• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

spam musubi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,381
Here's a bit of confusion I always have.

The traditional "left" or socialist leaning politics call for a bigger government in more control of more aspects of people's lives, in order to provide for those less fortunate, or redistribute wealth to be better used for all of society.

The traditional "right" or libertarian leaning politics call for de-centralizing the government and giving more power to smaller local governments to serve fewer people and take power away from a large nationwide government.

So why is the "right" associated with fascism if they also call for "smaller government" that doesn't have a huge power or influence over everyone in the nation? Isn't that key to fascist ideology?

Because the right's call for small government is hypocritical. They want small government, but they want government to ban abortions, ban gay marriage and ban weed. They also want government to spend more and more on the military and intervene in the Middle East. None of this is small government. Don't believe their lies.
 

sphagnum

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
16,058
Here's a bit of confusion I always have.

The traditional "left" or socialist leaning politics call for a bigger government in more control of more aspects of people's lives, in order to provide for those less fortunate, or redistribute wealth to be better used for all of society.

The traditional "right" or libertarian leaning politics call for de-centralizing the government and giving more power to smaller local governments to serve fewer people and take power away from a large nationwide government.

So why is the "right" associated with fascism if they also call for "smaller government" that doesn't have a huge power or influence over everyone in the nation? Isn't that key to fascist ideology?

The way you are using left and right is entirely based on liberal, particularly American, notions of left and right within a capitalist framework. To socialists and anarchists, for example, left doesn't mean "bigger government", it means "give control of the means of production to the working class". The concept of right wing = small government relates specifically to liberal/capitalist conservatism, the preservation of private property rights and the absolute control of the individual over them regardless of how that affects society.

The concept of fascism as a right wing ideology comes from the fact that it is reactionary. It is radically regressive and insular, purposefully linking itself to tradition, roots, homeland, conservative values and so forth. They hate liberalism and socialism and want to return to a glorified past. They view the liberal state as failing to protect the nation from corrupting, degenerate influences and therefore want to use the state to do it. While they use anticapitalist rhetoric from time to time, once in power they preserve class distinctions. Few fascists (like the Strasserists) actually cared about class struggle.

Basically, if left = democratize power structures and right = preserve power structures, it becomes easy to see how they are right-wing.
 

Deleted member 721

User-requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,416
Here's a bit of confusion I always have.

The traditional "left" or socialist leaning politics call for a bigger government in more control of more aspects of people's lives, in order to provide for those less fortunate, or redistribute wealth to be better used for all of society.

The traditional "right" or libertarian leaning politics call for de-centralizing the government and giving more power to smaller local governments to serve fewer people and take power away from a large nationwide government.

So why is the "right" associated with fascism if they also call for "smaller government" that doesn't have a huge power or influence over everyone in the nation? Isn't that key to fascist ideology?
Its not about state, communists and anarchists dont want state in the end. And both are in the left.

How Norberto Bobbio says Its about the atitude to equality, while the left wants equality the right embraces It, saying that to Impose equality you are attacking freedom,.

Its almost this i cant find the exactly part and Its been a while.

Its the "left and right" book wrote by Norberto Bobbio.

Its also a thing thats transitional, but Its not about more or less state.
 

Sinfamy

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,724
Small government for you, big government for the rich, corporations, the healthcare exploitative industry and the military industrial complex.
 

Ogodei

One Winged Slayer
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,256
Coruscant
Some definitions.

Alt right is just a rebranding effort, it doesn't have a cohesive ideology. But people within that sphere tend to be white nationalists/supremacists, misogynists, antisemites, "traditionalists", and bigots of various stripes. You can be a hardcore conservative Christian (evangelical, Catholic, Orthodox, doesntd really matter), neopagan, Hindu or whatever. They're not all fascists - many are more libertarian/ancap - but fascism is prominent.

Fascism itself is a broad, reactionary ideology that positions itself as a "radical centerc /third way, though most of everyone else would call it extremely far right. Mussolini was influenced by anarchism (paging kristoffer) and specifically syndicalism, believing that the economy had to be restructured away from pure capitalist bourgeois control into a more "organic" system where people of all classes worked together under the guiding hand of the state for the good of the nation. They idolized action, violence, and technology.

Hitler went full-on crazy with it by slapping a racial element on top, making it all about Aryanism. The idea of the fascist variant of "national socialism" is thus to defend and propagate a particular race with the power of the state, yanking control of the economy away from "cosmopolitan" elites who are only in it for themselves and have no roots in the nation (for Hitler, this meant Jews; these days its "the swamp"/"globalists"/basically Jews). This is why Nazis consider themselves "socialists" while literally no other socialists do and, in fact, most socialists see fascism as a final protection of the bourgeoisie in response to the rising power of the left. I think you can see the parallels to that fairly easily in people like the Mercers.

You could sort of see the socialist element to national socialism insofar as it was willing to expropriate wealth... as long as that wealth did not belong to the "master" race. In that regard they did not discriminate between Jews of great wealth or paupers (although the wealthiest of the Jews were able to get out before things got bad). Other variants of Fascism tend to be more inclusive about protecting the wealth of the bourgeoisie, although real fascism (as opposed to the lite fascism we see these days, which is really corporatism with white nationalist social policies) wasn't above heavy handed market interventionism and some nationalization.

It is definitely *not* an economically revolutionary movement except when it takes the form of Nazism and gets to the point of destroying targeted racial/ethnic groups, including the expropriation and redistribution of their wealth. And only the Nazis ever really went that far.
 
Oct 31, 2017
669
I agree that intolerant behavior of extremists is incompatible with the way our society should work and should not be tolerated, there should be no "let's give their idea a chance because tolerance", HOWEVER I am a firm believer of reformation and giving other human beings a second chance to get along with the rest of society, I believe in the power of dialogue and education and I just can't defend isolation, I am convinced that if you isolate and completely dismiss these extremists their intolerance and hate will only grow stronger, and with the free internet at their disposal they are no longer disarmed when put into a corner, they can regroup and retaliate, ignoring and isolating these individuals just no longer works in the world of today, the best approach in my opinion is facing them head on in debate and try our damn best to knock some sense into them, otherwise it's going to be war, and those things never end well for anybody involved.
 
OP
OP
IrishNinja

IrishNinja

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
9,837
Vice City
i mean...that sucks, but Fahrenheit's still a great book, not letting any such group have that one

You know it's a great thread when it's only been an hour, but two different websites are already mad about it.

in hindsight, this was a letdown - one was voat (haha!) and the other is a scrub site leftover from people mad at GAF bans. it's nice to have folks on your nuts but i've a long way to go before getting to that slayven tier
 

Laevateinn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,137
Chicago
Thanks for the great thread Irish. Much love as always.

I used to make the mistake of trying to debate right-wingers I knew but none of them are ever interested in reality or any form of genuine dialog. It's too exhausting. All they want is a platform and attention. Acknowledging them is giving them exactly what they want.

Republicans and those to the right of them are a cancer. The only cure is excising them from the conversation.
 

Deleted member 15326

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,219
i mean...that sucks, but Fahrenheit's still a great book, not letting any such group have that one



in hindsight, this was a letdown - one was voat (haha!) and the other is a scrub site leftover from people mad at GAF bans. it's nice to have folks on your nuts but i've a long way to go before getting to that slayven tier

lmao
 

Spaceships

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
78
Not it isn't. It is literally the opposite. Fatenheit 451 was inspired by Nazi book burnings. It's about the extinction of culture BY FASCISTS.

I agree with you 100%. The people we're talking about have the IQ of about 60. It's still a common alt right book. They like 1984 too. Go check /lit/. I'm talking about pewdiepie being a transparent alt-right troll, not the substance of the book
 
OP
OP
IrishNinja

IrishNinja

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
9,837
Vice City
alright, y'all don't need to hand reading books to the alt-right and start naming classics - of course if you hide under the banner of FREE SPEECH you're gonna highlight those books out of their context, but frankly the if there was a draft i'd push for them to keep ayn rand & call it a day

Great thread.

Charlottesville.

...well, that's a weird autocorrect
changed now, thanks
 

AYF 001

Member
Oct 28, 2017
828
I agree that intolerant behavior of extremists is incompatible with the way our society should work and should not be tolerated, there should be no "let's give their idea a chance because tolerance", HOWEVER I am a firm believer of reformation and giving other human beings a second chance to get along with the rest of society, I believe in the power of dialogue and education and I just can't defend isolation, I am convinced that if you isolate and completely dismiss these extremists their intolerance and hate will only grow stronger, and with the free internet at their disposal they are no longer disarmed when put into a corner, they can regroup and retaliate, ignoring and isolating these individuals just no longer works in the world of today, the best approach in my opinion is facing them head on in debate and try our damn best to knock some sense into them, otherwise it's going to be war, and those things never end well for anybody involved.
On mobile, I'll respond point by point:

Too much of a good thing can be bad for you, just to rephrase what you wrote more digestibly.

While an ounce of prevention might be worth a pound of cure, it's best to quarantine someone already infected before administering treatment.

Remember, it's always harder to fix something than to break it, and there's only so many hours in the day to try.

All they want is war, so it's wise to work towards the best while preparing for the worst.
 
Oct 26, 2017
8,206
I mostly agree, but Destiny seems to be doing a great job of debating alt-righters then destroying them and making them look like total idiots. But most people aren't Destiny and can't do what he does, so in most normal situations I agree.
If you've been following Destiny you'll notice recently he's kind of given up debating with them because he figured out they weren't commenting/arguing in good faith.
 

kristoffer

Banned
Oct 23, 2017
2,048
+1

This is more controversial than people here will like but I think the trend in speaking of the "alt-right" as a coherent entity loses the plot completely and is a disservice to normal, functioning members of society everywhere. The people who Christopher Hitchens once said should be out on the street selling pencils out of a tin cup instead are treated like a mobilized band of radicals credibly threatening the greater order. It says a lot that their greatest claim to fame on the web is 4chan. This is concentrated immaturity and resentment posing as ideation. A coalition of PUAs and backwood, unhirable "intellectuals".

Then again, fascism was never respectable. All the fascists I've ever read about have been discardable losers and aimless flunkies, first drawn to revolutionary socialism because the idea of existing outside of the structures and overthrowing it all was intoxicating, then becoming dictators because their only principles were death and power. I'd observe that the biggest reason fascists hate elites is because they're never smart enough to join them on their own merits.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
IrishNinja

IrishNinja

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
9,837
Vice City
If you've been following Destiny you'll notice recently he's kind of given up debating with them because he figured out they weren't commenting/arguing in good faith.

yeah i've never really indulged - per the thesis of this thread, "debating" bigotry doesn't seem wise - but i imagine that felt like a sisyphian task

I've had this same autocorrect happen to me alllllllll the time. And I've got friends in Charlottesville. I think somethings up with Apple.

it's apparently an android thing as well

This is more controversial than people here will like but I think the trend in speaking of the "alt-right" as a coherent entity loses the plot completely and is a disservice to normal, functioning members of society everywhere. The people who Christopher Hitchens once said should be out on the street selling pencils out of a tin cup instead are treated like a mobilized band of radicals credibly threatening the greater order. It says a lot that their greatest claim to fame on the web is 4chan. This is concentrated immaturity and resentment posing as ideation. A coalition of PUAs and backwood, unhirable "intellectuals".

again, my OP points at the rise in hate crimes, the normilazation of nazi/white supremacist views, and arguably, our current administration. it can be all of those things and still have managed to pull off more than some are willing to admit.
 

D.A.

Banned
Nov 7, 2017
425
I'm an advocate of free speech and copyright reform. Censorship you see it is fine in public sphere, and in your own private home, but when you come and say certain content should be censored in other people's homes, in their own websites, that's pushing the line and infringing on their freedom.

Deplatform is often about taking away even private avenues of expression. That doesn't jibe with me. Deplatforming of all opposing viewpoints is often one of the first steps towards authoritarian states.

BTW, there is a free speech patreon alternative that is not hatreon. Given hatreon's nearly offensive name, does anyone remember who they are?

thanks y'all - tried to be thorough but i still left stuff out, like this important one here:

mXjT0XG.jpg


also fair points on boogie, i'd not considered that

Problem is when those intolerant of intolerance are told they are intolerants and kicked out to let the first group of intolerants in, because they must be tolerated. Nazis aren't the only intolerant group out there.
 
Oct 31, 2017
669
On mobile, I'll respond point by point:

Too much of a good thing can be bad for you, just to rephrase what you wrote more digestibly.

While an ounce of prevention might be worth a pound of cure, it's best to quarantine someone already infected before administering treatment.

Remember, it's always harder to fix something than to break it, and there's only so many hours in the day to try.

All they want is war, so it's wise to work towards the best while preparing for the worst.
those are nice idioms but when applied to reality what exactly do those entail? Quarantine someone already infected is impossible in the world we live in today, they will always escape quarantine, before /r/the_donald there was /r/fatpeoplehate before that there was /r/CoonTown and before that there was something else, you just can't hold these people down now that the internet is around, their means of communications are exponentially better than even just 10 years ago, you just can't kill them, they will always come back in a different form, we are way past prevention, the other side is already on the field waiting for us to shoot the first arrow so that they can justify their hatred and wage full on war, debate is the only thing left that has a chance of exposing their lunacy while facts and reason still have some meaning in people's minds but the last 2 years taught us that we can't win if we try to fight fire with fire because their fire main combustible, hate and ignorance, is cheaper, more explosive and easier to obtain.
 

corasaur

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,988
irishninja can we be friends

Because the right's call for small government is hypocritical. They want small government, but they want government to ban abortions, ban gay marriage and ban weed. They also want government to spend more and more on the military and intervene in the Middle East. None of this is small government. Don't believe their lies.

it's true. the right-wing call for "small government" is a clever marketing tagline applied to a particular kind of power consolidation.

regulatory agencies and wealth redistribution are the ways that democracy has empowered people to fight back against those who would oppress them for as long as money has equaled power. most economic policies that conservative parties would repeal don't actually restrict the behavior of the majority of their voters. dumping industrial waste someplace? paying employees the bare minimum in the name of maximizing profits? gutting public science funding so that a larger percentage of research is done at the behest of big companies? Throwing away restraints on how the military can operate? Eroding checks and balances limiting the unilateral function of government branches? It's a bunch of decisions where you're arguing that it's wrong to stop those who already have power from doing everything they can to accrue more of it.

then it's a small jump from there to removing antidiscrimination laws and advocating ethnocentric policies or misogynistic policies. The demographics that already hold power attempt to portray the efforts of minorities and underdogs to be respected as human beings as not demanding basic respect, but instead an attack upon the majority.

The economic phase hinges on enough normal peoples' egocentric feelings that I'D TOTALLY BE FILTHY RICH IF SOMETHING WASN'T KEEPING ME DOWN in a business context. they don't notice they're being bled dry because they're convinced that whatever red tape was just burnt up was impeding them, when in reality it was probably protecting them.

then the same basic conceit gets applied to the identity politics side to depict people in minority demographics as the enemy just for existing. that gets the rank & file fascist supporter even more on-board with consolidation of power, because they get to feel better than whoever's on the lowest rung of the ladder, even though in practice they're still settling for scraps of power and a pretty bedtime story about how they're special.
 

sabrina

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,174
newport beach, CA
Here's a bit of confusion I always have.

The traditional "left" or socialist leaning politics call for a bigger government in more control of more aspects of people's lives, in order to provide for those less fortunate, or redistribute wealth to be better used for all of society.

The traditional "right" or libertarian leaning politics call for de-centralizing the government and giving more power to smaller local governments to serve fewer people and take power away from a large nationwide government.

So why is the "right" associated with fascism if they also call for "smaller government" that doesn't have a huge power or influence over everyone in the nation? Isn't that key to fascist ideology?
A lot of people say they want small government when what they really want is not letting people from different places or of differing opinions govern them. It's the classic people only think democracy is working when their candidates and policies win.

The problem with that is you can't only have small government in a federation. Some things on the federal level necessarily affect the whole nation, so as long as the nature of those things remains federal then the right will have to continue advocating for their version of it.
 

Fredescu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
89
Thanks for the OP. Reading about the Paradox of Tolerance helped my understanding of "free speech" greatly. Especially with regard to banning Nazi symbolism in certain countries. You should make no mistake that people using these symbols want to murder people that aren't like them, and those symbols should have the same legal status as threatening to murder someone verbally. This is not only compatible with free speech, but necessary to maintain it.
 

HammerFace

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
2,227
I'm an advocate of free speech and copyright reform. Censorship you see it is fine in public sphere, and in your own private home, but when you come and say certain content should be censored in other people's homes, in their own websites, that's pushing the line and infringing on their freedom.

Deplatform is often about taking away even private avenues of expression. That doesn't jibe with me. Deplatforming of all opposing viewpoints is often one of the first steps towards authoritarian states.

BTW, there is a free speech patreon alternative that is not hatreon. Given hatreon's nearly offensive name, does anyone remember who they are?



Problem is when those intolerant of intolerance are told they are intolerants and kicked out to let the first group of intolerants in, because they must be tolerated. Nazis aren't the only intolerant group out there.

But why should they be owed a platform? It's the platform holders right to decide what they want on their platform. When the opposing viewpoint loses the platform they created and own then problems arise, otherwise it shouldn't be a problem.

What does that last bit even mean?
 

spam musubi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,381
Thanks for the OP. Reading about the Paradox of Tolerance helped my understanding of "free speech" greatly. Especially with regard to banning Nazi symbolism in certain countries. You should make no mistake that people using these symbols want to murder people that aren't like them, and those symbols should have the same legal status as threatening to murder someone verbally. This is not only compatible with free speech, but necessary to maintain it.

This goes towards free speech too. If fascists had their way, they would limit the free speech of minorities, feminists and more. Their calls for free speech are just a stealth tactic to prevent themselves from being silenced. So in order to preserve free speech, you need to prevent nazis from exercising free speech. Because they would shut down all speech if they had power.
 

kristoffer

Banned
Oct 23, 2017
2,048
again, my OP points at the rise in hate crimes, the normilazation of nazi/white supremacist views, and arguably, our current administration. it can be all of those things and still have managed to pull off more than some are willing to admit.
In spite of the inclinations of the US president, racism in this country is on the decline. This is a hard thing to measure but I cite:
http://www.people-press.org/2017/10/05/4-race-immigration-and-discrimination/
and also some Gallup polls I can dig up that showed, between Donald Trump entering the race and becoming president, the number of people who supported a path to citizenship for people who have entered the country rose by 15%.

This is not to say that you're wrong that hate crimes rose (I think that's entirely because people have become emboldened by the election) but I think that's different from fascism being "on the rise".
 
OP
OP
IrishNinja

IrishNinja

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
9,837
Vice City
I'm an advocate of free speech and copyright reform. Censorship you see it is fine in public sphere, and in your own private home, but when you come and say certain content should be censored in other people's homes, in their own websites, that's pushing the line and infringing on their freedom.

Deplatform is often about taking away even private avenues of expression. That doesn't jibe with me. Deplatforming of all opposing viewpoints is often one of the first steps towards authoritarian states.

infringing on their freedom to indoctrinate and recruit violent white extremists, yes. i'm saying i'm okay with infringing on that right, and it's a worthwhile venture to do so. i also think it's worth pointing out that the concept of slippery slopes is a fallacy for a reason.

you'll notice that i'm not advocating deplatforming all opposing viewpoints, simply the one creating direct and viable harm. likewise, i think the notion that combating fascism somehow leads to fascism is a very flawed and tired one, but we're veering on platitudes here.

This is not to say that you're wrong that hate crimes rose (I think that's entirely because people have become emboldened by the election) but I think that's different from fascism being "on the rise".

i get that, but one feeds/empowers the other. i'd hoped my mess of an OP illustrated that, but it's an ongoing effort.
 

krazen

Member
Oct 27, 2017
13,166
Gentrified Brooklyn
I'm an advocate of free speech and copyright reform. Censorship you see it is fine in public sphere, and in your own private home, but when you come and say certain content should be censored in other people's homes, in their own websites, that's pushing the line and infringing on their freedom.

Deplatform is often about taking away even private avenues of expression. That doesn't jibe with me. Deplatforming of all opposing viewpoints is often one of the first steps towards authoritarian states.

BTW, there is a free speech patreon alternative that is not hatreon. Given hatreon's nearly offensive name, does anyone remember who they are?



Problem is when those intolerant of intolerance are told they are intolerants and kicked out to let the first group of intolerants in, because they must be tolerated. Nazis aren't
the only intolerant group out there.

We already censor certain things that society deems as generally awful and against the greater good in personal and private, for instance child pornography.
 

Khanimus

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
40,225
Greater Vancouver
I'm an advocate of free speech and copyright reform. Censorship you see it is fine in public sphere, and in your own private home, but when you come and say certain content should be censored in other people's homes, in their own websites, that's pushing the line and infringing on their freedom.

Deplatform is often about taking away even private avenues of expression. That doesn't jibe with me. Deplatforming of all opposing viewpoints is often one of the first steps towards authoritarian states.
Deplatforming fans of racial genocide is authoritarian now? Give me a fucking break.
 

kristoffer

Banned
Oct 23, 2017
2,048
i get that, but one feeds/empowers the other. i'd hoped my mess of an OP illustrated that, but it's an ongoing effort.
Well it's a good thing fascism is on the decline, then.

I agree with the moral principle here that you shouldn't ever bother interacting with a race-realist lunatic but just, you know, have a little perspective here.
 

D.A.

Banned
Nov 7, 2017
425
But why should they be owed a platform? It's the platform holders right to decide what they want on their platform. When the opposing viewpoint loses the platform they created and own then problems arise, otherwise it shouldn't be a problem.

What does that last bit even mean?
Yeah that is why alternate platforms backed financially by them emerge. When I hear deplatform, given that most mainstream already do so, I imagine blocking them from being able to even create a private platform

infringing on their freedom to indoctrinate and recruit violent white extremists, yes. i'm saying i'm okay with infringing on that right, and it's a worthwhile venture to do so. i also think it's worth pointing out that the concept of slippery slopes is a fallacy for a reason.

you'll notice that i'm not advocating deplatforming all opposing viewpoints, simply the one creating direct and viable harm. likewise, i think the notion that combating fascism somehow leads to fascism is a very flawed and tired one, but we're veering on platitudes here.

The thing is alt-right/=white-supremacist-nazi. Some white-supremacist-nazis are alt-right but not all alt-right are white-supremacist-nazis.

There are women that would like a world without men, while that would be problematic, if they want to speak about it in some book or some private avenue they can do so. If they want to try this out with some genetic modification of women, let them try, provided they go through the appropriate channels and prove it safe. If they succeed we may finally have something that will force the issue of regulating reproduction on to the political table.
 

D.A.

Banned
Nov 7, 2017
425
We already censor certain things that society deems as generally awful and against the greater good in personal and private, for instance child pornography.

That entails abuse. Most Speech does not entail abuse for its creation. My point of view is that in their own private avenues speech which did not involve abuse for its creation nor directly causes abuse should not be censored, as said within their own private avenues.
 

legacyzero

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
4,252
Let them have their public platform. More hands to catch. I can watch a Nazi get laid out all fuckin day long.

TdBvNUl.gif


Also- let's stop calling them "Alt-right". It diminishes what they actually are. They want that shit. They're Nazis. Period. Also- it doesn't help that the left commonly like to use labels like that for people who don't fall in the category. That diminishes it as well
 
Last edited:

Dekuman

Member
Oct 27, 2017
19,026
The right also isn't monolithic, need to have some nuance.

And riffing on the conversation above, Bundling in Fahrenheit 451 and Brave New World as some sort of alt-right manifesto is seriously dangerous and unsettling. They are critical of police states, which some seem to want us to move into if it would stop the 'right'. As voters, I seriously urge some self reflection on values and principles and what you stand for and not let emotion and 'winning' rule your thoughts.
 

kristoffer

Banned
Oct 23, 2017
2,048
I'm an advocate of free speech and copyright reform. Censorship you see it is fine in public sphere, and in your own private home, but when you come and say certain content should be censored in other people's homes, in their own websites, that's pushing the line and infringing on their freedom.

Deplatform is often about taking away even private avenues of expression. That doesn't jibe with me. Deplatforming of all opposing viewpoints is often one of the first steps towards authoritarian states.
Lol. Look, I think the task of figuring out who and who shouldn't have the right to access platforms is precarious, but you can draw a pretty obvious circle around some ideas that we'd all be better without. I'm not going to shed a tear for Richard Spencer. It's just one of those "here, but no further" things.
 

spam musubi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,381
Yo wut

Fahrenheit 451 and Brave New World are not alt-right books
seriously wtf

I think it would be a good idea to separate "things alt righters happen to do" from "things only alt righters do or use as a dog whistle". Otherwise we cede too much ground to them. We can't let them claim a novel that's anti fascist in principle.
 
Oct 27, 2017
796
Here's a bit of confusion I always have.

The traditional "left" or socialist leaning politics call for a bigger government in more control of more aspects of people's lives, in order to provide for those less fortunate, or redistribute wealth to be better used for all of society.

The traditional "right" or libertarian leaning politics call for de-centralizing the government and giving more power to smaller local governments to serve fewer people and take power away from a large nationwide government.

So why is the "right" associated with fascism if they also call for "smaller government" that doesn't have a huge power or influence over everyone in the nation? Isn't that key to fascist ideology?

Yes. Which is why it's so very confusing that us small government types get lumped in with alt right.
 

Khanimus

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
40,225
Greater Vancouver
The right also isn't monolithic, need to have some nuance.

And riffing on the conversation above, Bundling in Fahrenheit 451 and Brave New World as some sort of alt-right manifesto is seriously dangerous and unsettling. They are critical of police states, which some seem to want us to move into if it would stop the 'right'. As voters, I seriously urge some self reflection on values and principles and what you stand for and not let emotion and 'winning' rule your thoughts.
If you seriously think this is about "winning" some fucking petty argument, then you don't know what is actually being threatened.