks" and "SJWs" for what they are. They don't need to hide behind a made-up term.
 
Last edited:

DKehoe

Member
Jun 19, 2007
4,873
551
1,125
The term came from Richard Spencer, who was using it as a term to re-brand white nationalists as something more presentable. So that's where alt-right = nazis comes from. Then as that movement grew the term began to be used to a whole range of people on the right and gets thrown about way too casually.

I've seen people on here say "alt-left" a bunch. But it's not really a thing because that's not really a label anyone has ever used for themselves. It's just people on the right getting annoyed at getting called alt-right, which is understandable because as I said alt-right is now used so frequently.
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
5,286
5,141
860
Its a dog whistle basically at this point. Like the above poster pointed out its history.

But now if someone says alt-right, what they mean is someone who is opposite of the left spectrum politically. So anyone is alt-right if they aren't a democrat/leftist basically.
 

Teletraan1

Member
May 17, 2012
5,784
2,139
670
Canada
It is a nebulous term that is used to protect media outlets from libel laws. Far-right is used as well for people who are classical liberals. Words have no meaning anymore.

I like ctrl-left for the extreme left. It fits better because they always want to control everything you do.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
8,016
5,556
715
It's a nebulous term that can be easily applied to anyone right of center, centrist, or even on the left in some occassions. If it's too much of a stretch, they just say 'alt right adjacent' for a few months, then move to 'often associated with the alt right' [Joe Rogan is an easy example].
This is straightforward political maneuvering where the left is clearly trying to curb any conservative views through guilt of association or fear of labels while absolutely ignoring their own massive radicalization.
 

Derekloffin

Member
Jun 17, 2013
496
116
455
From the white power sorts it was used as a rebranding. As Dhekoe already state, Richard Spencer coined the term to try and make his brand of thinking more appealing. And it worked to a degree until Charoletteville when most caught wind of the true parties behind it.

For the 'hipsters', for lack of a better label, it was the latest fad label to use to make yourself sound edgy and cool. So there were a number of 'alt-right'ers who had no clue what they were associating themselves with. Most caught a clue though and dropped the label after it become public knowledge what was going on there, although many drifted over to 'alt-light' and other alternates.

For the left it has become the latest buzzword label they can put on anyone they don't like and plead ignorance when they're called on their BS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pramod

MrTickles

Member
Feb 22, 2018
2,783
3,645
650
The term came from Richard Spencer, who was using it as a term to re-brand white nationalists as something more presentable. So that's where alt-right = nazis comes from. Then as that movement grew the term began to be used to a whole range of people on the right and gets thrown about way too casually.

I've seen people on here say "alt-left" a bunch. But it's not really a thing because that's not really a label anyone has ever used for themselves. It's just people on the right getting annoyed at getting called alt-right, which is understandable because as I said alt-right is now used so frequently.
Further indication spencer is a CIA asset.
 

Psydonk

Member
Jun 17, 2015
77
59
220
Alt-right as others started, basically started as a rebrand of open white nationalism. These days it's generally just used for right wingers who don't fall into the typical neoliberal/neoconservative branch of establishment right wing politics and tend to have frankly... very questionable conspiratorial minded views.

Far-right is used as well for people who are classical liberals.
Probably because "Classical liberal" is to anyone with eyes a thinly veiled rebrand of the Alt-lite to try make what are largely still hard-right views and conspiracies come off as a "moderate centrist position".
 
  • LOL
  • Like
Reactions: EviLore and Lamel

Patriots7

Member
Jul 15, 2008
2,738
2
755
Alt-right is a boogeyman that haunts leftists. They see him in their cornflakes, dreams, under their bed, in their water, and everywhere.
The amount of rent free space both leftists and alt-righters occupy in each other's mind is astonishing.
 

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
5,126
2,218
510
When labeling opponents is you rmainstream "discussion" action, you need a variety of them.

Compare it to, say, "incel". Then have some silly humans call JP, a married man with a kid, an incel, Wupsi.
Comparing to "nazi", and ignoring the fact that major feminist journal eagerly accepted article that essentially was a chapter from Mein Kampf, can backfire, as there is at least something vaguely understandable behind the word, e.g. push for white supremacy, hating jews etc.

But alt-right? Nobody can even definitely state what the fuck it is.
And if so, you can't prove you aren't alt-right!

Out of all new slurs, alt-right is perfect.
 
Last edited:

Saruhashi

Member
Oct 2, 2018
793
1,813
355
I thought the initial purpose was to sort of introduce an acceptable level of trendiness to being on the far right wing.
Like how you see those preachers wearing jeans and a tshirt with a couple of tattoos trying to make Jesus seem cool?
That but I guess with racism? :)

Except it sort of became a catch all term used for scaremongering.

I see a lot of stuff about "The Alt-Right" and it's difficult to get to the root of what people are talking about.
Other than "the Alt-Right is bad and they will trick you into joining them" I don't know much else.

The biggest problem I would see would be situations like Richard Spencer and Sargon of Akkad being labelled "Alt-Right" when they kind of hate each other and don't seem to agree on anything at all. It either means that the Alt-Right is open to a broad spectrum of opinions and viewpoints or there is some kind of infighting going on because they can't agree on who should be the leader. So there's a bit of a mixed message there.

Same with someone like Jordan Peterson. He is basically in opposition to the Far-Right and definitely in opposition to identity politics and authoritarians BUUUUT he is also a gateway to the Alt-Right which is all of those things.

Again, that's a mixed message. A guy who is against all the things that this group supposedly stands for is also one of their main recruiters?

That's like if you are a car salesman who openly admits you'll tell potential customers that they don't need a car and can just use public transport to get to work or cycle if possible and also will tell everyone cars are bad for the environment and yet every fucking car dealership in town is like "this guy will bring in so many new sales". How?

I'd love to hear a description of who the Alt-Right are and what they believe in without all the twisting and turning and moving of goal posts.

It get's too weird when you have all these disparate "personalities" and views all coming under the umbrella of "Alt-Right".
Person A doesn't like Person B and they can't seem to agree on anything at all BUT they are both Alt-Right. How?
It must be easy to boil it down to the one or two things they DO agree on?

This nonsense happened with "Incels" a while back too.
It was simple. Incel is a guy who can't get laid even though he really wants to.
They might have their own community where they talk shit and commiserate together but fundamentally "straight, eager, but completely hopeless with women" should cover it.

Then some dude commits a heinous crime and mentions "Incel" on a Facebook post and suddenly "Incel" is the new trendy label getting slapped on anyone who has anything remotely negative to say about women.

What is so fucked about about all this is that if a person belongs to Community A and commits a crime partly due to inspiration from Community A then there's a series of checks before it's decided whether Community A will be blamed or not.

In the case of Incels and Alt-Right it's a situation where if one of you does something terrible then all of you take the blame.
For other groups though? Not so much.

I guess labels have always been weaponized though so here's to never learning anything. :)
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: matt404au

Teletraan1

Member
May 17, 2012
5,784
2,139
670
Canada
Probably because "Classical liberal" is to anyone with eyes a thinly veiled rebrand of the Alt-lite to try make what are largely still hard-right views and conspiracies come off as a "moderate centrist position".
Or to anyone with a brain it is just someone who embodies classical liberal ideals of civil liberties, the rule of law and economic freedom. Your post is pure projection. You throw out words like conspiracy while engaging in conspiracy theories about simple definitions. Everything is thinly veiled dog whistles that only you can see. Good luck with that.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
11,861
17,254
1,250
Australia
Probably because "Classical liberal" is to anyone with eyes a thinly veiled rebrand of the Alt-lite to try make what are largely still hard-right views and conspiracies come off as a "moderate centrist position".
No it’s not, you hysterical fucking idiot 😂

Go on, post the Data and Society alt right conspiracy web. You know you want to.
 

Psydonk

Member
Jun 17, 2015
77
59
220
Or to anyone with a brain it is just someone who embodies classical liberal ideals of civil liberties, the rule of law and economic freedom
Would be nice if any of the Youtube "Classical liberals" ever actually bothered to espouse these values or bother to actually read Classical Liberal text beyond skimming Road to Serfdom while pandering to the far-right at every opportunity.


You throw out words like conspiracy while engaging in conspiracy theories about simple definitions.
Oh man, such a conspiracy the right try to cloak their bullshit as "rational centrism" while literally spouting largely the exact same conspiracy theories as Richard Spencer and Alex Jones. So totally unrealistic compared to a consorted secret cabal of Marxists in the humanities trying to overthrow Capitalism through a complete uniquely rightwing misunderstanding Adorno.


No it’s not, you hysterical fucking idiot
Just a coincidence that all these "classical liberals" tend to be screeching reactionaries peddling in far-right conspiracies and supporting oh look, authoritarian far-right politicans and parties. So liberal!


The biggest problem I would see would be situations like Richard Spencer and Sargon of Akkad being labelled "Alt-Right" when they kind of hate each other and don't seem to agree on anything at all. It either means that the Alt-Right is open to a broad spectrum of opinions and viewpoints or there is some kind of infighting going on because they can't agree on who should be the leader. So there's a bit of a mixed message there.

Same with someone like Jordan Peterson. He is basically in opposition to the Far-Right and definitely in opposition to identity politics and authoritarians BUUUUT he is also a gateway to the Alt-Right which is all of those things.
Literally seen friends become far-right white nationalists within months of jumping aboard the Peterson/Sargon train.
It's a gateway because it introduces young impressionable people to anti-intellectual right wing culture wars. Watch a Peterson or Sargon video and it's extremely likely that the next video you get will be some moronic alt-right shit I've seen it literally happen time and time again with my own feed.

Also lets be real, Carl and Richard would agree on 80% of fucking things. Carl has always been a hard-right grifter who simply flip flops on issues like racism to give himself plausable deniability when people point out he spends all his time attacking even the most milquetoast of centre-left views and spouting Agenda-21 and Cultural Marxist far-right bullshit. Because he's not an outright white nationalist, doesn't make him centre left, but that honestly shows where the right is these days doesn't it.
 
  • Fire
Reactions: <+)O Robido O(+>

Whitesnake

Member
Jan 31, 2018
674
1,634
445
The term “alt-right” originally described people who identified as right wing who did not hold the same motives or agendas as the prominent right-wingers at the time. Thus the “alternative right”. Instead of being evangelical boomers, these were young people who had, of their own accord, formed right-wing opinions on major issues like immigration and gun control.

Of course, as it became more obvious that Trump would be the Republican front-runner, the MSM morphed the definition of alt-right into “anybody that likes Trump”.

And as the MSM’s scare-mongering around Trump intensified, the definition eventually morphed into “Racists, Nazis, and KKK members”.

Now, as others have pointed out, it is a term used to slander anyone who even remotely disagrees with the leftist narrative by implying they are racist, misogynist, anti-semitic, etc.. If you go after the left at all and aren’t any of those things, they have no idea how to even approach arguing with you, so they’ll just call you alt-right and proceed as if you’re literally the second-coming of Hitler.
 

DKehoe

Member
Jun 19, 2007
4,873
551
1,125
The term “alt-right” originally described people who identified as right wing who did not hold the same motives or agendas as the prominent right-wingers at the time. Thus the “alternative right”. Instead of being evangelical boomers, these were young people who had, of their own accord, formed right-wing opinions on major issues like immigration and gun control.
Where are you getting that from?
 

Whitesnake

Member
Jan 31, 2018
674
1,634
445
Where are you getting that from?
From the fact that I was around when the term “alt-right” first became a thing and saw how it was being used.

If you have some sort of objectively-determined origin and definiton at the time of origin that precede or contradict what I describe, I would like to see it.
 
Last edited:

DKehoe

Member
Jun 19, 2007
4,873
551
1,125
From the fact that I was around when the term “alt-right” first became a thing and saw how it was being used.

If you have some sort of objectively-determined origin and definiton at the time of origin that precede or contradict what I describe, I would like to see it.
The term comes from Richard Spencer’s Alternative Right website that he started in 2010.
 

Saruhashi

Member
Oct 2, 2018
793
1,813
355
Literally seen friends become far-right white nationalists within months of jumping aboard the Peterson/Sargon train.
It's a gateway because it introduces young impressionable people to anti-intellectual right wing culture wars. Watch a Peterson or Sargon video and it's extremely likely that the next video you get will be some moronic alt-right shit I've seen it literally happen time and time again with my own feed.

Also lets be real, Carl and Richard would agree on 80% of fucking things. Carl has always been a hard-right grifter who simply flip flops on issues like racism to give himself plausable deniability when people point out he spends all his time attacking even the most milquetoast of centre-left views and spouting Agenda-21 and Cultural Marxist far-right bullshit. Because he's not an outright white nationalist, doesn't make him centre left, but that honestly shows where the right is these days doesn't it.
I'm not arguing against that. Maybe your friends did go from Sargon/Peterson to Far Right White Nationalists. That's irrelevant if the dudes themselves don't actually believe in that stuff, are openly against it and have explained precisely why they are against it. That just means your friends are fuckin dumb.

The fact is that those guys are very openly against the Far Right and White Nationalists with fairly clear reasoning as to why they are against that.

There is a flaw in the way you are connecting cause and effect that I don't really understand.

It's YouTube that recommends those videos as your next to watch, not the guys who made the first video you watched.
I used to laugh because I got pro-Christian ads and recommends when I was watching Atheist videos back in the day.
It never occurred to me to think "actually these Atheists are trying to convert me to Christianity".

It's either the worst recruitment method in history or is absolute genius.
Imagine it. I will tell you everything wrong with this group and why I don't agree with them but actually it's a secret reverse psychology trick to get you to join them.

It's like I secretly want you to think about a neon pink Elephant riding a bicycle so I say to you "now listen whatever you do don't think about a neon pink Elephant riding a bicycle". Something like that?

By that logic though the far-left pushes people to the far-right and vice versa since they both talk about each other constantly and sensible people are inclined to side with neither on account of the extremism.

This was the exact scare mongering I was talking about.
Basically anyone entering political conversation is going to come up against opposition eventually.
This is unavoidable. If you are into left-wing talking points you will be exposed to right-wing views, unless you are in some echo chamber.

Think about it. How are you going to oppose extremists without knowing what the extremists are saying and doing?
So surely being on the left and being keen to argue your points means that you are exposed to the right whether you like it or not.
Otherwise who are you arguing with?

What would Carl and Richard agree on exactly? As far as I can tell it's two dudes who do not like each other and do not fundamentally agree with each other. Maybe they both hate milkshakes or something?

I mean what you are basically saying is that although Peterson/Sargon are not far right, white nationalists themselves they need to shut the hell up and stop criticizing the left because every they rebuke an idiotic SJW talking point the far right gets new recruits.

It's such a fucked up way to look at things. You've got people over here with bad ideas and people over there with bad ideas. So it's really a case of which side is better at ignoring the bad ideas their own side is pushing.

This is a common issue with being and "ally" in the modern climate. I might be your ally in principle even if some of your ideas are a bit shite. Only on condition that I can speak up and criticize those bad ideas.

It's not acceptable to take a stance of "don't criticize us because that helps our enemies".
Fuck off. Be better or face criticism.

That's where we are at then? Don't criticize certain groups because that helps the "bad guys".

How do you think that'll shake out in a legitimate crisis where lives could be at stake?

Imagine not being able to speak your mind, not because what you are saying is wrong but because the actual fucking truth doesn't fit with your groups ideology and might actually help your opponents.

Imagine being afraid to speak the truth because the truth you tell might lead people to believe in different lies.

I mean, that's what you're saying about Peterson especially, I guess? He might be right about some things but his being right on those things causes people to believe lies about other things so he should stop?
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
11,142
19,656
1,105
USA
dunpachi.com
I'm not arguing against that. Maybe your friends did go from Sargon/Peterson to Far Right White Nationalists. That's irrelevant if the dudes themselves don't actually believe in that stuff, are openly against it and have explained precisely why they are against it. That just means your friends are fuckin dumb.

The fact is that those guys are very openly against the Far Right and White Nationalists with fairly clear reasoning as to why they are against that.

There is a flaw in the way you are connecting cause and effect that I don't really understand.

It's YouTube that recommends those videos as your next to watch, not the guys who made the first video you watched.
I used to laugh because I got pro-Christian ads and recommends when I was watching Atheist videos back in the day.
It never occurred to me to think "actually these Atheists are trying to convert me to Christianity".

It's either the worst recruitment method in history or is absolute genius.
Imagine it. I will tell you everything wrong with this group and why I don't agree with them but actually it's a secret reverse psychology trick to get you to join them.

It's like I secretly want you to think about a neon pink Elephant riding a bicycle so I say to you "now listen whatever you do don't think about a neon pink Elephant riding a bicycle". Something like that?

By that logic though the far-left pushes people to the far-right and vice versa since they both talk about each other constantly and sensible people are inclined to side with neither on account of the extremism.

This was the exact scare mongering I was talking about.
Basically anyone entering political conversation is going to come up against opposition eventually.
This is unavoidable. If you are into left-wing talking points you will be exposed to right-wing views, unless you are in some echo chamber.

Think about it. How are you going to oppose extremists without knowing what the extremists are saying and doing?
So surely being on the left and being keen to argue your points means that you are exposed to the right whether you like it or not.
Otherwise who are you arguing with?

What would Carl and Richard agree on exactly? As far as I can tell it's two dudes who do not like each other and do not fundamentally agree with each other. Maybe they both hate milkshakes or something?

I mean what you are basically saying is that although Peterson/Sargon are not far right, white nationalists themselves they need to shut the hell up and stop criticizing the left because every they rebuke an idiotic SJW talking point the far right gets new recruits.

It's such a fucked up way to look at things. You've got people over here with bad ideas and people over there with bad ideas. So it's really a case of which side is better at ignoring the bad ideas their own side is pushing.

This is a common issue with being and "ally" in the modern climate. I might be your ally in principle even if some of your ideas are a bit shite. Only on condition that I can speak up and criticize those bad ideas.

It's not acceptable to take a stance of "don't criticize us because that helps our enemies".
Fuck off. Be better or face criticism.

That's where we are at then? Don't criticize certain groups because that helps the "bad guys".

How do you think that'll shake out in a legitimate crisis where lives could be at stake?

Imagine not being able to speak your mind, not because what you are saying is wrong but because the actual fucking truth doesn't fit with your groups ideology and might actually help your opponents.

Imagine being afraid to speak the truth because the truth you tell might lead people to believe in different lies.

I mean, that's what you're saying about Peterson especially, I guess? He might be right about some things but his being right on those things causes people to believe lies about other things so he should stop?
This post was a symphony of logic.

 

Mihos

Gold Member
May 10, 2009
5,868
955
1,045
steamcommunity.com
It was made up to describe a small segment of militant people of a certain splinter cell of ideology....

........then later expanded to include anyone they disagreed with, no matter how stupid the topic.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: matt404au

diablos991

Can’t stump the diablos
Jun 15, 2013
8,509
663
700
The first step is to label something. This allows people to dismiss dissenting opinion by over simplifying the opposing ideas.

Then you associate it with negative groups. This can be done through planned ops or having the media in your pocket.

Finally you censor based on the association you created in the second step.

The term Alt-Right is simply a political censorship op. Nothing more - nothing less.
 

Psydonk

Member
Jun 17, 2015
77
59
220
I'm not arguing against that. Maybe your friends did go from Sargon/Peterson to Far Right White Nationalists. That's irrelevant if the dudes themselves don't actually believe in that stuff, are openly against it and have explained precisely why they are against it. That just means your friends are fuckin dumb.

The fact is that those guys are very openly against the Far Right and White Nationalists with fairly clear reasoning as to why they are against that.
If a "centre leftist" espoused constantly blatantly Stalinist dogwhistles and views while every so often saying half heartedly every so often they're against Stalinism and that Stalinism is bad, would you be surprised that much of their audience would naturally become Stalinist?

The problem with especially Carl and to a lesser extent Peterson is that they both peddle in largely the exact same conspiracies, dog whistles and views of the far-right to a point and then pull back when it comes to the next step into White Nationalism. This is why routinely at Peterson talks, you have his fans ranting about "Jews". Take what Peterson and Carl are saying, take it to it's blatant logical next step and you're in white nationalist territory.

Very good video on how Peterson does this:

And I would recommend watching any Shaun and Jen video on how Sargon is a disingenuous quote mining shithead peddling far-right bullshit as well or you know if you just want to be lazy this.

It's either the worst recruitment method in history or is absolute genius.
It's pretty well documented at this point how the far-right gamed the Youtube Algorithm


What would Carl and Richard agree on exactly? As far as I can tell it's two dudes who do not like each other and do not fundamentally agree with each other. Maybe they both hate milkshakes or something?
Almost everything beyond the blatant white nationalism.

I mean what you are basically saying is that although Peterson/Sargon are not far right, white nationalists themselves they need to shut the hell up and stop criticizing the left because every they rebuke an idiotic SJW talking point the far right gets new recruits.
What I'm saying is they're both grifters who spew far-right talking points and conspiracy, strawman the left and even milquetoast leftist and liberal positions at every opportunity then play dumb when their audience becomes radicalised to far-right politics.

It's such a fucked up way to look at things. You've got people over here with bad ideas and people over there with bad ideas. So it's really a case of which side is better at ignoring the bad ideas their own side is pushing.
Probably not the side that pretty much universally believes that Climate Change isn't real and there is a conspiracy within universities to push Marxism through culture to destroy "western civilisation" through the effeminization of white men and Islamic immigration. You know, something both Peterson and Sargon both also basically believe. (or at least strongly flirt with)

I would address the rest of your post but I can't be bothered because it comes from a misunderstanding to begin with which is you believe Sargon and Peterson are sincerely against hard-right politics and their blatant pandering to far-right conspiracy and views don't send people down a path of radicalisation, which I don't agree with, especially because, white nationalists literally admit this is the case.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
11,142
19,656
1,105
USA
dunpachi.com
Which will fall on deaf ears, unfortunately.

Can't reason with the unreasonable.
Don't worry, even Psydonk is behaving as though they are performing for an audience. You did your part by at least offering a serious answer. This is why GAF community is the place to be. While the poster you replied to may not listen, those watching might be convinced.

However, in contrast to your symphony, I admit their performance is akin to something like this:

 
Last edited:
Aug 24, 2016
3,786
2,029
645
It was coined by a socialist white nationalist in perfect synch with left media using it and accusing the originator as being right wing when he never was.

It's use has devolved to the point that now any Republican or person who is against the radical left values is "all right" there are no "regular Republicans" anymore outside some congressman.

The media has made it a term to mean all that oppose the agenda are racist nazis that want to kill all minorities and cut your health-care, that you likely don't have if you're in a blue city anyway. The irony.
 

Saruhashi

Member
Oct 2, 2018
793
1,813
355
Don't listen to those smelly right wing grifters, here are some left wing grifters who only exist to twist what this other person said to fit their narrative.
Yeah.

I think that's also a big element of this were the response is to put forward a set of dishonest and biased sources in an effort to "expose" someone else's dishonesty and bias.

So I swallow the spider to catch the fly? Now what?

You like Jordan Peterson eh? Well come over here, I've built a big straw Jordan Peterson. Now watch me destroy him! Are you convinced?

FFS. :)
 
Last edited:

Psydonk

Member
Jun 17, 2015
77
59
220
The only bit I needed to read, cheers.
Hahahahahaha seriously dude? I'm not going to keep repeating myself because you're going off on random tangents completely missing the point initially what I am saying.

Which will fall on deaf ears, unfortunately.
Can't reason with the unreasonable.
Yeah, I'm unreasonable despite even posting sources and links for you despite the fact initially you completely missed the point of what I was saying then went off on some bizarro tangent about not being able to criticise the left ever.

Don't worry, even Psydonk is behaving as though they are performing for an audience.
How dare I respond to his post and then have nothing more to really say because he was completely missing my initial point.


You did your part by at least offering a serious answer.
lol wut, he didn't address literally anything I said then just started making up a strawman argument of something I never even said or implied.

Don't listen to those smelly right wing grifters, here are some left wing grifters who only exist to twist what this other person said to fit their narrative.
Yeah left wing grifters like, the fucking Daily Stormer admitting that shitheads like Sargon actively help their cause.

jesus christ this is why the left don't like engaging with the right, you're all literally being so fucking disingenuous it's painful.
 
Last edited:

Teletraan1

Member
May 17, 2012
5,784
2,139
670
Canada
Yeah left wing grifters like, the fucking Daily Stormer admitting that shitheads like Sargon actively help their cause.

jesus christ this is why the left don't like engaging with the right, you're all literally being so fucking disingenuous it's painful.
No I am referring to you posting some Peter Coffin video or a daily beast article. It is why nobody is going to take you seriously. Your posts are 90% projection. 10% dishonest reframing of replies.
 
Last edited:

Psydonk

Member
Jun 17, 2015
77
59
220
The "pain" you're feeling is just reality poking through your crumbling worldview.
yeah my world view is totally crumbling because wingnuts refuse to even begin to engage my arguments while being in a thread whinging about how the left never engages their arguments and just calls them "alt-right" instead lol. (and I'm the one projecting fucking lol)

No I am referring to you posting some Peter Coffin video or a daily beast article. It is why nobody is going to take you seriously.
So because of two sources you're not going to address at all and frankly I only posted because of convenience, you're going to ignore the entire rest of the post, K.


Your posts are 90% projection.
Again, says the right wingers who believe that "Alt-right" is a conspiracy by leftists to ever ignore engaging those oh so rational centrist classical liberal right wing views while ignoring a leftist addressing these arguments with non stop ad hominem. Yep, I'm the one clearly projecting.
 

CDiggity

Member
Jan 3, 2014
1,118
127
390
It was coined by a socialist white nationalist in perfect synch with left media using it and accusing the originator as being right wing when he never was.

It's use has devolved to the point that now any Republican or person who is against the radical left values is "all right" there are no "regular Republicans" anymore outside some congressman.

The media has made it a term to mean all that oppose the agenda are racist nazis that want to kill all minorities and cut your health-care, that you likely don't have if you're in a blue city anyway. The irony.
From what I can tell it's not just people being against certain values, it seems like anyone who is simply critical of progressive politics will get lumped in. It's how a lot of centrists get roped in. If someone were to say "Doxxing Republican congress members isn't a good idea." they'd probably get accused of protecting/supporting republican politics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: merlinevo

Psydonk

Member
Jun 17, 2015
77
59
220
There is nothing you said worth refuting. Get over yourself.
Well there is clearly no point really engaging anymore. But I will just say, every time you right wingers complain "Waaah the left won't debate us" think back to this, I offered my arguments and was met with nothing but bad faith and ad hominem. How you guys are acting is basically no different to how the woketards of Resetera/PoliGAF acted whenever they came across views they didn't like. (though in fairness I won't be instabanned by some hillbot cultist)
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
11,142
19,656
1,105
USA
dunpachi.com
Well there is clearly no point really engaging anymore.
We'd love to talk to you. Are you able to listen and debate like an adult, or is this the best your "side" can offer?

(hint: if you think it's one monolithic side of "right wingers" versus your own side, you're wrong)

yeah my world view is totally crumbling because wingnuts refuse to even begin to engage my arguments while being in a thread whinging about how the left never engages their arguments and just calls them "alt-right" instead lol. (and I'm the one projecting fucking lol)
I hope one day you'll escape your ideological prison and breathe in the fresh air of human interaction, genuine intimacy, and mutual trust between individuals.
 
Last edited:

Teletraan1

Member
May 17, 2012
5,784
2,139
670
Canada
You aren't debating. You are throwing out nonsense accusations, painting everything as a conspiracy theory that doesn't fit your world view and dishonestly reframing replies. If you honestly thought the left wing grifters I was referencing in your post were the daily stormer you are mentally ill. Nobody wants to engage because you are doing that. Perhaps try and discuss like a human being rather than a fucking sociopath.
 

merlinevo

Member
Apr 28, 2019
163
278
250
From what I can tell it's not just people being against certain values, it seems like anyone who is simply critical of progressive politics will get lumped in. It's how a lot of centrists get roped in. If someone were to say "Doxxing Republican congress members isn't a good idea." they'd probably get accused of protecting/supporting republican politics.
Which is precisely the goal. The extreme left knows that the majority of Americans are moderate leaning right and how unacceptable the progressive agenda is to the majority of people. Not many hard working Americans will accept crazy ideas like paying higher taxes for mostly the benefits of POC, not many Americans think single mothers are a good idea, not many believe that giving illegal immigrants citizenship is worth it, not many Americans think that young black males deserve preferential treatment because they committed crimes. So how do they fight against the majority mindset? By weaponizing sympathy, pretending to take the moral high ground, and then label anyone who don't agree as ignorant and hateful.

It's the type of behavior you see in grade school. A social outcast does not get their way, so they run to the teacher and cry. The teacher will take the side of the social outcast because they want to be seen as fair while not using their best judgment. It's sort of ridiculous in its simplicity, but that really is the most accurate analogy to what is going on in social media and mainstream media. This is going to end up real bad when the real bullies and bad guys begin to pop up all over the place in response to the insanity.
 
Last edited:

Saruhashi

Member
Oct 2, 2018
793
1,813
355
jesus christ this is why the left don't like engaging with the right, you're all literally being so fucking disingenuous it's painful.
Sorry to disappoint but I'm not right wing at all.
On virtually every major talking point I am on the left.

But, this should help you to illuminate the problem.
Labeling people who are not right wing as "right wing" labeling people who are not alt right as "alt right".

It creates the impression of a trickster trying to convince me that people are something they demonstrably are not.
Under the guise of a sense of danger that even if these guys aren't "alt-right" they are radicalizing others.

I'm not convinced.
Nor will I be convinced by a series of links that are clearly biased and invested in convincing me of what you want to convince me of.

I said it clearly in my first post on the thread and I will repeat it here.

I'd love to hear a description of who the Alt-Right are and what they believe in without all the twisting and turning and moving of goal posts.

Your reply to me jumped IMMEDIATELY to what I said I didn't want to see.

An anecdote about friends (so more than one, yeah?) who went full far right white nationalist within "months" of watching Sargon and Peterson.

Then the "twist". While Sargon and Peterson my not be Alt-Right they are secretly just pretending so that you will be tricked into being Alt-Right.
So not a clear description of the Alt-Right but rather a twisty turny tale that explains how those who are not secretly are.

It's all tricks and dogwhistles that only people like you are aware of.
The secret secret gang who knows all the things that us normal folks don't know.
Think about it.

How about this.
Just put down a few bullet points of what the Alt-Right actually is.
No faffing about just straight up "here is what the alt right is".
Then maybe a couple of examples of people who are blatantly alt right.
Not "he did this hand gesture once and criticized Star Wars".
SUBSTANCE.

Trying to pull the wool over people's eyes with this weasel word bullshit is disrespectful at best.

I watch you beating up your strawmen and I'm not impressed. Cut the shit.