Alt-Left?

Post Reply New Topic

This freedom to say what you want is a little mischievous when the content of what is said can cause people to have PTSD

The freedom of speech of the alt-right has not been curbed, so I'm not sure why they are bothered about that. It seems that maybe they think that freedom of speech includes the non-response of the listener, but the people who disagree have freedom of speech as well.

Yep. They do.

I'm not sure if the conservative element of WP commenting here grasps that last part of your post.

Grand old conservative principles that apply when replying to opposition liberals (and small children)
- do what is say don't do what I do
- be quiet! children should be seen and not heard

What is people's definition of "alt" anyway?

Antifa and the unironically communist left is a pretty clear "alternative" to the more level-headed left. To deny that there exists radicals on either side of the spectrum is really not helpful.



The "alt" part comes into politics and behavior, not in what they are against.

It means "alternative" in this context. It's supposed to be an alternative to the conservatism of the Bush presidency.

This is why the birth of the alt-right is unsurprising to me. The Bush presidency was a disaster. The reputation of the political right was destroyed by the "weapons of mass destruction" scandal. They desperately need to rebuild and rebrand themselves.

The term "alternative right" comes from a blog with that name. The blog was and still is a white nationalist blog. The alt-right has racist origins. There is no denying that.



Level-headed left? Are you talking about people like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton?

They are certainly "level headed". They know how to make money at the expense of the working class. Selfish egoists are often level-headed.

... or were you referring to Bernie Sanders? He's a bloke who actually cares about the working class.



Radicalism and extremism aren't the same thing.

A radical is someone who gets to the root of the problem. For example, the anti-war radicals understand that corporate corruption causes the vast majority of wars nowadays.

There is a big difference between radicalism and blithering insanity.

"To be radical is to grasp things by the root."
- Karl Marx

I'm talking about those who understand that they are really not qualified to just go out there and deal with the bad guys themselves. People don't have all the facts, they usually don't have the restraint to not abandon all their morals in the process, and they don't even know who the bad guys are apart from having a vague stereotype to go by. It's why mob justice almost always ends up getting innocent people caught in the crossfire.



Yet what is the root? No one agrees on what the problem really is. And their solutions usually just pour more fuel on the fire. Every radical thinks they are the only sane one.

The problem comes when they are so focused on opposing a group that they actualy lose sight of what it is they're defending and thus become just as bad as the facists that they claim to be against. For example:

"White supremacy is wrong and I'll stand-up against it wherehever it happens"- justified

"A working class, white autistic male is part of a group with Privilege™, which means that it's ok to be racist and sexist towards him even if I personally have more socio-economic power than him."- Not justified. At all.