What the alt-right is.

Post Reply New Topic

I never hid that I was on the Right, it isn't exactly a secret on these forums, though this alt-right manifesto does go outside my comfort zone . If by "playing along" you mean listening to your opinions, not automatically attacking you because our opinions differ and having a civilised discussion then I am guilty of that.
My "campaign against bad science" as you put it, is not about replacing it with my own version of science, it's just about argument and debate. Debates often end when someone finds a study that seems to defy common sense and reason because there is little comeback to it unless you are a scientist in the same discipline or have the resources to fund a counter-study, it's become the modern equivalent of "but Jesus says...".
The thread was just about putting some doubt into "scientistry" as Vox describes it, because it has very serious flaws and deserves as much scrutiny and scepticism as the Bible.

If you are worried about my apparent agreement with Vox's observations on educating women, "I see the logic" is a long way from advocating a policy along that vein. There are still moral arguments to be had. Noting the correlation between education level and childlessness, if I used science the way my progressive opponents do, there would be no debate.

Except religious people *want* to replace science with "and he said..." - the point of science is that scepticism is built-in... if you don't have the equipment to re-create an experiment then it's not science's fault... borrow some. The point is that if an experiment is re-done successfully then unless you have differing results, and then more differing results, then it can be challenged... but no, if smoking has been found to cause cancer then Jesus from 2000 years ago not only doesn't know about cancer or cigarettes but cannot just don some alt-right hat and suddenly it's all true.

In theory but not in practice, the knowledge modern science offers comes from a "publish or die" marketplace, funded by biased persons and institutions, conducted by biased persons and then made into Gospel by semi-democratic means. Successful experiments that support fashionable opinion are lauded, failures and unfashionable science, if funded at all, is submerged beneath murky waters. Scientists who disagree with the majority or God forbid produce science that agrees with "right wingers" are exiled out of public life amidst howling and jeering, never again to be taken seriously and published, because they are against scientific "consensus". Despite the fact that cheeky revolutionary scientists have time and again completely overturned the "consensus", the hive mind still attacks them and treats them like foul odours. This is not just unscientific, it is uncivilised.

As for replication, it's all there in the other thread, replication is just not done on a large scale. When it is done, a worrying amount of scientific studies cannot be reproduced, even by their own authors, which is what you might expect from such a system.

fair enough. but i think there are certain sources that, when you give any credit to them, you lose all credit yourself, and it shows your bias. i believe the unabomber was a visionary in certain ways. am i going to give him any credit for anything? hell no . no matter whatever he got right, he was a homicidal lunatic. if i think any of his ideas were insightful, then i'll just quietly borrow them and give them some proper context. and then, if i'm ever going to use anyone else's word to explain mine (which i usually don't), it will be the word of someone who gives me that context. ideas don't need proof or basis. only context and relevance do

you can't complain that a certain system of knowledge is fundamentally biased and uncivilized and then talk about another hugely biased and uncivilized system as if it deserves any credit. sure, the knowledge/belief system you're talking about may have its valid points. most systems do. but if you don't clearly reject the system as a whole (again: not necessarily its parts), while you vehemently reject another one, then you're legitimizing it. your arguments are actually stronger if you never give any credit to it. so it begs the question: why are you even mentioning it? whether or not it's your intention, my suspicion will be that you'll looking for some kind of rhetoric that gives your ideas an immediate appearance of consistency, regardless of whatever else that rhetoric defends and espouses

some things just can't be rationally or reasonably debated unless it's explicit that both parties agree that the material is dubious and that it's just an exercise in devil's advocacy. to illustrate my point: let's say you want to debate whether or not it's acceptable to put a bullet through someone's head just to test the effectiveness of a gun. can you play devil's advocate and defend that idea? yes. and some interesting thoughts might come out of it. but can you actually defend the merits of the idea, within the context of the actual idea? er... no. no amount of politeness in debate can change that, and any amount of politeness will only be tacitly validating the invalid

That's very well-argued.

Nicely done.

Maybe it just so happens that these papers with results that go against the consensus are just bad papers.

I lose credit with who? Those who are themselves biased? I am biased, I think everyone is, especially those who believe they are not. I do my best, though not always successfully, to remain rational and polite, to listen to arguments, to take people seriously (until proven moronic) and to avoid attacking the person rather than the opinion. I don't think you can ask much more of someone.

As for certain sources, how do you decide which sources are taboo? Gandhi, often quoted by progressives and protest movements, was seriously racist against Africans. Would quoting or agreeing with Gandhi on any topic automatically make someone lose credit? Just about every historical thinker had unsavoury views or practices by today's standards and every modern figure has a skeleton or two in their closet. Either you separate one opinion from another and opinion from people or you will just end up mad. People always let you down.



It was quoted verbatim, without rebuttal and left to stand there as though it were a steaming pile of excrement so obviously incorrect, false and immoral that any sane and good person must disagree and it needed no further discussion. I was inviting an argument nothing more, there is a demographic problem in the West, that our smartest women aren't passing on their genes is sad and dysgenic. That many women are reaching a certain age and realising it's too late to start a family is also sad.
Vox, being who he is has taken it to its logical and distasteful extreme, but that doesn't mean the problems aren't real or are unworthy of discussion or that there is no satisfactory solution to be found.

I find it really bizarre how the alt-right is so fearful of "the Islamic invasion", but at the same time thinks western civilization should become more like the backwards parts of the Islamic world. Why don't western regressives just ally themselves with Islamic regressives? Why are you fearful if you basically want the same things? Is it just because they are afraid of being "outbreeded" by "dirty brown people"? That seems like the most obvious conclusion.

I mean, progressivism and a drive towards more egalitarian society has been a part of western civilization for a long time. It went semi-dormant for a while during the dark ages, but resumed with the Enlightenment era. Only now have we gone "too far". The problem is throughout history the right has always believed their own era was the one that went "too far". The right is ALWAYS on the wrong side of history, yet think they always think they are right "this time".

Probably because going backwards through the history of human civilizations leads only to constant tribal warfare, in addition to hunger, disease, misery and ignorance. The neighboring tribe has essentially the same needs and motives as yours, but it’s inherently worse because it’s not your tribe.

Agreeing to be regressive is agreeing to fight each other to the death for the sake of not letting anyone have any goals in life other than said fight.

fact

still, you often complain about bias and biased bases for argument. so why would you use an extremely biased and questionable basis for argument yourself? that's what i mean. it's only now that you're making it clear that you're dumpster diving

from what i've been seeing of your posts, there's a pattern, and, without further clarification from yourself, the pattern suggests that you could actually be taking that vox douche seriously. if you don't want anyone to think that, then you need to be careful. and if you ever take your political debate to more concrete levels, then you really need to be careful. or else you might find yourself being greeted by inquisitive gentlemen with notepads, and i won't blame them


common sense. it sounds vague, and it is. but you have it, and i believe you understand what it is


no, because most people are unaware of gandhi's dark side, and that dark side wasn't a major part of what he preached, it was personal flaws. while that vox douche is, like you said, a glaringly obvious steaming pile of crap. he preaches stupidity. if you don't want to know what other people think, that's up to you. but then you can't get political. if you're going to get political, then you need to take your audience into account. always. ask yourself: what will everybody think of when you talk of gandhi (who everybody has heard of), and what will they think when you introduce them to vox douche through his manifesto? it's a self-answering question

you strike me as a reasonable person, above average at that (even if i don't think your current ideas are reasonable). but...
you should have started with this. note the tone and content of your posts throughout the thread. you certainly are playing devil's advocate. nothing wrong with that, like i said. i think it's a fundamental element of critical thinking. but you never clearly stated your opinion or your position until now, while you do go out of your way all the time to criticize "progressives", even when it's only very marginally related to the subject

usually when you talk about certain topics, i vehemently disagree with you. but sometimes when you talk about politics, i think you make a lot of sense

I just don't see the rational justification that the needs of modern times are exactly the same as the needs of more primitive times. At least the Islamic regressives have the justification of "God said so". Western regressives don't even take religion that seriously. It is strictly a matter of identity politics, i.e. tribalism. The thing is, Christianity has been in decline in the West, and it has been this way for at least a couple centuries.

i think in the end it's about focusing on an enemy just the same (which is the original basis of civilization). theocentric view: "the west is a threat to god" (paradoxically. considering that he's supposed to be almighty). anthropocentric view: "islam is a threat to the west itself". same thing in the end. "the west" (or the cultural value often dubbed as "freedom") is practically a monotheistic god in itself

Sure, apparently Gandhi was a racist, Luther was an Antisemite in his final years, Thomas Jefferson was a slave owning racist, and so forth, and so on. The difference between these men and racists and Antisemites like Hitler and Bull Connor was that their achievements for what was right overshadowed those faults.

@anagram I suppose further clarification is in order

It was a pretty neutral act I'd say, Hillary has decided to make the alt-right into a real enemy, Vox, a major player in the movement is trying to organise the thing into something more concrete and that's why he posted this. I was actually alerted to the post through a left wing journalist who had also taken notice (and offence). To make people aware of the post is not implicit agreement I would say. The people who would assume so, already think the worst anyway so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯



I do take him seriously, that doesn't mean agreement. If you'd like further clarification, I have always considered myself a "culturalist" rather than a racist, I believe some cultures are superior to others and I believe people can change their culture and integrate, but not at this level of immigration and not in this multicultural climate. I long ago resigned myself to being called a racist at every turn (that perhaps is why I do not leap to my own defence when I am implicitly accused of it - what's the point), because that is what happens when you say mass immigration is a terrible idea and continuing to allow it will not only destroy what's left of Western culture, but turn the place into a dismal, fractured war zone, like almost every other place on Earth where opposing tribes and cultures feel like they own the same land.

Where do I disagree with Vox? Well he cares a lot more about race than I do, he thinks there is a genetic factor to culture and his solutions to some problems (problems we both acknowledge are real) are beyond the pale.



Perhaps.



They fear it, as I do, because they don't want to live in a Muslim majority country, actually most Muslims with the option don't want to live in a Muslim majority country. There is no allying with a supremacist culture on your own turf, at least not anything that isn't a step on the road to total capitulation. There just isn't the will to find an "Islamo-Christian" compromise because neither side would tolerate it very long.

I really do wish the Left were right about their social theories, it would be lovely wouldn't it? All of us living together in harmony on the same land, working and living together with the same general goals, but that is not how humans operate. We are only just seeing the beginnings of cultural and tribal calamity unfolding in Europe, one that will make the last century look like a fun time to live in.

overall i'd say i agree with you on what some of the major problems are, but i don't agree with your predictions and your respective solutions. i do think you're reaching paranoid levels (especially when i see you questioning the validity of current knowledge on hiv/aids largely based on youtube videos). no argument i can use to convince you though, because it's subjective

to me it's clear what occam's razor would suggest. but, well, it is possible that the sun revolves around the earth, and, depending on perspective, it does. you just need a very convoluted perspective. which kinda defeats the purpose. unless all you want is to rationalize something that you already believe, in which case i believe it's more truthful to just say that it's what you believe in and leave it at that