Alt-Left?

Post Reply New Topic

There was a nazi march in my country fairly recently as well, and a man placed himself in their path and ended up in a confrontation with some of the marchers. The police removed him and allowed the nazis to keep marching, to great dismay of a lot of people since going against nazis is obviously not something you normally see as being in the wrong. But on the other hand he was the disruptive element causing a problem at that moment. I dunno.

Yeah, it's left, but how is it alt-left? I wouldn't consider Bernie Sanders to be Alt-Left, just the same old left as before.

God forbid everyone has health care.

Alt Left just means Alternative Left. An alternative to the current left wing establishment.

GOOD HEAVENS----Reading 101, would be good, here!!

I just said----right in the part, you quoted----that this was NOT the same area (meaning, where the statue was, was NOT where they had guns, cuz they wouldn't've been ALLOWED)! ! Hello?

As for "is that what President Trump, meant": Maybe.....

Yeah, see----that's the way *I* feel about it (that the FOR-statue-removal people should've been removed). The ANTI-statue-removal people had the PERMIT, to protest / be there.

Now, what *I* wanna know, is..... Several people said the cops just stood there, and did nothing----and, when the FORs showed-up, how could one miss a bunch of people carrying bats (it was probably, like, 150 degrees, that day [LOL not literal, of course], so it's not like they hid the bats, under their coats / jackets)----so, why didn't the cops, REMOVE them, BEFORE this mess!?!?!

P.S. I told somebody, recently, that they probably didn't know there were Neo-Nazis in Europe (well, I may have been talkin'-about the KKK, at-that-time, actually), and this, IMO, just, pretty much, proves that there ARE.

Thank you

Were the Antifa people acting like vigilantes?

"Alt-left" is just as meaningless as "alt-right."
The alt-right gets thrown around in reference to everyone from kids in their bedrooms that use 4chan and spam Pepe memes, to KKK members, to National Bolsheviks, to registered Republicans. It's the ~hot new term~ for people on the right.

"Alt-left" is, essentially, being used to refer to people on the far-left, from what I've seen. The term is pointless. These people aren't part of some new movement called the "alt-left," they're socialists, they're communists, they're anarchists. They're leftists. There's nothing 'alt' about their leftism. Maybe Trump is labeling them as 'alternative leftists' because he sees them as skewed liberals, and thinks liberals are leftist (disclaimer: liberals aren't leftists).
Trump didn't coin the term, it's been thrown around for about as long as "alt-right," but alt-right began to be used before alt-left.

It's realpolitik, the game of branding every current issue or emerging power structure as something 'new' with its own new logo/brand or declaring a group that's been supposedly normalized into invisibility to most people to be a threat by comparing one group to the other, in a way that's hoped to raise people's awareness of their mutual resemblance in this case.

There is no alt-left.

The alt-right supports fascism, discrimination, blind hatred, Christian supremacy, and an unrestrained murderous police force.
There's nothing "alt" about opposing those things, you are supposed to be against fascism in America.

1. Define 'fascism.' A lot of what people consider the 'alt-right' isn't fascist at all. Fascism isn't a catch-all term for racist or bigoted people.
2. A lot of the 'alt-right' is atheist.
3. A lot of the 'alt-right' is anti-police force (in its current state).

Yes, there's nothing 'alt' about opposing what you've listed, but that's not what makes the term silly. The term is silly because leftism already implies a hard stance against fascism, racism, etc. The alt was simply tacked on because they're seen as 'extremists' by the media, like the "alt-right" is, but it's completely useless and ultimately meaningless. You'll never really see mainstream news refer to Communists or Socialists as such when they're doing something people are actually supporting.

I just wish the media would actually be open about the woman killed being a member of the IWW, lol. They'll never mention it. I don't even think anyone will mention the fact that the counter-protesters being cheered on were communists. It's a bit sad.

Well, I'm thinking one could TRY to argue that----but, IMO, a vigilante is one who enforces the law, when LEO, DON'T; and, that wouldn't apply, here, IMO, because people protesting is not breaking any law, because they had a permit.

I think that in THEIR mind, they thought of themselves as vigilantes----cuz that sounds all heroic, and stuff----but, the fact IS, they were fighting for something that they felt SHOULD be a law (a law against WS/NN), but actually ISN'T, so they AREN'T.

Phil from The Advise Show and Gazi Kodzo (Black Hitler) think God is going to judge all white people and they as far from the alt-right as you can get.

The issues of statue removal and permits seem like red herrings to me. These people openly espouse white superiority. Statues and permits don't make hate okay.

You are correct, statues and permits don't really make hate 'okay.' But the US has the first amendment which allows individuals to spew rhetoric advocating for the extermination of certain groups of people, and shouting that said groups are inferior, which makes this entire ordeal pretty complicated. Most people would agree that it's not okay for neo-Nazis and white supremacists to go around saying what they do, but a surprising amount of people will fight for their supposed "right" to say such things.
People fear that if they don't defend individuals' "rights" to say hateful things, their rights are at risk as well. Most people defending the white supremacists that aren't white supremacists themselves are doing so because they see 'freedom of speech' as beautiful, even though freedom of speech is already conditional and not entirely 'free.'