(02-06-2017 09:49 PM)JOwl Wrote: (02-06-2017 05:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (02-06-2017 04:59 PM)JOwl Wrote: Nope, you're explicitly leaving out key connections. Connections I was nice enough to furnish for you the first time.
I actually ignored them for being simplistically broad-brushed. I'll explain below.
Quote:Trump bring in Bannon as his chief advisor, his Karl Rove. Trump puts out ads/statements that people paying attention identify as coded, anti-Semitic red meat for Bannon's alt-right crowd. Members of that alt-right crowd, such as Spencer and the shitbags at Stormfront.com celebrate those messages.
You guys can chuckle with your false equivalences as you like, but until you produce the statement from Democratic leaders that you believe Casey Anthony was responding to, then your examples have no relevance.
In your mind alt-right and Bannon are exclusively 1488 types. In fact, the entire evil dog-whistle cabal is predicated on that. I don't subscribe to that all inclusiveness.
You previously stated:
Quote:And what is the alt-right*? A big mix of extreme conservatism, heavy on the white nationalism and anti-Semitism.
I hate to tell you, but while the 1488ers are in a subset of the alt-right nationalism (note "nationalist" without the adjective "white" in front of it), your broad brush sweeps in a lot more.
But considering it is the same Mother Jones - Vox - Huffpo - Salon set that branded the Tea Party movement as nothing but a bunch of bigoted racists, I'm not surprised that this constant drumbeat has now changed targets.
So please keep up with the nefarious Dr Evil "they are nothing but racists" drumbeat.
Your definition of alt-right in the manner to include *anyone* in that (somewhat vaguely defined) vein as "extreme conservat[ives] [,...] white national[ists,] and anti-Semit[es]" actually tends to undercut all your dog-whistle stuff.
So I am no more chuckling at a false equivalency than I am at an over-eager attempt to broadly define anyone who self-associates as an alt-right as an "extreme conservat[ive] [,...] white national[ist,] and anti-Semit[e]".
Quote:I see you didn't like my definition of the alt-right -- which was "A big mix of extreme conservatism, heavy on the white nationalism and anti-Semitism".
Correct. Thought it was very heavy-handed to be honest.
Quote:I'm going to take issue with you representing that as me saying "they are nothing but racists", but let's try to get to something more constructive here.
I will do the same. Let me first explain the pithy "they are nothing but racists" comment I made. First let's examine your 'causation' chain you presented:
Quote:Trump bring in Bannon as his chief advisor, his Karl Rove. Trump puts out ads/statements that people paying attention identify as coded, anti-Semitic red meat for Bannon's alt-right crowd. Members of that alt-right crowd, such as Spencer and the shitbags at Stormfront.com celebrate those messages.
In order for the efficacy you ascribe to be achieved (and I am assuming when you say "people paying attention" you mean the racial nationalists you see barking.... correct me if my assumption is wrong please...), then Trump and the 'cabal' must be ipso facto either racist, or have sympathies for being racist.
So the assumption that is impliedly present in your causation chain is that everyone in that chain is nothing but racist or racist sympathizers.
So the Spencers 'bark' -- sure they do. It is obvious that they are much happier that Trump is there as opposed to Obama or Hillary. Will they try and assert whatever primacy they feel they might have earned? Without a doubt, its in the nature of that beast. Will they listen for messages (whether they are there or not)? Sure they will, they will take any indication that they are in the 'in crowd' from whatever source they can gin up, much like I used to look for signals (that may not necessarily intentionally be there) from when I was a real goober from anyone of the opposite sex (now Im just a goober, not a real goober mind you....). But the self-vindication is what makes these people tick.
My source.... 2 of them. Used to work offshore with some of these clowns, and spent a lot of time in cramped quarters with these types. Also, early in my legal career, I actually represented some of these types in non-criminal matters. Also a serious eye-opener.....
So I agree that the dogs bark, but I also understand that most will search desperately for *anything* to broadcast that they might be on the upswing, and many times make serious mountains out of molehills over the need to do that.
So my issue is with the trigger causation. You imply that the triggers are real, present, and intentional. Thus, the actors pulling those triggers must by necessity be "nothing but racists" or sympathetic to the racists. Your chain of causation is predicated on that --- and that is why I characterized it as such.
Hopefully this is a more thought out and less pithy explanation.
Quote:I was going for a brief description -- one sentence. Note that I did link to Yiannopoulos's meandering/self-contradictory primer to the alt-right for folks like OptimisticOwl who seem completely unaware of it, which of course has a much fuller description.
So I ask you -- what is your one-sentence definition of the alt-right?
It would be one that is far less heavy handed, tbh. Ill try to doctor yours to show you where my differences lie, and potentially where the exceptions I have to your statement about it (which, btw, seems to be the stock trade for Vox/Atlantic/Mother Jones/Huffpo -- and are the same exceptions I took for their similar portayal of the Tea Party movement.)
"A big mix of
extreme various branches of nationalistic-leaning conservatism,
heavy on the , with some strains of white nationalism and anti-Semitism
present, and typically characterized by direct political confrontation and implementation of Alinsky-style political engagement"
First, the term "extreme" is an emotionally loaded, yet utterly garbage term which is intended to do nothing but provoke. One could call me an "extreme" conservative based on my views on Chicago school economics, yet a complete "liberal" on legal marijuana, abortion, and gay marriage. (one can also make the similar statement that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are also fluff words with no real meaning....).
But I will grant you that I can think of no strain of alt-right that a liberal/progressive would embrace, so lets leave the "conservative" there as a place holder.
There are two common themes in alt-right schools that I see: a profoundly deeper sense of nationalism (not racism mind you...), and a willingness to be far more 'in your face' than the Tea Partiers ever dreamed of, up to and including the various Alinksy engagement tactics and those that the community organizers of the left ever only used. And Trump has really mobilized this alt-right because he is a street-fighter --- he doubles down. And the alt-right relishes in engagement.
Now to the ugly --- the white nationalism portion absolutely does exist within the alt-right, they definitely meet the criteria. They are not just nationalists, but racially motivated nationalists. And they do employ 'in your face' style of engagement, they are probably the only group (aside from the Tea Partiers) on the libertarian/conservative spectrum to have done so in an open manner. And, to repeat myself, they probably fall under the rubric the alt-right, as do a number of other factions as well. But, in my observation, an alt-right does not ipso facto mean a white supremacist or anti-semite.
Lets just say a Gamer Gate persona does not mean the guy necessarily yells "Seig Heil". But both are seriously 'in your face', and are both 'in your face' about causes that make a SJW tick.
Quote:And while we're at it, where does Richard Spencer fall? Regular alt-right or 1488er?
I dont think there is really a "regular" alt-right.
He is an unabashed 1488er. Its kind of hard to characterize someone who calls for the creation of a "white ethnostate" as anything but that.
------
To be blunt, every characterization I have seen in the Atlantic/Vox/Huffpo/TPM world of 'alt-right' always includes the verbiage of 'racist' (or equivalent) with it. It is really ironic to me, as they readily embark on the same broad brush indictment treatment that Breitbart is supposedly guilty of, but just in an opposite direction. They completely rolled over the libertarian-based Tea Party with that slur campaign, and I see the same script being played out here.
![[Image: v8ccqht.jpg]](http://e.lvme.me/v8ccqht.jpg)
