An article on the conservative vs alt-right distinction

Post Reply New Topic

It's insulting to people who are diagnosed narcissists to compare them to Trump in a derogatory fashion. I'm not even joking or using rhetoric to double-down on the Trump insult. Narcissism is a mental illness which is difficult to live with, and sufferers do not deserve to be demonised. Trying to slur Trump by calling him a narcissist unfairly stigmatises mental illness.

"The essential features of a personality disorder are impairments in
personality (self and interpersonal) functioning and the presence of
pathological personality traits. To diagnose narcissistic personality
disorder, the following criteria must be met:

A. Significant impairments in personality functioning manifest by:

1. Impairments in self functioning (a or b):

a. Identity: Excessive reference to others for self-definition
and self-esteem regulation; exaggerated self-appraisal
may be inflated or deflated, or vacillate between extremes;
emotional regulation mirrors fluctuations in self-esteem.

b. Self-direction: Goal-setting is based on gaining approval
from others; personal standards are unreasonably high in
order to see oneself as exceptional, or too low based on a
sense of entitlement; often unaware of own motivations.

AND

2. Impairments in interpersonal functioning (a or b):
a. Empathy: Impaired ability to recognize or identify with the
feelings and needs of others; excessively attuned to
reactions of others, but only if perceived as relevant to self;
over- or underestimate of own effect on others.

b. Intimacy: Relationships largely superficial and exist to
serve self-esteem regulation; mutuality constrained by little
genuine interest in others‟ experiences and predominance
of a need for personal gain

B. Pathological personality traits in the following domain:

1. Antagonism, characterized by:

a. Grandiosity: Feelings of entitlement, either overt or covert;
self-centeredness; firmly holding to the belief that one is
better than others; condescending toward others.

b. Attention seeking: Excessive attempts to attract and be
the focus of the attention of others; admiration seeking.

C. The impairments in personality functioning and the individual‟s
personality trait expression are relatively stable across time and
consistent across situations.

D. The impairments in personality functioning and the individual‟s
personality trait expression are not better understood as normative
for the individual‟s developmental stage or socio-cultural
environment.

E. The impairments in personality functioning and the individual‟s
personality trait expression are not solely due to the direct
physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse,
medication) or a general medical condition (e.g., severe head
trauma).

I often feel the same way whenever someone calls Donald Trump stupid. It's my opinion he's a delusional narcissistic with a skewed view of reality, but dumb he is not.

I wrote a long reply to this but then closed the tab, bah.

American perspective - sure. I did try to acknowledge that in the second half of that paragraph but my formatting probably made that harder.

Dog whistles - I don't like the concept for the same reasons as you, but unfortunately it's real. We've reached a stage where things are now even more meta - the alt right know that the concept of dog whistles sounds far fetched to the uninitiated, so they're using increasingly mundane (or zany depending on your point of view) ones to make their opponents sound unhinged. The OK sign is one example, as is "subscribe to PewDiePie". Globalism is absolutely a common anti-Semitic dogwhistle. The solution isn't "never talk about globalism" or whatever, but simply being aware, and encouraging others to be aware, that certain terms may signify that other terms which seem innocuous might have a second reading. Think critically, basically, while also accepting that there may be things you don't know (particularly important when considering fast-moving internet culture).

Shapiro as part of the "Intellectual Dark Web" - I think he's routinely identified alongside those individuals. I don't know much about the Weinsteins but I'd group them alongside Harris as the more "moderate" members of the group. Those three and Peterson are genuine intellectuals, but ultimately only in their narrow specialisms - they don't have enough perspective to engage with a lot of the cultural issues that they like to complain about. I might be being harsh on Harris there, but Peterson is a complete dope on a lot of basic biology, which is fairly close to his specialism, so I don't see what hope he has with more distant issues. Rogan and Shapiro, on the other hand, I wouldn't class as intellectuals, particularly Rogan.

Not sure there is a hard and fast line between the alt-right and the more conservative part of the IDW, particularly Rogan. Rogan has no qualms allying himself with the alt-right, and his audience overlaps very heavily with that of the hardcore alt-right. Peterson isn't quite as bad, but yet he focuses his energy disproportionately on the left and gives the alt-right an easy ride. There is an ideological coalition between these various shades of "anti-SJW". I would point to an excellent article that Ezra Klein wrote for Vox entitled "The rise of YouTube’s reactionary right", which makes for interesting reading. Would also check out the /r/SamHarris thread about Rogan's interview with Lauren Southern, which highlights quite well the divide between Harris' followers and those of Rogan and Peterson (although of course there is overlap - but the non-overlapping part is Harris's followers who think Rogan and Peterson are dopes for associating with the alt-right).

I think civility alone is worth very little. Don't get me wrong, it's better than rudeness, but your idea isn't better because you said please. I'm also not entirely sure that these people are all that civil. Joe Rogan called liberalism a mental disorder. Jordan Peterson sues people who criticise him. But at the end of the day, I value insightful analysis above all else. Hbomberguy is abrasive and uncouth and personally incited a Twitter mob against me, but give me his insightful critiques of the alt-right ahead of Jordan Peterson's straw men. And certainly give me someone who is both polite and insightful, like ContraPoints. Both of those people are much further from me politically than the IDW are from the alt-right, but there's some allyship there because we're all opposed to the alt-right (but also prepared to call each other out when we disagree).

On the other hand, most of the IDW would rather side with the alt-right than against them. They are defined in large part by their shared opposition to "campus leftists" (truly the most pressing political issue of our times!). When I say "sure your economical ideas would reduce the level of growth we'd experience and therefore our ability to help the needy, but you're helping stop the rightward shift in our society with insightful and entertaining political commentary", I'm showing that I prioritise anti-fascism over liberal economics. Maybe I'm wrong to do so, and if so I'll have to live with that, but I'm entirely comfortable with that choice. When Joe Rogan or Jordan Peterson chooses to side with the alt-right because of their shared dislike of content warnings and trans people, they're prioritising opposition to "campus leftists" over the threat of rising ethnic nationalism. It's my view that this reflects poorly on them.

(Ironically, I'd excuse Shapiro despite being being the most conservative of the lot, because he actually makes efforts beyond the token to oppose the alt-right. The overlap there is much more uneasy.)


It's insulting to people who are diagnosed narcissists to compare them to Trump in a derogatory fashion. I'm not even joking or using rhetoric to double-down on the Trump insult. Narcissism is a mental illness which is difficult to live with, and sufferers do not deserve to be demonised. Trying to slur Trump by calling him a narcissist unfairly stigmatises mental illness.

I also don't think Trump suffers from a delusional disorder. His delusions, such as they are, are purely the result of his stupidity. This is a man who routinely bungles basic facts. He doesn't just lie when it benefits him, but he lies about utterly trivial things where it's easy to verify that he's lying. He often loses his train of thought mid sentence. He repeatedly does things that he knows are bad for him. He thinks exercise is bad for you. He bankrupted a casino. His decision making is ineffective. He shows little sign of intellect. He's not a clever man.

Now Dominic Cummings? There's a clever man. Don't know who the American equivalent would be, but there must be some smart people in the Trump camp. The Russia investigation has made most of them look like complete buffoons though.

I think you mistake me trying to slur Trump by calling him a narcissist with my belief that he fulfills the criteria for narcissistic personality disorder.



I won't go into the entire diagnostic criteria, but believe characterizations of Trump as "grandiose," "getting validation from others," and "attention-seeking" are all accurate to his public persona. I believe it's also fair to characterize him as having "antagonism" traits. Now of course it is impossible to diagnose someone based off their public persona, but it is my belief that he has NPD.

Trump is a public figure. I believe per the rules of this forum I am allowed to speculate as to his mental health and how it affects his politics. If I'm over the line here, then I'll back off, but there is is an entire section in music and writing to speculating which musical artists may have ASD.

I wrote a long reply to this but then closed the tab, bah.

American perspective - sure. I did try to acknowledge that in the second half of that paragraph but my formatting probably made that harder.

Dog whistles - I don't like the concept for the same reasons as you, but unfortunately it's real. We've reached a stage where things are now even more meta - the alt right know that the concept of dog whistles sounds far fetched to the uninitiated, so they're using increasingly mundane (or zany depending on your point of view) ones to make their opponents sound unhinged. The OK sign is one example, as is "subscribe to PewDiePie". Globalism is absolutely a common anti-Semitic dogwhistle. The solution isn't "never talk about globalism" or whatever, but simply being aware, and encouraging others to be aware, that certain terms may signify that other terms which seem innocuous might have a second reading. Think critically, basically, while also accepting that there may be things you don't know (particularly important when considering fast-moving internet culture).

Shapiro as part of the "Intellectual Dark Web" - I think he's routinely identified alongside those individuals. I don't know much about the Weinsteins but I'd group them alongside Harris as the more "moderate" members of the group. Those three and Peterson are genuine intellectuals, but ultimately only in their narrow specialisms - they don't have enough perspective to engage with a lot of the cultural issues that they like to complain about. I might be being harsh on Harris there, but Peterson is a complete dope on a lot of basic biology, which is fairly close to his specialism, so I don't see what hope he has with more distant issues. Rogan and Shapiro, on the other hand, I wouldn't class as intellectuals, particularly Rogan.

Not sure there is a hard and fast line between the alt-right and the more conservative part of the IDW, particularly Rogan. Rogan has no qualms allying himself with the alt-right, and his audience overlaps very heavily with that of the hardcore alt-right. Peterson isn't quite as bad, but yet he focuses his energy disproportionately on the left and gives the alt-right an easy ride. There is an ideological coalition between these various shades of "anti-SJW". I would point to an excellent article that Ezra Klein wrote for Vox entitled "The rise of YouTube’s reactionary right", which makes for interesting reading. Would also check out the /r/SamHarris thread about Rogan's interview with Lauren Southern, which highlights quite well the divide between Harris' followers and those of Rogan and Peterson (although of course there is overlap - but the non-overlapping part is Harris's followers who think Rogan and Peterson are dopes for associating with the alt-right).

I think civility alone is worth very little. Don't get me wrong, it's better than rudeness, but your idea isn't better because you said please. I'm also not entirely sure that these people are all that civil. Joe Rogan called liberalism a mental disorder. Jordan Peterson sues people who criticise him. But at the end of the day, I value insightful analysis above all else. Hbomberguy is abrasive and uncouth and personally incited a Twitter mob against me, but give me his insightful critiques of the alt-right ahead of Jordan Peterson's straw men. And certainly give me someone who is both polite and insightful, like ContraPoints. Both of those people are much further from me politically than the IDW are from the alt-right, but there's some allyship there because we're all opposed to the alt-right (but also prepared to call each other out when we disagree).

On the other hand, most of the IDW would rather side with the alt-right than against them. They are defined in large part by their shared opposition to "campus leftists" (truly the most pressing political issue of our times!). When I say "sure your economical ideas would reduce the level of growth we'd experience and therefore our ability to help the needy, but you're helping stop the rightward shift in our society with insightful and entertaining political commentary", I'm showing that I prioritise anti-fascism over liberal economics. Maybe I'm wrong to do so, and if so I'll have to live with that, but I'm entirely comfortable with that choice. When Joe Rogan or Jordan Peterson chooses to side with the alt-right because of their shared dislike of content warnings and trans people, they're prioritising opposition to "campus leftists" over the threat of rising ethnic nationalism. It's my view that this reflects poorly on them.

(Ironically, I'd excuse Shapiro despite being being the most conservative of the lot, because he actually makes efforts beyond the token to oppose the alt-right. The overlap there is much more uneasy.)


It's insulting to people who are diagnosed narcissists to compare them to Trump in a derogatory fashion. I'm not even joking or using rhetoric to double-down on the Trump insult. Narcissism is a mental illness which is difficult to live with, and sufferers do not deserve to be demonised. Trying to slur Trump by calling him a narcissist unfairly stigmatises mental illness.

I also don't think Trump suffers from a delusional disorder. His delusions, such as they are, are purely the result of his stupidity. This is a man who routinely bungles basic facts. He doesn't just lie when it benefits him, but he lies about utterly trivial things where it's easy to verify that he's lying. He often loses his train of thought mid sentence. He repeatedly does things that he knows are bad for him. He thinks exercise is bad for you. He bankrupted a casino. His decision making is ineffective. He shows little sign of intellect. He's not a clever man.

Now Dominic Cummings? There's a clever man. Don't know who the American equivalent would be, but there must be some smart people in the Trump camp. The Russia investigation has made most of them look like complete buffoons though.

Did you guys know Trump thought you needed ID to buy groceries? That just shows how sheltered he is.

When you have so many privileges, you are unaware of how the real world works.

Depends if you consider hard alcohol "groceries." (This is a joke)

Or cough syrup.

See - he *was* talking to Appalachia and the rust belt!

As a center-righter, it saddens me when people like me are lumped in with the alt-Righters.

I get tired of being called racist, sexist, and ignorant for stating things like "Border security measure aren't inherently immoral."