(02-06-2017 05:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 04:59 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(02-05-2017 08:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-05-2017 05:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-05-2017 04:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I would venture to say that neither Richard Spencer nor David Duke would need to wait on any dog whistles before speaking up.

You're right that they don't need to. But that they have responded directly to some of the actions by the Trump administration. That is the key.

Lets sum this up:

Trump makes a statement
Spencer comments on that statement
Therefore there must be intentional dog whistles in Trump's statement....

With all due respect there is a *major* lack of substance and/or backing in that chain.

I guess anytime Spencer, or Duke, or Westboro (or anybody like that) comments on anything that Trump did or said, we will pretty much always expect from this time going forward that it is "obviously" dog whistles being blown intentionally expressly for that purpose; glad I have that figured out now.

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]".

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". 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 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?

And while we're at it, where does Richard Spencer fall? Regular alt-right or 1488er?