New Icon

Proudly anti-fascist since 1991

Sorry for the political post, but this rise of the "new right" is deeply concerning to me.

Comments

[Johnny Walker]

Which part? I see a lot of people who could be described as ultra nationalistic, anti-Islamist, and anti-gay, bible thumping Christians at the extreme end, all the way to egalitarians, good feminists, outcasts, and classical liberals who aren't allowed in the Left anymore. I don't even agree with much of the shit on the Right, but it's the only place to actually speak your mind instead of being shouted down using shaming language buzzwords, mob justice, and blacklisting.

Maybe this has something to do with the rise of the "Right"s popularity these days. The Left has been hijacked and has turned into their own hotbed of insanity and fascism. They have become the new Religious Right and KKK.

[ADRNEL]

4135120
Anyone on the extreme nationalist, anti-islamic, anti-gay, sexist end of the right, including those on the "alt-right" and reactionary parts.
Including (but not unfortunatly limited to):
Breitbart.com
Conservapedia
Davis Aurini
Fox News
Sargon of Akkhad
Steven Crowder
Tea Party
Ted Cruz

and any MRA's, PUAs and MGTOW's for good measure.

[Johnny Walker]

4135314 Just going to give some opinions here.

Extreme nationalism, anti-gay, and sexism, yeah I agree that's the worst parts of the far Right. Anti-Islamic? There is justifiable fear and hatred for Islam as a religion since there are so many things wrong with it and what many of its followers believe. I know it's Not All, but when you have tens of millions of people who are bigots, hate you for who you are, and actually have a desire to murder you for that, I think a lot of people are justifiably turning to being anti-Islamic these days.

Breitbart is an okay site. They definitely have biased and skewed articles, but they still report on things most Left-leaning or supposedly neutral outlets don't cover. Most other news places are heavily skewed towards the Left or doesn't report on what they cover. Same as with Fox News. Grains of salt always recommended. (I still like Milo Yannopolus, but he was justifiably banned from Twitter, even if Twitter is being run into the ground by far Leftist, Feminist, and anti-free speech idiots.)

Never been to Conservapedia, except to look up political correctness. It's definitely a site that's got Right wing politics as a corner stone. Ingesting Bioshock Infinite levels of salts are recommended.

Had to look up who Davis Aurini is since I don't know anything about him.

Davis M. J. Aurini is a Canadian MRA, race realist (which he says is not "racism"),[2] white nationalist ("on paper"),[3] neoreactionary, vlogger, terrible novelist and all-around creepy guy.

RationalWiki doesn't seem biased whatsoever. /sarcasm I need to actually find some real full length interviews of him speaking to see if he's even decent.

Sargon of Akkhad. I actually like this guy and I'm subscribed to him. He's definitely a pro-free speech moderate Liberal type of person and an atheist. He doesn't seem to be a "Right wing" type of guy, but I guess even Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism is considered too Right these days.

Steven Crowder is definitely one of those bible holding Christians, but not as annoying. He seems like that one "cool" religious kid that actually wants to have fun instead of shoving his beliefs down everyone's throats. I like him, even if he goes into 'Murica patriotism now and again. I did like how he proved some hypocrisies like how when thousands of people forced a Christian bakery out of business for not serving a gay wedding cake and he himself went undercover as a gay man to try and order the same thing with an Islamic bakery and nobody said a word.

Never actually looked into the Tea Party or Ted Cruz, so I have no opinion on them.

The MRA's, PUA's, and MGTOW's are a curious bunch to be sure, especially since they're 3 very separate ideologies that go directly against Feminism for a variety of reasons and in several ways. PUA's are definitely the scum of the earth with how people in there try to manipulate women into sleeping with them, no argument there. MGTOW's are curious because they recognize that women as a whole have a crazy amount of power both socially and politically, so their solution is to reject ideas of marriage, long term relationships, and view women in general as not a group to interact much with. It might be the only group I could possibly label as "misogynist" because of its mistrust of women, but they have no aspirations to politically change the government, don't seem to be hurting anyone, and just want to be left alone so they're mostly harmless. MRA's seem to see the social and political inequalities that women and men have and want to bring men up the social and political power that women currently hold, while also bringing up views that are VERY counter against much of Feminism's sacred cows. They don't appear to be a hate group that seems to undermine women, but definitely get hated on a lot.

I wouldn't dismiss all these people, places and things out of hand, but it's still important to scrutinize their work. Stuff they say is very interesting though. Am I a Right wing fascist yet?

Also, can you even define "reactionary"? Because that's a buzzword that just keeps getting tossed around like nothing at all and it doesn't mean anything to me. I think I've heard at least 3 different definitions to it from several people and the dictionary.

[ADRNEL]

4135452

Extreme nationalism, anti-gay, and sexism, yeah I agree that's the worst parts of the far Right. Anti-Islamic? There is justifiable fear and hatred for Islam as a religion since there are so many things wrong with it and what many of its followers believe. I know it's Not All, but when you have tens of millions of people who are bigots, hate you for who you are, and actually have a desire to murder you for that, I think a lot of people are justifiably turning to being anti-Islamic these days.

The problem with anti-islamic is that it treats Muslim people as this one big block of people who have a hive mind. It fails to realize that we're dealing with individual people. It dehumanizes them. It sets up a false "us vs. them" mentality and takes away the nuance from the whole situation. Instead of focusing on the individuals who are bigoted, full of hate and desire to murder you, we are instead assuming that everyone is like that, which is not the relational way to do it. Which makes everything worse and gives the real terrorists another excuse to hate us even more. It's a perpetual cycle we've fall in to.

Breitbart is an okay site. They definitely have biased and skewed articles, but they still report on things most Left-leaning or supposedly neutral outlets don't cover. Most other news places are heavily skewed towards the Left or doesn't report on what they cover. Same as with Fox News. Grains of salt always recommended. (I still like Milo Yannopolus, but he was justifiably banned from Twitter, even if Twitter is being run into the ground by far Leftist, Feminist, and anti-free speech idiots.)

I do read Breitbart and other right-wing sites (mostly to see what mole hills they have chosen to turn into mountains on that particular day). Milo Yannopolus...how does he work? No seriously, that guy confuses me, everything about him just contradicts itself, I'm surprised a hole in the fabric of space-time hasn't enveloped him yet. As for Twitter, it's a private company, if they admins want to run it to the group, they can go ahead and do, if they want to ban someone, they can go ahead and do it. Constitutionally speaking, a private company banning you is not a violation of free speech since the first amendment only applies to the government not being able to censor you. Last time I checked Twitter is not a government agency so they can do whatever the hell they want.

Never been to Conservapedia, except to look up political correctness. It's definitely a site that's got Right wing politics as a corner stone. Ingesting Bioshock Infinite levels of salts are recommended.

They seem to have a different way of looking at history. Since then I avoid the place like the plague because damn...where to begin?

Sargon of Akkhad. I actually like this guy and I'm subscribed to him. He's definitely a pro-free speech moderate Liberal type of person and an atheist. He doesn't seem to be a "Right wing" type of guy, but I guess even Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism is considered too Right these days.

I thought he was a great guy as well, until I found out that the free-speech he's promoting is the freedom to harrass people he doesn't like, and that he does a shitty job at research and misconstruing his sources to fit his views. e.g. once dismissed the results of a campus rape study because it was a "survey", no shit Sherlock, of course it's a survey, doesn't mean it should be dismissed because it's inconvenient for you.

The MRA's, PUA's, and MGTOW's are a curious bunch to be sure, especially since they're 3 very separate ideologies that go directly against Feminism for a variety of reasons and in several ways. PUA's are definitely the scum of the earth with how people in there try to manipulate women into sleeping with them, no argument there. MGTOW's are curious because they recognize that women as a whole have a crazy amount of power both socially and politically, so their solution is to reject ideas of marriage, long term relationships, and view women in general as not a group to interact much with. It might be the only group I could possibly label as "misogynist" because of its mistrust of women, but they have no aspirations to politically change the government, don't seem to be hurting anyone, and just want to be left alone so they're mostly harmless. MRA's seem to see the social and political inequalities that women and men have and want to bring men up the social and political power that women currently hold, while also bringing up views that are VERY counter against much of Feminism's sacred cows. They don't appear to be a hate group that seems to undermine women, but definitely get hated on a lot.

I was a supporter of the MRA's...until it got hijacked by people who all they do is just sit around and bitch about women. I don't really see many MRA's go out and actually fix the social and political inequalities, all I have seen is just long rants about how women are taking over the world (because the fact that they are currently in charge of 18 countries, 10.3% of the population, and 8.6% of the total land area) means that women are going to take away the rights of men just like what men did when they were in charge. The whole MRA and MGTOW thing is just a R63 version of TERFS and RADFAMS, they is not difference between them.

Glad you have taken time out of your day to debate me on this.

[Johnny Walker]

4135541

The problem with anti-islamic is that it treats Muslim people as this one big block of people who have a hive mind. It fails to realize that we're dealing with individual people. It dehumanizes them. It sets up a false "us vs. them" mentality and takes away the nuance from the whole situation. Instead of focusing on the individuals who are bigoted, full of hate and desire to murder you, we are instead assuming that everyone is like that, which is not the relational way to do it. Which makes everything worse and gives the real terrorists another excuse to hate us even more. It's a perpetual cycle we've fall in to.

Humanizing people is a good way to keep that tribalism instinct in check and the minority doesn't speak for the majority, I agree. Nobody actually wants to deport the women and children escaping from the civil war in Syria. That must have been terrible for those coming from there. The problem I think with a lot of people becoming anti-Islamic is that a lot more people joined the fleeing of those refugees in order to get into the richer Western countries who declared they would shelter, give free food and money, and even live there for an indeterminate amount of time. The vast majority are unskilled, illiterate adult men coming from everywhere from Egypt to Turkey for those free benefits. They're also bringing along the worst parts of their culture, which is also a vast majority of it being Islamic. People can see videos and read articles about the jacked up crime rate, massive swelling of sexual assaults and rape compared to pre-immigration, these isolated pocket ghettos sprouting up all over the place and creating hotbeds of radicalization, which increases the pro-Jihad terrorist attacks. And European governments don't want to do anything about it. (Except for Poland.) In fact, these European governments enforce the media to either lie or silence stories that put a bad light on these people or their own governments decisions and even force the cops to not arrest them. (The Rotherham rape gangs and Cologne assaults being a great example.) All this fuels the rising hatred and bigotry that people are feeling. I'm surprised there hasn't been more protests or coups against the governments, instead of vigilante groups popping up in certain places so the people could protect themselves. Europe is fucked.

My greatest fear is either the US and Canada takes in a massive amount of these same people in to not appear "racist" or anti-Islamic in the eyes of many of the European governments, and the rise of political groups that play upon those fears to introduce laws that take away human rights.

Milo Yannopolus...how does he work? No seriously, that guy confuses me, everything about him just contradicts itself, I'm surprised a hole in the fabric of space-time hasn't enveloped him yet.

Hmmm.. If I think about it, he's just the right kind of character that young people who are leaning towards the middle or Right side of the spectrum, and even some on the Left, need as their voice. He can move around the gotcha\trap questions that some interviewers try to pull and do it with rapid fire responses that much of his audience agrees with. He's immune to the identity politics on the Left since he's a flamboyant homosexual who loves black dick. (People using identity politics usually like to dismiss men and white people for very weak reasons, usually yelling stuff about Privilege.)

He's not Alex Jones or The Young Turks level of crazy, but he's very animate and flamboyant that very few journalists are. He knows how to troll people and just what to say to someone and his opponents to get a response, especially to trigger them and having them show off their bigotry and making them look like a buffoon. (I still laugh thinking about him on The Big Question and making a feminist yell out "THIS IS INSTITUTIONALIZED SEXISM!" when he called her Darling.)

He can't be trusted all the time though since he's had times where he was a bit two-faced. I mention the Twitter ban because it's the best and biggest example. He plays it off as if he was unfairly banned, but he did retweet some fake tweets that made Leslie Jones look bad. Purpose or accident, I don't know. Leslie Jones isn't off the hook for tweeting some bigotry against white people, but she hasn't been banned or punished at all either.

As for Twitter, it's a private company. Constitutionally speaking, a private company banning you is not a violation of free speech.

This one again. The first amendment in principle in the United States covers free speech in a public area, and that includes social media spaces. I wouldn't be against a company trying to keep its secrets or even trying to regulate their employees speech by contracts for those secrets, but social media is a different thing altogether. Say an organization owns a social media platform that anybody can post to. That's great. Then there are people that come along and start posting Goatse and sheets saying "NIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGER". Since it doesn't do anything for conversations or spread ideas and is just trolling, they do have a right to take those down. That's being a responsible moderator. But then some people come along later saying this food corporation on their network is doing unethical things. The food corporation can edit their page to take out negative things and that's the food corporations responsibility since they own that space. BUT when the organization who owns the social media platform starts mandating what can and cannot be said, bans people they don't agree with, and promotes said corporations or agendas, it's not a platform that has free speech in principle. Social media is the best place for people to talk to these days and I believe freedom of speech should be amended to have platforms where people post publicly available messages as being centers for free speech. The US government can't trample on free speech, but neither should corporations that wants to give platforms either. In my mind, either everybody gets a platform or no one uses their service. Simple.

They seem to have a different way of looking at history. Since then I avoid the place like the plague because damn...where to begin?

Yeah. I actually found one Wiki site a long time ago where on one of the first pages they started talking about Hitler in a very positive manner. Avoided that like an acid bath.

I thought he was a great guy as well, until I found out that the free-speech he's promoting is the freedom to harrass people he doesn't like, and that he does a shitty job at research and misconstruing his sources to fit his views. e.g. once dismissed the results of a campus rape study because it was a "survey", no shit Sherlock, of course it's a survey, doesn't mean it should be dismissed because it's inconvenient for you.

I can't remember any time he's harassed people (he's done more than a few videos saying "don't contact these people"), except when he's responding very negatively to certain people or acting like a shit. It was over a year ago I think he's done some shitty videos, including stuff I could only see as him just taking the piss. I don't think I see those anymore since he's gotten a larger audience and tried to up the production value. And I think I know that survey you're talking about. It wasn't an actual study where people were carefully interviewed and were made so there was no misunderstanding, but was one of those BuzzFeed style survey's that went around campus that included having drunk sex as "rape". I would have dismissed it too.

I was a supporter of the MRA's...until it got hijacked by people who all they do is just sit around and bitch about women. I don't really see many MRA's go out and actually fix the social and political inequalities, all I have seen is just long rants about how women are taking over the world (because the fact that they are currently in charge of 18 countries, 10.3% of the population, and 8.6% of the total land area) means that women are going to take away the rights of men just like what men did when they were in charge. The whole MRA and MGTOW thing is just a R63 version of TERFS and RADFAMS, they is not difference between them.

It's frustrating and I often wish they would do more, but it either seems like that they're too small of a group, they usually get blocked, shouted down, or blacklisted from speaking or holding events. (My mind keeps going back to this one guy, Sage Gerard, who started a mens advocacy group at his college but was blocked at every turn by the Humanities departments and other student unions who thought he was raging misogynist.) I don't go to A Voice For Men or other MRA's. The ones I usually listen to is Karen Straughn and Honey Badger Radio and yes they do talk about how women "control the world", but it's very nuanced.

Glad you have taken time out of your day to debate me on this.

Not quite sure if that was sarcasm or not. But I have to say, I respect and thank you for being calm and telling your side and being reasonable. The last couple times I brought similar stuff up, I usually get called an alt-right racist with the same opinions as a Neo-Nazi. No joke. Thank you for your time as well.