Political Ideology

[Sunshine Jesse]

To popularize a phrase (purportedly) and to coin it are two entirely different things. The "alt" in "alt-right" means "alternative". Alternative to what? Mainstream conservatism in the United States.

 

People who call themselves "alt-right" are *not* necessarily Neo-Nazis.

That's not my point.

 

My point is that it's unacceptable to adopt a label that was popularized by someone to represent those causes, which is exactly what Richard Spencer did. It's inherently a sign of support or tolerance.

 

Those who don't follow those causes need to just call themselves what they actually are (populists) instead of something edgy, "cool," and flat-out morally repugnant as a "funk you" to the establishment.

[Tentacruel]

I mean, Democrats used to be super racist, but they're not anymore.  (At least not at the surface level)

[Sunshine Jesse]

2 differences:

 

1. They, as a body, didn't explicitly stand for racist policies by definition. You weren't explicitly empowering racism by calling yourself a Democrat.

2. There's a reason they are no longer racist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

2 differences:

 

1. They, as a body, didn't explicitly stand for racist policies by definition. You weren't explicitly empowering racism by calling yourself a Democrat.

2. There's a reason they are no longer racist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

This is false

 

1) Many racists, like KKK head, Robert Byrd stayed democrats (and close friends of the Clinton's)

2) Shitty strategy seeing the GOP only this year managed to take back the Kentucky senate

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sVXs6dMieGI

 

Watch

 

Just becuase you say it, doesn't make it true. There was no party flip.

 

IDC how altright started, but it's ours now, not the neo-nazis

[Sunshine Jesse]

I'll take a long article with many sources and quotes straight from the people who did it over a randy Youtube video.

 

Remaining a Democrat doesn't mean s***. The party flip happened with the voters, not with the actual representatives. The fact that they remained Democrats just means that the strategy of courting racists actually works regardless of party.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

 

The parties are still the same jesse, the democrats are just more subtle about their slavery 

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

That's not my point.

 

My point is that it's unacceptable to adopt a label that was popularized by someone to represent those causes, which is exactly what Richard Spencer did. It's inherently a sign of support or tolerance.

 

Those who don't follow those causes need to just call themselves what they actually are (populists) instead of something edgy, "cool," and flat-out morally repugnant as a "funk you" to the establishment.

 

Guilt by association. I call myself human, it doesn't mean I support Richard Spencer. 

[Aerion Brightflame]

Did you just equate health care paid for by the state with slavery? That's... something.

 

It's an innaccurate analogy though; Democrats aren't forcing others to pay for there healthcare, they are forcing everyone to contribute everyones healthcare. Which is in theory (and when not just a terrible system like ACA) just the same as the current system but more fair on those in need than on those not in need. And in many cases it actually works out cheaper (If those who can afford to pay extra lose out on some level of quality).

 

This specific case is not entitilement. It's about the shared duty of a nation to look after those in need, a metric which many feel a nation should be judged by.Some feel that it is unfair to make those in need through sheer chance suffer because of sheer chance. Someone with chronic illness cannot help the fact that they are ill (In many, not all cases), nor the financial burden that is placed on them as a result, but existing systems make them suffer for it.

 

If you are going to make that kind of argument that the party is still the same, I am amazed you didn't go for a PC one - Saying that the need to not offend one group overcomes the liberties of others.

 

Plus there's always the argument that they are trying to make life easier for everyone by fighting for single payer (And I mean single payer, I don't mean the ACA. The ACA was mostly terrible), not make there lives easier. Not having to pay insurance premiums and the like would save everyone money.

[Sunshine Jesse]

 

The parties are still the same jesse, the democrats are just more subtle about their slavery 

That makes no funking sense. You're literally just spouting false equivalencies and bullshit talking points.

 

Guilt by association. I call myself human, it doesn't mean I support Richard Spencer. 

Can you really not see the difference between that and willingly associating yourself with an ideology?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Instead of literal chains, you put economic chains on minorities. There's a reason inncer cities have the highest minority poverty rate and have been run by welfare doling democrats for half a century

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Can you really not see the difference between that and willingly associating yourself with an ideology?

 

Of course there are differences, but the relevant similarity is that neither being human nor calling oneself "alt-right" (which is more of an umbrella of ideologies) implies support, tacit or otherwise, of Richard Spencer. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Anyway, the name "alt-right" doesn't belong to the Nazi filth anymore, Trump voters own that name now. We're not traditional republicans, we're not leftists, we're an alternative and now dominant right.

 

Deal with it

[Sunshine Jesse]

Instead of literal chains, you put economic chains on minorities. There's a reason inncer cities have the highest minority poverty rate and have been run by welfare doling democrats for half a century

Except that's also wrong because red states receive far more welfare money than blue ones.

 

Inner cities have the highest poverty rate because it's cheaper to live there so more poor people move in. It's not rocket science, it's basic cause and effect.

 

 

Of course there are differences, but the relevant similarity is that neither being human nor calling oneself "alt-right" (which is more of an umbrella of ideologies) implies support, tacit or otherwise, of Richard Spencer. 

 

If you're aware of what Richard Spencer does and who he is, and you still take the title of "alt right," that does actually imply support. I can't see how it doesn't. Saying it's fallacious to think that way isn't an argument.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Except that's also wrong because red states receive far more welfare money than blue ones.

 

Inner cities have the highest poverty rate because it's cheaper to live there so more poor people move in. It's not rocket science, it's basic cause and effect.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/compare_state_spending_2016b40an

 

Wait what...that's not even reasonable on any regard. Cali has like 64 times the population of Wyoming...the welfare rates being lower in Cali makes no sense

 

Yes, some blue states have lower welfare spending than Texas, but you conveniently dropped the thing I was saying about minorities 

 

You're ignoring a whole buncha variables to get to that conclusion there

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

If you're aware of what Richard Spencer does and who he is, and you still take the title of "alt right," that does actually imply support. I can't see how it doesn't. Saying it's fallacious to think that way isn't an argument.

 

Why, because Richard Spencer happens to call himself "alt-right"? If Donald Trump decided to call himself a Democrat (as he previously has) would that imply all Democrats support Donald Trump? 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Why, because Richard Spencer happens to call himself "alt-right"? If Donald Trump decided to call himself a Democrat (as he previously has) would that imply all Democrats support Donald Trump? 

Or all his supporters become Democrats

[Tentacruel]

You're getting too hung up on labels.  If a bunch of non-racist people identify as alt-right, they don't become racist because you consider alt-right to be an intrinsically racist term.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I'm not gonna lie I didn't even really know what Alt-Right was before this and I still don't entirely get it because...Eh, I never understood calling yourself a certain word for this stuff since your political beliefs often take parts from multiple parties and movements anyway.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'm not gonna lie I didn't even really know what Alt-Right was before this and I still don't entirely get it because...Eh, I never understood calling yourself a certain word for this stuff since your political beliefs often take parts from multiple parties and movements anyway.

 

 

It used to be Neo-Nazis, then Trump happened, and Trumplicans and Trumpocrats wanted a name that wasn't Republican or Democrat, so we chose Altright, we outnumber the NN like 1000:1

 

So the debate is, do we own the term, or does as Jesse suggests, the NN own the term and we're all closest NN

[VCR_CAT]

It used to be Neo-Nazis, then Trump happened, and Trumplicans and Trumpocrats wanted a name that wasn't Republican or Democrat, so we chose Altright, we outnumber the NN like 1000:1

 

So the debate is, do we own the term, or does as Jesse suggests, the NN own the term and we're all closest NN

 

Why does it have to be "altright" though; why did these people want a label, look at a group of neo-nazis, and go "Yes, yes this is the label we wish to identify ourselves with". Frick, just call yourselves populists or something; like I'm just baffled over why it needs to be something with such clear roots that obviously most of these people don't want to be associated with.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Why does it have to be "altright" though; why did these people want a label, look at a group of neo-nazis, and go "Yes, yes this is the label we wish to identify ourselves with". Frick, just call yourselves populists or something; like I'm just baffled over why it needs to be something with such clear roots that obviously most of these people don't want to be associated with.

alternate right

 

Speaking of which

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/307462-trump-adviser-tells-house-republicans-youre-no-longer-reagans-party

[a bad post]

alternate right

 

Speaking of which

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/307462-trump-adviser-tells-house-republicans-youre-no-longer-reagans-party

Firstly the link is 404'd my dude so there's that...

 

Secondly saying "alternate right" does not answer the question. Why would a group that wants to present itself as the "moderate right" associate itself with a movement that originated from white nationalist sites like Stormfront and movements like W.A.R. The whole reason it's called the "alt-right" is because it's much easier to say to people that "I'm part of the alt-right movement" than trying to tell people "I'm part of the white nationalist movement". The alt-right is an extremely dangerous movement that is very strategic in its use of rhetoric, and it's really foolish to believe that it's anything else. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Firstly the link is 404'd my dude so there's that...

 

Secondly saying "alternate right" does not answer the question. Why would a group that wants to present itself as the "moderate right" associate itself with a movement that originated from white nationalist sites like Stormfront and movements like W.A.R. The whole reason it's called the "alt-right" is because it's much easier to say to people that "I'm part of the alt-right movement" than trying to tell people "I'm part of the white nationalist movement". The alt-right is an extremely dangerous movement that is very strategic in its use of rhetoric, and it's really foolish to believe that it's anything else.

 

Democrats originated racist slave owning white supremacists

 

Things change love

[Aerion Brightflame]

Democrats originated racist slave owning white supremacists

 

Things change love

Things do change.

 

But the definition of the alt=right as being 'White nationalists' is a modern definition. This isn't like the Democrats, whose standpoint and such changed over decades. You are taking a name that has incredibly negative connotations in a modern enviroment and going 'Nah forget about all that, we have nothing to do with that' without leavin any time for the name to be distanced from the negatives.

 

So whilst you are right to say things change, it is more proper to say things change slowly. And that jumping to identify yourselves as 'alt-right' simply because of the ease of saying 'we are alternative right' when the alt-right has a different relevant modern meaning is kinda strange.

 

You could call yourself essentially anything else, but you are trying to pick one of the few modern names that has these crazy connotations. I don't see why short of either lazyness, certain aspects wanting to fit the current idea of the alt-right, or just a need to go 'nah it's ours now'. All of which seem like the worst option. Choosing a new name would actually be positive press because it's 'rebranding'.

[VCR_CAT]

Democrats originated racist slave owning white supremacists

 

Things change love

 

There's a pretty big difference between up to 200 years and up to 20 years love