Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

http://theshitlordhub.blogspot.com/

here's a directory of most sites under the alt-right banner

discuss

What should we discuss, exactly?

The whole alt-right movement?
If so, then we would need a rather precise definition of it.

An issue associated with those sites or people?
If so, then we need specifics, perhaps sources about it.

I'm all up for debating any political stance, really, but we need some sort of entry point to the debate.

OP is a n00b. But seriously what is alt-right? I have not heard of it.

Alternative -right?

I presume so.

Alt-right is the not-establishment, the people who get called racist and bigoted for actually wanting to enforce the laws on our books, typically anti-multiculturalism and pro-America. It's only been notable for a decadeish, mostly to describe certain radio pundits and bloggers, but now people are using it to describe Trump supporters.

Pretty sure OP is just spamming his blog link tho.

If we go by the wikipedia definition, then Alt-Right is:

An umbrella term for the designation of right-wing ideologies in the United States presented as an alternative to mainstream conservatism in its national politics. The alt-right has been described as a movement unified by support for Donald Trump, opposition to multiculturalism and immigration, and rejection of egalitarianism. The alt-right is said to include beliefs such as neoreaction, monarchism, nativism, populism, national capitalism, and identitarianism.

So it's pseudo-conservatism that hates PC culture. Sounds horrible.

people who get called racist and bigoted for actually wanting to enforce the laws on our books

anti-multiculturalism

Yo, hit me up with a constitutional quote on that. Also, pretty sure that "reactionary" and "monarchist" movements do not want to go by the current laws.
This movement generally screams "RADICAL CHANGE", not "status quo".

So it’s pseudo-conservatism that hates PC culture. Sounds horrible.

Wouldn't call it that either. Do not associate current "leader" of it with all of those movements. Especially since the fact that it's alternative does not make it pseudo-.

{ This movement generally screams “RADICAL CHANGE”, not “status quo”. }

Which part of it? It's not just one movement, as the wiki says. It's an umbrella term for those who don't fit in with establishment conservatism. Some of those people are super far-right, some of those people are moderate conservatives. What they have in common is a typically anti-multiculturalist and pro-America view.

You want a constitutional quote about the obligation the federal government has to enforce our border controls against foreign invaders, which the Obama administration has used an executive order to completely halt, and literally sued Arizona for passing a law which directed the state's border patrol agents to secure the border since the federal agents refused to (citing that the states gave up their ability to enforce border controls when joining the union because the federal government was charged to protect the border for all states instead of leaving it to the individuals).

Try Section 4, Article 4.

The alt-right is said to include beliefs such as… monarchism

???

Oh for goodness sake, do it right op:

against foreign invaders

in·vade (ĭn-vād′)
v. in·vad·ed, in·vad·ing, in·vades
- To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage

This just in: Immigrants enter the US by force! US army defeated!

Unless you mean, a threat of Canadian invasion or something. Seriously though, please don't use the terms that you do not know the definitions of. Or even worse, use terms that you know incorrectly.

enforce our border controls

I talk about multiculturalism, you are somehow talking about border control. Incredible strawman right here, Lisa. What if I told you that you can be for border control and multiculturalism?

It's like I asked you about the price of carrots and you said that grapes are terrible and pricey. Maybe they are, who cares? I could argue with you on this, but you are trying to bring it to a ground where there are constitutional regulations that favor your viewpoint.

Which part of it?

Both those associated with Donald Trump, and people who belong there by definition – neoreactionists, monarchists. People whose beliefs contradict current laws too – nativism, identitarianism, perhaps national capitalism to an extent (because they would like to change things, obviously.).

PC culture is the death of freedom of speech, why would you support that?

… the obligation the federal government has to enforce our border controls against foreign invaders, which the Obama administration has used an executive order to completely halt…"

Let me tell how you're full of shit, Lisa.
1. Illegal immigrants are not an armed force, which the Constitution actually meant by "foreign invaders".
2. The Obama administration has not halted any border patrol, in fact this administration has shattered the record for most deportations within Obama's first term.
3. More immigrants are leaving the country than coming in.

…literally sued Arizona for passing a law which directed the state’s border patrol agents to secure the border…

You mean that law that involves racial profiling which is unconstitutional?

Yes, congratulations, you've just comprehended exactly what all the court fights concerning immigration are about, whether or not millions of illegal foreigners crossing our border to gain access to taxpayer provided benefits while not paying into the system themselves can be considered an invasion is exactly what our justices debate among themselves and, up until eight years ago, the majority consensus was yes, this is obviously an invasion, who would honestly say or think otherwise? This shit wasn't up for debate until Obama declared borders unnecessary barriers to globalization and executive order'd them out of existence, catch up on modern history before accusing me of needing a dictionary.

{ which the Constitution actually meant by “foreign invaders”. }

Oh hey look someone else who feels they should be on the Supreme Court!
You can interpret the Constitution for me post-law school, hit me up again then.

{ You mean that law that involves racial profiling which is unconstitutional? }

YOU MEAN THE PART OF THE LAW THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD?
Your own link says so!

{ The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the most hotly disputed part of Arizona’s anti-immigrant law, S.B. 1070, which requires police to determine the immigration status of someone arrested or detained when there is “reasonable suspicion” they are not in the U.S. legally. }

{ I talk about multiculturalism, you are somehow talking about border control. Incredible strawman right here, Lisa. What if I told you that you can be for border control and multiculturalism? }

You quoted this part of my post: { people who get called racist and bigoted for actually wanting to enforce the laws on our books } I was obviously talking about illegal immigration, as those are
the people who get called racist and bigoted for wanting to enforce the laws on our books.

As far as I'm aware, there are no laws in place concerning multiculturalism, so I'm not sure how you connected those two separate statements. That's why the commas are there: { people who get called racist and bigoted for actually wanting to enforce the laws on our books } is an interrupter (that's a grammatical term) in the sentence: { The alt-right is not-establishment they're typically anti-multiculturalism and pro-America. } The interrupter refers to "not-establishment", that sentence has nothing to do with multiculturalism.

I'm still confused about what you're asking me in regards to multiculturalism. What exactly is it that you want to know? Whether there's a constitutional basis for anti/multiculturalism? Why some alt-right factions are against multiculturalism

{ Both those associated with Donald Trump….blahblahblahblahblah. }

All I'm explaining to you is that the "alt-right" is an umbrella term, there are dozens of subcategories you can sort "alt-right voters" into and not all of them are radical. Moderate conservatism is alt-right and is the complete opposite of radical. You're trying to describe the "alt-right" as a whole using adjectives that only reflect one faction's ideology.

{ The Obama administration has not halted any border patrol, in fact this administration has shattered the record for most deportations within Obama’s first term. }

This bald faced lie that liberals love to spread, I'm addressing in a clean post even though exposing it is going to be quick and neat: US government deports fewest immigrants in nearly a decade

This is because the Obama Administration has directed HHS to only deport those illegal immigrants who pose a risk to our national security. All the ones slaughtering US citizens and being freely released back into sanctuary cities don't count as a national security threat. Clever, right? Liberal progressiveness typically is~

& as for the "first term" lie, the AP link addresses that as well: { In the first two full budget years under the Obama administration, the U.S. deported more people year over year, until reaching its 2012 peak. Those increases, which started under the administration of President George W. Bush, were small, rising just a few percentage points each year. }

Obama quickly abandoned Bush's leftover deportation policies and opened the borders wide.

who would honestly say or think otherwise?

A dictionary. Seriously.

I was obviously talking about illegal immigration

You see, there is thing that a person who opposes illegal immigration can either be racist or bigoted anyways. And in a lot of cases it is that way. Not all of them, sure, but I wouldn't defend them all either.

And no, you didn't mention immigrants or the issue even once in that post.

Also, I love how you contradict yourself. You assign a certain quality to them, and then get into an argument how you cannot assign those to them.

Let me say this: Monarchists do not have to oppose illegal immigration. Neo-reactionaries might want slavery back. However, one thing is something that they have in common, which is their defining quality; they are not mainstream. That means that yes, they want change. And this generalization is justified by definition, "their" stance on immigration is not.

Plus, a dick move on the grammar part. However, I'd trade that for sound logic anyday, or even for enough integrity to stay consistent within one post.

I find it funny how you are projecting onto the group, so that the argument is more about your beliefs than that of alt-right; just like on the other threads, this might be as well "Lisa passively-agressively arguing about her own beliefs under the cover of an actual political issue".

{ A dictionary. Seriously. }

Wow if only the federal courts and appeals courts had ever heard of such a thing, you should really let them know about this new invention, obviously you have all the answers that could clear up the legal debacle of the past decade in mere seconds!!

{ And no, you didn’t mention immigrants or the issue even once in that post. }

That's what my interrupter was inferring. It was not explicitly stated because it was just a quip, a sarcastic jab at progressives, not something I was bringing up to discuss in depth. I didn't even think anyone would acknowledge it, let alone make wild assumptions and insist that's what I really meant.

{ Also, I love how you contradict yourself. You assign a certain quality to them, and then get into an argument how you cannot assign those to them. }

I've assigned it to SOME of them, you're trying to assign it to ALL of them, that's literally the only difference between what we're saying.

You can't call any person working toward some kind of change in general "radical" just because they don't follow the mainstream, political radicalism is an ideology that requires the fundamental altering of society through a revolution. Not all of the factions that make up the alt-right want to fundamentally change the way society works through a literal revolution.

You're the one projecting.

AND you still didn't clarify what you were trying to ask me before about multiculturalism and the Constitution. Phrase your question directly and I'll answer it so we can keep this going as a discussion thread.

I actually have been observing the alternative right for awhile now. It is an emerging family of rightwing positions that has yet to coalesce into a single ideology. The points that unify them are support for Trump, opposition to multiculturalism, and claims that they are defenders of free speech (though I have noticed a tendency towards a "free speech for me, not for thee" mentality).

I began observing them after reading this blogpost from futurist Sara Robinson. She argues that conservatism and reaction as defined by the aging Baby Boomers – who were raised on a philosophy of radical individualism – is unsustainable among Millennials, who were raised on a philosophy of collectivism. She does, however, leave open the possibility that a uniquely collectivist rightwing ideology emerges among them.

I believe the alt-right is this ideology.

Nice to see this topic went from nothing to shit throwing. Something tells me if this were about the umbrella term concerning the "alt-left" or "far-left" then there'd be a lot more people decrying the hyperbole and leaps of logic being done by people here.

Oh well, the forums are on the left, the comments are on the right, but both of them are bad at this sort of thing, so par for the course I guess.

{ The points that unify them are support for Trump, }

Trump has literally nothing to do with defining the alt-right, he's just an emerging trend.

Here's a political publication that attempts to define it.

{ Indeed, the true conflict facing Republicans is not with the social democrats who've taken over the American left, but within the soul of American conservatives. Namely, a new, highly heterogeneous force in right-wing politics is taking hold, and they have their sights set firmly on the Republican "establishment." As an example of how truly diverse the alt right is, major and proverbial watering holes for them include everything from Breitbart and the libertarian-leaning Taki Mag to Alternative Right--a blog that openly supports white nationalism.

Yet as scattered and ideologically diffuse as it is, the alt right has had real success. "GamerGate," along with the wildly successful Twitter hashtag #cuckservative, are apt displays of why the alternative right has often proven more effective at fighting progressive dogma than the traditional Republican party. How? The alt right taken the fight to the left in the best way possible--they've co-opted its tactics and deployed them against their bully makers.

This is of course the very reason why the alt right has been in the ascendant. Rather than concede the moral high ground to the left, the alt right turns the left's moralism on its head and makes it a badge of honor to be called "racist," "homophobic," and "sexist." Instead of the GOP establishment's soup of globalism, free markets, and foreign interventions, the alt right has resurrected some ghosts from the conservative past in pushing for protectionism, national capitalism, and an emphasis on protecting American lives at home, not abroad. }

This bald faced lie that liberals love to spread, I’m addressing in a clean post even though exposing it is going to be quick and neat: US government deports fewest immigrants in nearly a decade

Lisa, the link you provided only talks about the last 12 months, I'm talking about two presidential terms. No matter how you try to spin it, your narrative is still bullshit.

{ Lisa, the link you provided only talks about the last 12 months }

Try reading more than just the first three words.

{ Deportations of criminal immigrants have fallen to the lowest levels since President Barack Obama took office in 2009, despite his pledge to focus on finding and deporting criminals living in the country illegally. }

{ After multiple bills to overhaul immigration laws failed in Congress during Obama's first term, he made administrative changes aimed at narrowing the population of immigrants targeted for deportation. The focus since then has been on criminals, and the overall number of deportations has steadily declined. }

{ In a statement Tuesday evening, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Jennifer Elzea said the agency "has refined its priorities to improve the quality of its removals by focusing on the most serious public safety and national security threats as well as recent border crossers.

"As a result, overall removals may show a decline, consistent with a substantial drop in overall apprehension, among other factors," Elzea said. }

Your own link does not dispute this, you really should read more than just their headlines.

{ The Obama administration deported a record 438,421 unauthorized immigrants in fiscal year 2013. }

From the AP link: { In the first two full budget years under the Obama administration, the U.S. deported more people year over year, until reaching its 2012 peak. }

Fiscal years stars in Oct, the 2012 peak IS fiscal year 2013's record deportations during the first two full fiscal years under the Obama Administration during which he was trying to pass immigration reform through Congress while the Bush Era deportation policy remained in place, but then he gave up and used an executive order instead.

As the AP link very clearly states.

But you didn't read it.

So.

"PC culture is the death of freedom of speech, why would you support that," conveys an extreme contempt toward being politically correct and that someone supporting political correctness is also supporting the death of freedom of speech.

One can like being politically correct without wanting to censor you. All it means to be politically correct is that you try to speak politely and promote that others speak politely. People can stretch that meaning too far and oppress people who don't speak politely, but those people do not represent everyone who is of the PC culture. It's just a simple matter of wanting yourself and others to be polite. Anything else is usually stretched bullshit caused by people in the culture going too far with their beliefs or people outside the culture over-generalizing the ignorant actions of people in the culture as representing the whole thing. I'm sure there are varying definitions of 'what is polite' and 'what is politically correct' but to me it just means try to speak without being negative or using offensive wordings.

Trying to absolutely be 100% positive and 100% unoffensive is of course ridiculous and is the reason PC culture got a bad reputation for jackasses that can't keep it at a healthy 60-80% like a smart person would since some level of negativity and offensiveness is going to be conveyed whether you want to or not and needs to be so people can be fucking honest with each other.

So it's like, right wing: hipster edition?

You said it best.

It's wonderful that a post from a likely spambot made all this debate about a a "new" type of right

If I may add to the discussion, a couple of things that stuck out to me from Sargon's video about the Alt-Right, Sargon said that there are those in the Alt-Right that believe a country needs a white majority to preserve any western culture and values. Moreover, there are some that believe only white people can comprehend western culture and values. People in the Alt-Right say they're not white supremacist, but something about this sounds very white supremacist. What do you guys think?

To Lisa: I did read those articles, and moving the goal post won't save your narrative.

There are some people in the "Alt"-Left who believe in black supremacism, or something virtually indistinct from it. Is that reason to discount that entire political movement? Somehow, I don't think you'd agree with that.

lmfao where did I move the goalposts to, please be more specific in your completely bs accusations.

The very name "Alternative Right" originated as the name of a neo-Nazi website. While not everyone who could be considered alt-right is a white nationalist, there are a great many of them who are, including Davis "white nationalist on paper" Aurini and Andrew "weev" Aurenheimer.

I'd post the notes on them I've been taking, but I know that adherents thereof watching this thread wouldn't like them. PM me if interested.

ok so do you also want to discuss alt-left Louis "White people are potential humans, they haven't evolved yet" Farrakhan and the alt-left New Black Panther Party? You alt-left Bernie Sanders voters aren't all racist black supremacists, but an awful lot of you are~

The forums are filled with liberals, PM me if you want to know more.

We're trying (I think) to define and potentially defend or promote the Alt-Right.

You can discuss the Alt-Left (if it is as defined as an Alt-Right) but it's best to do so not as a way to deflect accountability from many supremacists in the Alt-Right but as a way to highlight the Alt-Right (e.g., the Alt-Left is a direct counter to the Alt-Right movement. The Alt-Left is in direct contrast to the Alt-Right movement. The Alt-left is defined by the Alt-Right movement in the same sense that Bad/Good is defined as the opposite of Good/Bad.)

I think we've set up some definition that the Alt-Right very often is opposed to political correctness, but I think it's unfair to say that it's simply based upon free speech.

Political correctness in speech is more of an indicator of something else. "Something else" could be as simple as a person who hates feeling like they're having to walk across eggshells just to get a their point across or to make a joke, or it could be that they're a bigot, flat out. And they want to be able to say what they think without repercussion.

The opposite of that could be that people, as Wyn said, people who are PC or your SJWs are so preoccupied with the intentions behind being politically incorrect that they're actively working against free speech in order to stop what they suspect: the person being politically incorrect in speech is actually a bigot, flat out, and they can't stand the thought of such a person not being checked.
 
I think all of those are true to some extent.
 

• I think some people (most libertarians, and tons are found online) just don't want people to get in the way of what they're doing, good, bad, or neutral. And on principal (and by nature, it seems,) they do not put up with any line of thinking that could impede that. And they are not nice when it comes to it, which makes it very difficult to tolerate them if you're more PC like me.
• Yeah, you have neo-Nazi and white supremacists on the Alt-Right in sizable numbers, because the ideologies can match up. There's not a whole lot of sympathy and caring. There's a lot of "ends justifying the means/by any means necessary." But it's less about blacks. If it were any other race, they'd think the same things about them, and it's against Occam's Razor to claim "systematic oppression" that is hard to test for.
• Yeah, I think that a lot of people who hate political correctness are next to hateful people and aren't nearly as sympathetic about issues. You never go to them for comfort. You go to them for solutions. And sometimes, there's no hard solution, in which case you do not go to a solution-oriented person. That said, even if I believe that, it's well in their rights to say whatever as long as it's not inciting rioting. That said, I'm inclined to leave that person alone, because if they believe what they believe, there's not a lot of objective proof I can give them to change their mind. And if you don't have hard, objective proof, they're going to give you absolute hell and feel good about giving it to you.

No matter your stance, if you're belittling someone, then it makes it a lot harder for them to see past your vitriol to get to the argument, and then you get a lot of mudslinging and strawmanning, because you're just trying to beat that jerk over there.

It also shows that you care, which also helps come to an understanding. Building bridges to better understanding. Kum bah yah, yah mo b there, Sacajawea.
 
Which is partially why my stance is to be polite (or to try. I'm a jerk by nature, but I don't believe it's a reason for me to act like one.) I'm not going to say something to intentionally offend someone. I have enough words at my disposal to avoid all of that, and you can see that I don't mind using them when I have the time. Yeah, I might think someone is being too sensitive, but that's a separate discussion that I would actually make personal as opposed to breaking it down. "You know I'm not X. Why does it offend you when I say it? I said that about this group of people, because of Y. I recognize that not every group can be pigeonholed to the individual, but it is a decided aspect that defines them, and it is for reasons actually within their control despite social obstacles." And so forth. For the most part, I'm not going to veer the conversation away just so I can call someone a "thug."

Part of it is simply my faith. Sure, the world would be a less burdensome place if you just nuked a large chunk of people from it, kept dumb people from reproducing, kept dump people from voting, let people who couldn't help themselves (no matter the reason or background) kill themselves off. I actually do believe that.

But I think we lose a large part of humanity if we restrict other humans to that extent. And I'm perfectly willing to impede myself to give those rights to other people simply because they're humans. I'm more than OK with a worsened world. But I get why people are, objectively and thus morally, not OK with that.

Maybe that gives us/you something to argue against/for as well.

>You assert that Obama through executive order completely halted border security.
>I point out the record deportations under the Obama administration and the 140,000 net loss of immigrants in the United States through 2009-2014
>You say that these record deportations were because of Bush's policies remaining in place and that the number of deportations dropped dramatically after policies changed

However, that still contradicts your claim. You said Obama halted border security, not reduced the number of deportations. So either you forgot what you said merely 8 hours ago, you shifted your position (moving the goalpost) in light of figures that refuted your original claim, or you're just an hyperbolic twat. Which is it?

Also, this is not a discussion about the "Alt-Left", people. If you want to start a discussion about that, feel free to start a new thread. No need to bring them up here to act in defense of the Alt-Right.

Also, this is not a discussion about the “Alt-Left”, people. If you want to start a discussion about that, feel free to start a new thread. No need to bring them up here to act in defense of the Alt-Right.

Then let me put it this way: it isn't fair to dismiss any and all concerns the Alt-Right people put forth just because some of them are white supremacists. Does that meet your absurd standards for what counts as an argument?

The more time goes on in this politically charged time and as I grow older the more I realize both sides are absolutely stupid. Doesn't matter what my actual beliefs are both sides have idiots let me say this right off the bat. Everything is generalizing and accusations of generalizing immediately after doing so yourself even in this thread. Today on twitter I saw somebody who said bernie supporters are homeless because homeowners don't support communism. This is someone who I know often rejects extreme criticism of trump such as of him being a racist and his supporters being homeless or poorly educated.

Alternatively there are the people who think trump supporters are mentally ill and all subconsciously or openly racist but defend bernie. I had a friend in real life say trump only lies and says stupid stuff because he's trying to get votes and he'll calm down later and his real policies are good but within mere seconds of this statement she said bernie sanders think black lives matter more than white lives which who knows where she heard that drivel.

Moral of the story is people love to use what fits into their tiny perspective and people love throwing shade at others. Real political discussion in most settings doesn't exist and I've met an amount of people I can count on my hands that don't generalize other opinions like I've described. It's truly tragic. It's not even a recent thing either I'm not going to be that person "current year is bad we should go to the good old days" this is just what humanity is like always and with rising internet and the upcoming US election you just see it come up more often in people.

Not sure what else I want to say lol. Well I do want to rebut what pat bateman said about how pc is anti free speech which epyc already kinda covered. Never generalize as I said already. Yes there are a disgusting amount of anti free speech pc people but the ideology of pc is not inherently like this.

I am "pc" so to speak in that I just want people to be respectful and kind and not bigots but I will let them say these things and should not be blocked under the law and even private places, websites, and individuals should in most cases let them say what they need to get out. However, I will still tell these people they're assholes and not wish to interact with them in a friendly way because they won't reciprocate. Hell a few alt-right anti-pc people actively try to be as vitriolic as possible out of principle to show off their "free speech" when what some want is freedom from consequences.

Anti extreme pc is a good cause and should be fought but anti pc in all circumstances is just silly and irrational and not understanding what it means used correctly. Some alt-right people like the more level-headed gamergaters understand this difference. Some don't. Again generalizing=bad I want to impart this lesson even if it seems simple some people don't seem to know or at least care. Self-awareness even if difficult at times is key. It's impossible to rid yourself of it completely but try your best.

{ >You assert that Obama through executive order completely halted border security. }

{ >You say that these record deportations were because of Bush’s policies remaining in place and that the number of deportations dropped dramatically after policies changed }

His executive order came after the first two years, and until that point Bush's policies did remain in place. At the time his executive order was issue, border control was halted. ICE was directed not to apprehend illegal immigrants, but illegal immigrants were welcome to turn themselves in to the nearest agent to be taken to an office, given a court date, and freed into the country, never to be seen again (DOJ admits 84% of illegal immigrants never show up at their hearing).

Now he has completely stopped arresting them. It has been halted.

{ The Obama administration has revived the maligned illegal immigrant “catch-and-release” policy of the Bush years, ordering Border Patrol agents not to bother arresting and deporting many new illegal immigrants, the head of the agents’ labor union revealed Thursday.

Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, told Congress that Homeland Security was embarrassed by the number of illegal immigrants not showing up for their deportation hearings, but instead of cracking down on the immigrants, the department ordered agents not to arrest them in the first place -- meaning they no longer need to show up for court. }

How many different sources do I have to link saying the same thing before you actually read it?

{ The Alt-Left is in direct contrast to the Alt-Right movement. }

That's literally the biggest bullshit I've ever read. These are not terms referring to some specific groups out there who behave consistently like /pol/. What's the direct contrast to a pool of different groups who have ideologies ranging from white supremacy to moderate conservatism? What's the direct contrast to a pool of different groups who have ideologies ranging from black supremacy to moderate liberals? These all fall under the umbrella term of the alt-right and alt-left, even though the media would prefer to write the alt-right off as one general group of racists who should be ignored altogether.

If you want to criticize neoreactionaries, do so, but don't do it by grouping them together with populists and writing them all off as a bunch of white supremacist bigots.

If you want to criticize neoreactionaries, do so, but don’t do it by grouping them together with populists and writing them all off as a bunch of white supremacist bigots.

I simply gave you an option to bring another group into the conversation without deflecting accountability.

(e.g., (as examples) the Alt-Left is a direct counter to the Alt-Right movement. The Alt-Left is in direct contrast to the Alt-Right movement. The Alt-left is defined by the Alt-Right movement in the same sense that Bad/Good is defined as the opposite of Good/Bad.)

And did I even write them off as a bunch of white supremacist bigots? I'm sorry if it seemed that way, but I don't think I did.
 
 
…do you see what I was trying to do, Lisa? I think everyone can see that was a thread-directing post above the line more than one giving my actual opinion. Don't take every post that doesn't directly agree with you as something that's opposed to your stance.
 
 
I'll give you that the rest of my post had a bunch of words, but you'll see that I'm actually defending the Alt-Right but saying why I agree with political correctness, often something rallied against by people who are identified by "Alt-Right."

No white supremacy would dictate that all the non whites should be subservient to whites, this seems more like white protectionism.

Infowars is the only one of these that I even recognize. I guess I'm still too mainstream.

Triangle Mare said:

Yo, hit me up with a constitutional quote on that.

Not really sure what you mean by this. Article 1, Section 8 has:

The Congress shall have Power To…establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

And Article 2, Section 3 has:

[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.

Congress has the power to create immigration laws, and the President must enforce those laws.

@jarbox
I'm assuming that's more referring to the European alt-right. The monarchist movements in France, Italy, Germany, etc. are usually seen as right-wing, but out of mainstream.

Triangle Mare said:

Seriously though, please don’t use the terms that you do not know the definitions of. Or even worse, use terms that you know incorrectly.

verb in·vade \in-ˈvād\
to enter (a place) in large numbers
: to enter or be in (a place where you are not wanted)

Seriously, though. Please don't cherrypick definitions.

Blitz the Dragon said:

It is an emerging family of rightwing positions that has yet to coalesce into a single ideology.

Given their disdain for the "establishment," I doubt they could ever really coalesce under one banner--since that banner will inevitably be held by a single faction or establishing force.

Please don't cherrypick definitions.

You "forgot" one from your dictionary, which is actually the first one:
: to enter (a place, such as a foreign country) in order to take control by military force

Nice hypocrisy, would point out again.

Plus, I'd like to notice that the one I gave is actually the main and primary definition in at least 5 dictionaries that I've looked through; haven't found one that would have it as a secondary or third one.

I never argued about the implementation of laws, and Rule of Naturalization is actually in favour of my argument, for it says that a person who wasn't born in the US can become a citizen after filling certain requirements (none of which is culture)

Most of /pol/ is alt right so that really tells you something

""""The alt-right (sometimes referred to as alt-conservatism) is an UMBRELLA term for the designation of right-wing ideologies in the United States presented as an alternative to mainstream conservatism in its national politics.[1][2][3] The alt-right has been described as a movement unified by support for Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump,[1][4][5] opposition to multiculturalism and immigration, opposition to feminism, and rejection of egalitarianism.[1][6] Although there is no official ideology associated with the alt-right, some have said the alt-right includes beliefs such as neoreaction, monarchism, nativism, populism, business nationalism, and identitarianism"""''"

It's not a hive-mind but this wikipedia page is mis-leading. It sounds hateful from how its written.

It isn't misleading, actually, and doesn't assign value to, for example, "the rejection of egalitarianism".
If it sounds hateful for you, it's most likely because you associate /some/ positive values with rejected qualities that were listed. I'd say that it is stripped from emotion and relatively objective.

"I think some people (most libertarians, and tons are found online) just don’t want people to get in the way of what they’re doing, good, bad, or neutral. And on principal (and by nature, it seems,) they do not put up with any line of thinking that could impede that. And they are not nice when it comes to it, which makes it very difficult to tolerate them if you’re more PC like me."

Most Libertarians also believe in the Non-Aggression Principle, so I doubt any of them are arguing that they want the freedom to do bad things to people, because that violates the principle. Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as initiating or threatening the use of violence against an individual or legitimately owned property of another.

Secondly, yes of course, why would they put up with a line of thinking that would impede their sense of autonomy and demand for liberty? Justly, why would you put up with a line of thinking that has no concern for your ideas of what is considered Polite and Not?

They aren't nice, because they don't subscribe to your understanding of what is and isn't polite? Or that they don't subscribe to the ideas that altruism should be forced upon them just because you do?

There are some people on the alternative-right that maybe Libertarian on some things, but from what I've seen, a good chunk of the alt-right movement is highly authoritarian, strongly in favor of strong enforcement of moral code, and tend to outright ignore or not give a shit to Libertarian views on economics.

From what we've seen, a good chunk of the alt-left movement is highly authoritarian, strongly in favor of strong enforcement of moral code, and tend to outright ignore or not give a shit to Libertarian views on economics.

The alt-left thinks our currency is Christian indoctrination because of "In God We Trust", but the alt-left loves Muslim prayer rooms in public schools.

The alt-left took down Confederate flags, painted over murals, removed memorials, and renamed buildings to get away from their inherent racism, but the alt-left defends murals filled with La Raza propaganda in public high schools as free speech.

The alt-left thinks GamgerGate's color scheme is a rape joke, but the alt-left loves to advocate for pedophiles.

I could go on, if anyone else in this thread is still struggling with sweeping generalizations.

Hold on – you just argued that an umbrella terms such as, for example, alt-right, shouldn't be generalized on those issues.

And I agree, completely. Alternative left is defined by being alternative to the mainstream – want to blame a movement, blame a particular one.

Same goes to alt-right. We can't just pin the racism/white supremancy label on them, even though probably /some/ movemements there deserve it.

On a sidenote, the design of Vivian James stems from /v/, and yes, green and purple originated from the Daily Dose. So, this argument would boil down whether Piccolo having sexual intercourse with Vegeta is rape or not, and I don't think that it is something that we want to discuss. Because "why", "what for"?

yah that's the point, friend, ya'll wouldn't appreciate it if I started insisting all Bernie Sanders voters are raging black supremacists with a First Amendment problem, even though I have all of these real examples of the alt-left that I can bring up off the top of my head, right? ¯\(ツ)/¯

Post was sarcasm, I copied word for word what Chewy posted right above me.

Oh, yes, I apologize. Haven't noticed Chewy's post right there.