[Insanity] ALT-RIGHT has taken over Debate & Discussion

More evidence that you don't actually read posts before commenting in defense mode. Dude... I was actually sticking up for you. Stating that even folks like yourself that I disagree with on pretty much everything don't deserve to be labeled as "alt-right".

If you would have actually read it, you'd see that.

 

The first half wasn't to you it was about the thread in general, the second half was saying for the record that I'm absolutely not "Alt-right" in response to you saying "I think its unfair to just label them "Alt-Right" without knowing for sure if they truly consider themselves as unofficial or official members of this group." I understood what you were saying. If you look at how my post was composed, I'm sure you'll see that.

 

I've considered him mostly harmless entertainment, but I'll give it a try.

Duly noted dobro. I've been using alt-right in a somewhat-tight way of referring to the recent fad of white nationalism. Trump support is an outcome, not really part of the definition. Whatshisname, the chemist who got booted, was the poster boy. He would not troll so much but argue rationally for ethnocentrism. I wonder if he had been more trollish if he would have lasted longer, ironically. I don't think we have anyone else now that sincerely and intelligently advocates for alt-right. And of course, there's a whole spectrum of people that may argue or troll for their own pov which may be right (or anti-left) without being alt-right.

The difference with alt-left is that alt-right is a label some people invented to describe themselves, where as alt-left was invented to describe (and deride) others. I think there is something real about it in that there is a boogeyman liberalism out there that alt-righters fear and it seems to include elements of the tyranny of political correctness, the irrational expansiveness of civil rights, tolerating bigotry in the name of 'diversity', using government to engineer social goals, and redistribution of wealth. Probably other things too; Antifa has to be in there somewhere. But since that's a label you hang on other people instead of one you define to describe oneself, it's indeterminate, amorphous and fungible. I think we're better off using simply 'liberal' as the term people usually use to describe themselves. If a group isn't seeking to distinguish themselves from mainstream liberals like the alt-right wants to distinguish itself from traditional conservatism, I don't think we have anything to gain from assigning a label.

 

In Mother Russia, the right alts you!!!!

 

Honestly, I don't care about the alt-right as much as the term "libtard". I consider myself a person who toes the line of liberal and conservative, but find the term libtard upsetting and distressing. You're obviously making a play on the slur r****d, but why do it? Because Trump says so? Just call them idiots, call them naive or misguided, but don't try and mount your defense by using such a slur. I mean, do they call you replitards? Heck, even if they did, aren't you supposed to be the party of morality and God? Pretty sure Jesus didn't call his opponents r****ds. Maybe i need a little bible refresh.

In general, everyone wants their views to fit on a bumper sticker, and sadly this is what we are left with. The only view I have that can fit on a bumper sticker is Rocket's fan.

 

Appreciate your post however the left most certainly doesn't cater a message that is intended to fit on a bumper sticker. In fact that's precisely one of the things that differentiates the left from this alt-right, nutty conservatism. Republicans make a living inventing slogans and catch phrases that are simple minded and easily digested by their base. There's a litany of them that are incredibly successful politically but also incredibly damaging to constructive discourse and successful government.

 

And the left is, in no small part, losing important elections because they do not embrace tweetable slogans; they even make the mistake of trying to convey the real complexity of important issues at times, and that is total death in 21st century elections.

Tell a democratic strategist "Make America Great Again" and show them the red hat, and they'd have rolled their eyes at you so hard as to give themselves whiplash, but that **** worked. A lot of people liked it, and we all remember it, probably forever, in some sort of darkly comic time when we look back at 2017 from our feral mud huts.

 

I might be biased and a bit jaded, but for every pro-life there's a pro-choice chant. The whole "I'm with her" campaign to me stunk of a play on how Hillary was going to be the first female president and not really on any particular issue. I will admit, that the republicans like to play off that a whole lot more so than democrats. On social media I've noticed a lot more friends who sway republican post articles that either fudge the truth or outright lie (with artfully done photoshop shots at that) than I have seen of my friends that swing democrat. Again, that plays to the simplistic approach to politics (not well informed, wanting a simple answer, and accepting statements at face value as if they are fact). I think that's the growing trend on both sides, albeit the right is much, much better at it right now.

Look, even here I will admit I get trollish with republican posters, but honestly it's because I'm a dick. It's not because I don't agree with them on anything, or even a lot of what they believe in. Maybe that goes to your point of the simplistic view, because when I troll the democrat posters from time to time, the butthurt isn't near as dramatic.

All in all, this fundamental breakdown between the two sides has started me to question whether voting really has a place in our society today. A lot of Americans are under informed (I mean the fact that when republican voters were asked if they were in favor of bombing Agrobah, the fictional home of Aladdin, a number of them said yes). When you couple that with the fact that half the population doesn't vote, it means that only a little over a quarter of the population has to agree on a candidate and he then can win the election and make decisions for the other 3/4 of America. That doesn't even take into account the sheer lunacy of the electoral college! But I digress...

 

Is that really any different than getting elected based on




No party has a monopoly on stupid bumper sticker BS and tweetable slogans dominating a campaign instead of anything of substance. It hasn't been that long, you can't have forgotten already. If anything that's what the Trump BS was modeled after.....as was the Hillary "I'm with her" slogan.

 

First and foremost, f!ck anyone who says this country isn't great. I mean it. It undermines what the troops have done, it undermines our history and our progress as a society. I will have no part in any person who doesn't think we are great.

Second, it's that simplistic view that really hinders true progress. There's a difference between distilling your message and lying. In science communication we run into that a lot. It would be much easier to just lie to people about what I do, what's hard is distilling my message down to its core and doing my best to help people understand it. Hence why Alan Alda is doing so much to help scientists talk to regular people. Politicians need that same type of training.

 

"Hope and Change" does that ring a bell???? I am pretty sure I heard that somewhere! The problem is the Democrats have nobody in the bullpen. They played their ace with Obama(ace in electability not in job performance) and their bullpen has a very high ERA!!! I mean seriously, you could not nominate someone who could beat Donald Frickin Trump.

 

We'll see if they have anyone worth a damn in the bullpen in this next presidential election, I don't think the fact that they went with old Hillary "gas can" Clinton as their closer out of a sense of obligation due to her high salary. Now that she's been benched, they have a chance to give someone a chance based on merit. If they have anything good, they'll win, if the bullpen is as barren as you suggest....well.

 

Now for the premise of this thread! Trump is making dedicated bat crap crazy leftist like Lou absolutely crazy. I still can't stand Trump but I tip my hat to him for driving them crazy. Reactions like this are priceless.

 

Sounds like the good Christian you are.

You either are
1. Lying about someone mental health
2. Taking satisfaction in the degradation of someone's mental health.

Which one would Jesus approve of?

 

I am not sure if Bernie will be too old but the establishment Dems don't want him anyway. They realize how crazy he is which is saying something. Perhaps the former Newark Mayor(can't think of his name right now but I think it is Booker). Other than that, I can't think of anyone.

 

Bernie will absolutely be too old, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't find a young socialist if they want to push the party even further to the left. I think they'll be smarter than that though and just come up with a fairly moderate candidate without a ridiculous amount of baggage. If Trump is running, it won't be hard for just about anyone they pick to win.

 

Well you know that is the great thing about Jesus, I am forgiven either way.

I would have never figured another leftist would be talking about Lou and his mental health. I wouldn't have gone there personally but since you brought it up, I am glad I am not the only one who sees it.

 

Lmfao.

 

Can't argue with that. They nominated the only person who couldn't beat him this time although I do doubt Bernie would have beat Trump either(or maybe I give the country too much credit for being smart). The only thing that will save Trump is if he actually starts making things better. The media will attack him unmercifully with truth and lies no matter what. It will be interesting to see how both the midterms and the 2020 elections turn out.

 

Real Christians actually try.

You don't care about Jesus. You care about hating libtards.