-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
[POLL] 2020 U.S. Presidential Election
- Thread starter Lacius
- Start date
- Views 257,858
- Replies 3,721
- Likes 7
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 17,736
- Trophies
- 3
- Location
- The Lands Between
- Website
- gbatemp.net
- XP
- 8,534
- Country
Yeah, it says that what you posted is too fucking dumb to bother refuting or analyzing in any way. The only appropriate response to match that level of idiocy would be posting a picture of Donald Trump with the fake quote, "boy I wish I was black like Obama so my dick wouldn't be so tiny," and then the bottom text, "yes, he really said that." I'm not gonna sink to that level though, this isn't Facebook where we compete to determine who Zuckerbot's favorite political meme-posting drone of the month is.
What are you blathering on about?
The statement that alt-right = far right was made.
I then said it the term is rather nebulous, self describes very few these days and when it did self describe, or more accurately describe, anybody it was more likely to be a breakaway faction from when the remains of neoconservatives (the born again Christian thing) still governed the mainstream US right, at one point the term South Park republican (as in the morals underpinning the average south park episode/series as a whole planted on top of your basic conservative -- less government interference, religion as a whole less of a useful concept but you do you, free speech is good and should be treasured, who cares if the gays bang one another...) being used but after not everybody watched it and the originators of the term disowned it somewhat then some went with that. Never mind whatever the alt-lite thing is. Also saying nothing of the rather left wing aspect of media somewhat co-opting the term to use as a smear/snarl and deliberately leaving it quite nebulous and ill defined, indeed pointedly resisting giving it any kind of definition when called upon to do so.
As for half a hundred varieties then I take it you have never had a garden variety 60s style KKK member, ultranationalist punk, 40s or current US south take, the I am Christian vs the current sometimes might be traditional/reconstructed European religions (the whole Jesus emphasising peace and harmony thing being rather at odds with accelerationist race war, especially if they actually read the bible at some point rather than just being told what it is in it, you
If I mocked such people in that then good. Mind you I suppose that does serve to exclude the Chinese supremacists, Japanese supremacists, Arab supremacists (if you want a scary mob with active support and political clout in a rich country then forget fearing those that normally dress in camo and live behind barbed wire in the middle of nowhere with maybe a spicy red flag in the garage and go see what they want, though I suspect most of those that do actively fear the camo set would probably have to stop two sentences into reading there lest they read something Islamophobic), Indian supremacists (even more funny if you look at the general landscape of India and the subcontinent) and some of the various takes in Africa as well (Hutu vs Tutsi being but one of them). My bad there.
If it helps though then I will allow a substitution for "muh heritage" in that.
White nationalists within the alt-right do not justify their position based on "I love my white skin". This is a misrepresentation by others, i.e. claiming that race equals skin color. They claim they are a racial group.
It seemed as if you questioned the existence of "white people" based on the many different types of "white".
If it is not the case, I apologize, but you might be able to see how your sentence could be misunderstood this way (i.e. what is written in brackets gives more details about the proceeding content, see in the latter example):
alt-right always seems to be a nebulous term to describe any number of movements, groupings and the like.
Some do seem to be the hardcore "I love my white skin" types (never mind that there are half a hundred flavours of that), others from what I can see tend to be what would have been called South Park republicans 10 years earlier (keep that religious/neoconservative stuff back in the 80s but explore some of these free market and free speech ideals [...])
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
You are correct that there is a wide variety of what people call the alt-right. One of the few things in common is the rejection of interventionism (see their reaction to Trump striking Syria), which is why I find them interesting [as wars in the Middle East have been very bad for my family].
With regards to Jesus: I claim he was actually a national socialist. I made a thread about it but got no response. You can have a go at it if you like. https://gbatemp.net/threads/jesus-was-a-national-socialist.563751/
Last edited by UltraDolphinRevolution,
Yes, far-right movements, groupings, etc.
This kind of Republican doesn't really exist in major U.S. politics anymore, since social conservatives have hijacked the party.
Also, this has nothing to do with my point about Nazis, alt-righters, etc. being far-right by definition.
I'm not particularly interested in playing "if we ignore their defining characteristics" games. The Nazis were objectively far-right as we define it, whether you like it or not.
I agree. As of this post, GBATemp voters have swung 13.3 points towards the Democratic Party since 2016.
I would say it was on topic as far as questioning the presumption/assertion that alt-right = far right.
I would say such people still exist, might even form a notable fraction of swing voters/moderates after a fashion.
Once more you make an assertion that alt-right = far right. I am still not convinced that is the case, or if it is then it is an over broad term that serves to miscategorise some.
It is a defining trait for ramifications for actions taken, and one that is probably not repeated. However in terms of policies other than that... oh well you seem to be unwilling to play thought exercise probably just like your aversion to jokes as politico section must be all serious, all the time I guess.
The line was noting that the "muh heritage types" (even if we restrict to whatever European might mean, even when genetics, language, history and culture makes that rather hilarious if you know any of it, the origins of the term barbarian being a nice start there) have a few dozen different prominent and even more less so takes on the whole matter.
Equally I know it is incorrect as far as they are concerned -- quite a few have a nice "one drop" rule in effect -- you can be "albino has nothing on me" white but turns out your great grandfather was anything but and you are out from some of them. I was not particularly seeking to make a solid assessment as much as use a semi amusing shorthand.
As far as interventionism I saw plenty seeking to turn the middle east into a sheet of glass.
You can make that claim if you want. I don't much care -- religion, much less its invented history, is not a thing that concerns me as far as debating within its frameworks. I was mainly noting with the religion thing that plenty of one time fairly well ranked and respected members of groups took to reading the bible and left when the peace and love stuff was noted, and how many modern ones in turn do some twisted flavour of Asatru and other reconstructed takes on Nordic/German religions to avoid that problem (though they too have the genetics vs social construction debate within that whole sphere, and specifically eschewing a central authority makes that even better).
Not exactly a scientific way of doing things as you would have to get everybody and only the users who voted in the last poll to vote here, you have underage users (who cant vote in the general election) doing this poll, and users who don't even live in the US also doing this poll.
Wikipedia is probably better than conservapedia or modern rationalwiki but not by all that much, and in this case I might draw your attention to the third sentence about it being ill defined and varying between groups.
I could talk at length about representative sampling, but I'll instead point out that I said earlier the poll results are indicative of pretty much nothing. Regardless, the swing is quite interesting.
Wikipedia is the greatest compendium of information on the Earth that I can think of. If you want to argue the alt-right aren't far-right, when they are by definition, great. Go edit Wikipedia and cite some scholarly sources. When the political science and historian professors with email alerts set to that Wikipedia page look at your changes and acknowledge the preponderance of evidence agrees with what you have to say, let me know. Until then, you're screaming into the void "nuh uh" about a topic you, respectfully, don't know much about.
Terms like "alt-right" and "far-right" are descriptive labels. If you're going to argue the former is not an example of the latter, you're using labels that I'm not using, and I'm not particularly interested in having a semantic argument. "Far-right" has a clear definition that's commonly used, and "alt-right" is objectively an example of that definition. Hemming and hawing about there being people on the political right who aren't far-right is irrelevant.
This isn´t addressed to me, but he would have to be chosen to a higher position at wikipedia. It does not matter whether your edits are true. The edits must be accepted by the overseers. They accept hit-pieces by mainstream media sources above self-identification, for example. E.g. Jared Taylor: He specifically denies that whites are superior but he is called a white supremacist on wikipedia anyway. Wikipedia even correctly quotes him as saying: "I think Asians are objectively superior to Whites by just about any measure that you can come up with in terms of what are the ingredients for a successful society. This doesn't mean that I want America to become Asian. I think every people has a right to be itself, and this becomes clear whether we're talking about Irian Jaya or Tibet, for that matter"
I.e. wikipedia acknowledges its bias here.
I agree though that the alt-right is far-right. It started as a rejection of the current polictial landscape, became a Trump hype train and later dissolved into various sub-groups, further to the right of what Republicans are in the US, for example.
I what way? Would you become one if the NYT called you a white spremacist? According to wikipedia, yes.
One is a white supremacist when one holds racist views about white people being superior to other races.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Taylor#Race
Then he is not a white supremacist. The quote I took is exactly from this part of the article. What are you referring to?
He thinks white people are superior to other races with regard to intelligence, etc. I'm not sure why we are talking about this.
Are you arguing that a white supremacist who believes white people are superior to other races, but not Asians, is not a white supremacist? Believing a race is better than some but not all races doesn't mean one is not a white supremacist.
Then he is an East-Asian supremacist with (regards to intelligence).
NOUN
supremacy (noun)
- the state or condition of being superior to all others in authority, power, or status.
According to your logic, he is also an African-American supremacist (as they have a higher average IQ than some other races).
Last edited by UltraDolphinRevolution,
Let me know when he starts advocating for anything other than white interests and white separation.
I'm not arguing for any statistics. I'm letting him know what the white supremacist thinks.
Similar threads
- Locked
-
- Poll
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
Ohhh just noticed that myself I bet it makes the Master System port look amazing by comparison lol -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
SylverReZ:
If you want a good system to port it to, at least have a good programmer and knowledge.+1 -
-
-
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
I didn't know they made an MSU cart for the Genesis.... I knew about the SNES one and the library for that is rather large but the Genesis one has very few games+1
-
-
@
SylverReZ:
An FPGA could probably replicate the chip's functionality without buying donor parts.+1
-
-
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
Like not emulating the entire SNES but just a loader and the enhancement chips perhaps even slightly overclocked like FX-2
-
-
-
-