Alt-Left?

Post Reply New Topic

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.'

This freedom to say what you want is a little mischievous when the content of what is said can cause people to have PTSD

The freedom of speech of the alt-right has not been curbed, so I'm not sure why they are bothered about that. It seems that maybe they think that freedom of speech includes the non-response of the listener, but the people who disagree have freedom of speech as well.

Yep. They do.

I'm not sure if the conservative element of WP commenting here grasps that last part of your post.

Grand old conservative principles that apply when replying to opposition liberals (and small children)
- do what is say don't do what I do
- be quiet! children should be seen and not heard

What is people's definition of "alt" anyway?

Antifa and the unironically communist left is a pretty clear "alternative" to the more level-headed left. To deny that there exists radicals on either side of the spectrum is really not helpful.



The "alt" part comes into politics and behavior, not in what they are against.

It means "alternative" in this context. It's supposed to be an alternative to the conservatism of the Bush presidency.

This is why the birth of the alt-right is unsurprising to me. The Bush presidency was a disaster. The reputation of the political right was destroyed by the "weapons of mass destruction" scandal. They desperately need to rebuild and rebrand themselves.

The term "alternative right" comes from a blog with that name. The blog was and still is a white nationalist blog. The alt-right has racist origins. There is no denying that.



Level-headed left? Are you talking about people like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton?

They are certainly "level headed". They know how to make money at the expense of the working class. Selfish egoists are often level-headed.

... or were you referring to Bernie Sanders? He's a bloke who actually cares about the working class.



Radicalism and extremism aren't the same thing.

A radical is someone who gets to the root of the problem. For example, the anti-war radicals understand that corporate corruption causes the vast majority of wars nowadays.

There is a big difference between radicalism and blithering insanity.

"To be radical is to grasp things by the root."
- Karl Marx

I'm talking about those who understand that they are really not qualified to just go out there and deal with the bad guys themselves. People don't have all the facts, they usually don't have the restraint to not abandon all their morals in the process, and they don't even know who the bad guys are apart from having a vague stereotype to go by. It's why mob justice almost always ends up getting innocent people caught in the crossfire.



Yet what is the root? No one agrees on what the problem really is. And their solutions usually just pour more fuel on the fire. Every radical thinks they are the only sane one.

The problem comes when they are so focused on opposing a group that they actualy lose sight of what it is they're defending and thus become just as bad as the facists that they claim to be against. For example:

"White supremacy is wrong and I'll stand-up against it wherehever it happens"- justified

"A working class, white autistic male is part of a group with Privilege™, which means that it's ok to be racist and sexist towards him even if I personally have more socio-economic power than him."- Not justified. At all.