2 ms·

I wasn't excluding the left-- hence my comment about Soviet ideology. I was making a general point about the affinity that exists between totalitarianism and ir

by api 9y ago

I wasn't excluding the left-- hence my comment about Soviet ideology. I was making a general point about the affinity that exists between totalitarianism and irrationalist ideas in other areas and how totalitarianism often adopts these ideas for propaganda and signaling purposes. That being said I do find the alt-right more alarming than typical run of the mill left-leaning woo woo. The latter isn't advocating abolition of the constitution and violence against (((minorities))) (Jews, blacks, etc.).

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mikeash 9y ago
I think the main difference between the extreme left and the extreme right in the US at the moment is that the extreme left is marginalized and holds no power beyond occasionally NIMBYing new cell towers and such, whereas the extreme right holds the Presidency, much of the legislature, and many other powerful positions. There's nothing inherent about the two which means it has to be this way. It could easily be flipped if circumstances were different. But here and now, the extreme right is much more worrisome.
- alacombe 9y ago
  The extreme left, marginalized ? Come on, they were able to push near resignation on of their own (ie. a hardcode Sanders support) at Evergreen College and in Canada, they were able to pass what essentially boils down to "compelled speech" law. They are nowhere near "marginalized", quite the contrary...
  - bbctol 9y ago
    "Marginalized"? Nonsense, they have absolute control even over an institution as important and famous as Evergreen College... everyone knows that's the stepping stone to world domination
    - alacombe 9y ago
      As a Canadian who refuses to comply with Bill C-16, the fringe left made me a thought criminal.
      - mikeash 9y ago
        This Bill C-16? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_Human_Rights_Act_and_the_Criminal_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_H... What's so bad about it?
        d0lph 9y ago
        > the amendment also makes it a criminal offence to incite or promote hatred because of gender identity or gender expression Seems vague, what counts as promoting hatred? If someone makes fun of the 1000+ genders and counting, do they go to jail? And from the bill: (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction. [0] [0] http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-319.html#h-93 http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-319.htm...
        mikeash 9y ago
        So, what does actually count as promoting hatred, legally speaking?
        d0lph 9y ago
        > In Warman v. Winnicki, 2006 CHRT 20, Karen A. Jensen found the respondent had posted messages to the Internet which were "vicious and dehumanizing". The adjudicator ordered the respondent to cease and desist his discriminatory practices and to pay a penalty of $6,000 >In Warman v. Northern Alliance, 2009 CHRT 10, Edward Peter Lustig held that the respondent's website was in violation of s. 13(1) because the website carried controversial remarks about Roma, Jews, Muslims, homosexuals, blacks, Arabs, and others. The adjudicator made an order pursuant to s. 54(1)(a) to ensure that the impugned website, which is defunct, remained inactive I am cherry picking a bit, more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada#Cases_under_the_Human_Rights_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada#Cas...
  - mikeash 9y ago
    I have no idea what Evergreen College is, and I doubt anything that happens there would even slightly influence anything about my life. Is that the worst thing the extreme left are capable of at the moment? That proves my point if so.
  - pdeuchler 9y ago
    Sanders is not anywhere close to the extreme left, anywhere else than the US and he would be considered relatively centrist
- olewhalehunter 9y ago
  >the extreme right holds the Presidency, much of the legislature, and many other powerful positions Most of Trump's cabinet and the legislature are neocons. http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/to-understand-polarization-understand-the-extent-of-republican-failure/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/to-understand-polarizat...
  - api 9y ago
    That's a different branch of the extreme right.
    - pdeuchler 9y ago
      That's absurd, neocons may be trying to harness the grassroots power of certain far right groups but their ideology is nearly identical to the ideology of say, the Clintons or Obama.
      - mikeash 9y ago
        We should look at what they've done to really know who they are. Which is a bit tough, because they've done very little so far, but things like the Muslim/travel ban, attempting to repeal the ACA, cracking down on illegal immigration, and pulling out of the Paris climate agreement indicate a much more extreme right ideology than Clinton or Obama.
        olewhalehunter 9y ago
        None of those policies are "extreme" for the right, let's break those down. >"Muslim" Travel ban Its a blanket policy on ALL travelers from a specific list drafted by Obama for a similar policy he too actually enacted. Muslims were not banned from say, the UK or Pakistan. It is also temporary. Even center leaning right-wingers have concerns about foreigners from unstable nations. >Attempting to repeal the ACA TrumpCare is almost Obamacare-lite, doesn't completely overhaul it, barely right-of-center, and to the more libertarian right-wingers, actually still a very liberal policy. >Cracking down on illegal immigration A solidly right-wing position, not an "extreme" one. >Pulling out of the Paris climate agreement Climate scientists think the Paris agreement is a joke, if we're basing your judgement of this on effectiveness towards combating climate change, even liberal politicians are guilty of being "extreme right" on this one.
- LyndsySimon 9y ago
  > the extreme right holds the Presidency I strongly disagree with this statement. The extreme right elected the President, clearly. Despite his rhetoric, Trump's actual positions are a very mixed bag.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    I don't think he has any actual positions, aside from possibly being very positive on Russia. He just sort of says whatever comes to mind at any given moment, apparently based on whoever he last talked to. But he mostly talks to people on the extreme right. It's a weak hold, but it's a hold just the same.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Trump's actual policy actions are generally consistent with the “extreme right” label, though not all positions of the same extremist faction.
alacombe 9y ago
I have no idea what you are talking about. The alt-right folks are at-foremost constitutional conservative. They can not be advocating for abolition of the constitution. This is a trait of the left who has no other wish than to eliminate Governemnt Constitutioal bound as well as the Bill of Rights (ie. no free speech, no right to self defense, no innocent before being proven guilty, no due process).
- api 9y ago
  How does the Constitution allow the establishment of a white ethnostate?
  - LyndsySimon 9y ago
    A strong argument could be made that that was a large part of its purpose for a large faction of the Founders. The opposition to that idea is what led to provisions for the end of importing slaves into the US and the Three-Fifths Compromise.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > The alt-right folks are at-foremost constitutional conservative. There is a subset of them that makes rhetorical gestures in that direction, but it's far from the whole, and even the subset that makes rhetorical gestures at the Constitution is quite selective in their concern. And then there's the one like Theodore “Vox Day” Beale (who lays out what I think is one of the clearest articulations of alt-right philosophy without obfuscatory rhetoric designed to make it palatable to conventional society): I think the old conservatives would do well to call themselves Constitutionalists, because it is obvious that the current batch don't give a damn about it. And neither do we of the #AltRight, because it is obvious that the Constitution has not only failed, completely, by its own stated purpose, but is today being used as a means of hand-cuffing the Right. The #AltRight believes in three things: 1.Nationalism. 2. Western civilization. 3. Winning. Everything else is negotiable or a means to one of those three ends. We aren't conservatives. We aren't philosophers. And we don't care about the Constitution, the Rights of Man, the Enlightenment, the Holocaust, or anything else with capital letters that is likely to get in the way. [0] > They can not be advocating for abolition of the constitution. They certainly can be (and some quite clearly are, more to the point) advocating for it's abolition, or at least it being treated as a tool of convenience to be used only insofar as it furthers other goals and ignored/dismissed otherwise. > This is a trait of the left who has no other wish than to eliminate Governemnt Constitutioal bound as well as the Bill of Rights (ie. no free speech, no right to self defense, no innocent before being proven guilty, no due process). The right to self-defense is not an enumerated Constitutional right, though its a traditional legal privilege enshrined in both criminal common law and most statutes. It's notably (as an individual right) not referenced in the second amendment, which is unusual in that it does provide a justification for the legal right it protects. All of the other points are points on which traditionally the conventional right has been weak and the conventional left stronger, though its true that neither has viewed “free speech” as unbounded which has resulted in some who do (or who at least have a more expansive view of the bounds) to challenge the conventional left as being opposed to it. [0]
biggerbistro 9y ago
You are comparing apples to oranges though? The number of people I've had discussions with that (in a roundabout way) advocate for the removal of free speech (hate speech) greatly favors the left. Comparing the most radicalized people on the right to the more centrist of the left is inappropriate.

by api 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

mikeash 9y ago

I think the main difference between the extreme left and the extreme right in the US at the moment is that the extreme left is marginalized and holds no power beyond occasionally NIMBYing new cell towers and such, whereas the extreme right holds the Presidency, much of the legislature, and many other powerful positions. There's nothing inherent about the two which means it has to be this way. It could easily be flipped if circumstances were different. But here and now, the extreme right is much more worrisome.

alacombe 9y ago
The extreme left, marginalized ? Come on, they were able to push near resignation on of their own (ie. a hardcode Sanders support) at Evergreen College and in Canada, they were able to pass what essentially boils down to "compelled speech" law. They are nowhere near "marginalized", quite the contrary...
- bbctol 9y ago
  "Marginalized"? Nonsense, they have absolute control even over an institution as important and famous as Evergreen College... everyone knows that's the stepping stone to world domination
  - alacombe 9y ago
    As a Canadian who refuses to comply with Bill C-16, the fringe left made me a thought criminal.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      This Bill C-16? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_Human_Rights_Act_and_the_Criminal_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_H... What's so bad about it?
      - d0lph 9y ago
        > the amendment also makes it a criminal offence to incite or promote hatred because of gender identity or gender expression Seems vague, what counts as promoting hatred? If someone makes fun of the 1000+ genders and counting, do they go to jail? And from the bill: (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction. [0] [0] http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-319.html#h-93 http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-319.htm...
        mikeash 9y ago
        So, what does actually count as promoting hatred, legally speaking?
        d0lph 9y ago
        > In Warman v. Winnicki, 2006 CHRT 20, Karen A. Jensen found the respondent had posted messages to the Internet which were "vicious and dehumanizing". The adjudicator ordered the respondent to cease and desist his discriminatory practices and to pay a penalty of $6,000 >In Warman v. Northern Alliance, 2009 CHRT 10, Edward Peter Lustig held that the respondent's website was in violation of s. 13(1) because the website carried controversial remarks about Roma, Jews, Muslims, homosexuals, blacks, Arabs, and others. The adjudicator made an order pursuant to s. 54(1)(a) to ensure that the impugned website, which is defunct, remained inactive I am cherry picking a bit, more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada#Cases_under_the_Human_Rights_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada#Cas...
- mikeash 9y ago
  I have no idea what Evergreen College is, and I doubt anything that happens there would even slightly influence anything about my life. Is that the worst thing the extreme left are capable of at the moment? That proves my point if so.
- pdeuchler 9y ago
  Sanders is not anywhere close to the extreme left, anywhere else than the US and he would be considered relatively centrist
olewhalehunter 9y ago
>the extreme right holds the Presidency, much of the legislature, and many other powerful positions Most of Trump's cabinet and the legislature are neocons. http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/to-understand-polarization-understand-the-extent-of-republican-failure/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/to-understand-polarizat...
- api 9y ago
  That's a different branch of the extreme right.
  - pdeuchler 9y ago
    That's absurd, neocons may be trying to harness the grassroots power of certain far right groups but their ideology is nearly identical to the ideology of say, the Clintons or Obama.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      We should look at what they've done to really know who they are. Which is a bit tough, because they've done very little so far, but things like the Muslim/travel ban, attempting to repeal the ACA, cracking down on illegal immigration, and pulling out of the Paris climate agreement indicate a much more extreme right ideology than Clinton or Obama.
      - olewhalehunter 9y ago
        None of those policies are "extreme" for the right, let's break those down. >"Muslim" Travel ban Its a blanket policy on ALL travelers from a specific list drafted by Obama for a similar policy he too actually enacted. Muslims were not banned from say, the UK or Pakistan. It is also temporary. Even center leaning right-wingers have concerns about foreigners from unstable nations. >Attempting to repeal the ACA TrumpCare is almost Obamacare-lite, doesn't completely overhaul it, barely right-of-center, and to the more libertarian right-wingers, actually still a very liberal policy. >Cracking down on illegal immigration A solidly right-wing position, not an "extreme" one. >Pulling out of the Paris climate agreement Climate scientists think the Paris agreement is a joke, if we're basing your judgement of this on effectiveness towards combating climate change, even liberal politicians are guilty of being "extreme right" on this one.
LyndsySimon 9y ago
> the extreme right holds the Presidency I strongly disagree with this statement. The extreme right elected the President, clearly. Despite his rhetoric, Trump's actual positions are a very mixed bag.
- mikeash 9y ago
  I don't think he has any actual positions, aside from possibly being very positive on Russia. He just sort of says whatever comes to mind at any given moment, apparently based on whoever he last talked to. But he mostly talks to people on the extreme right. It's a weak hold, but it's a hold just the same.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Trump's actual policy actions are generally consistent with the “extreme right” label, though not all positions of the same extremist faction.

alacombe 9y ago

I have no idea what you are talking about. The alt-right folks are at-foremost constitutional conservative. They can not be advocating for abolition of the constitution. This is a trait of the left who has no other wish than to eliminate Governemnt Constitutioal bound as well as the Bill of Rights (ie. no free speech, no right to self defense, no innocent before being proven guilty, no due process).

api 9y ago
How does the Constitution allow the establishment of a white ethnostate?
- LyndsySimon 9y ago
  A strong argument could be made that that was a large part of its purpose for a large faction of the Founders. The opposition to that idea is what led to provisions for the end of importing slaves into the US and the Three-Fifths Compromise.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
dragonwriter 9y ago
> The alt-right folks are at-foremost constitutional conservative. There is a subset of them that makes rhetorical gestures in that direction, but it's far from the whole, and even the subset that makes rhetorical gestures at the Constitution is quite selective in their concern. And then there's the one like Theodore “Vox Day” Beale (who lays out what I think is one of the clearest articulations of alt-right philosophy without obfuscatory rhetoric designed to make it palatable to conventional society): I think the old conservatives would do well to call themselves Constitutionalists, because it is obvious that the current batch don't give a damn about it. And neither do we of the #AltRight, because it is obvious that the Constitution has not only failed, completely, by its own stated purpose, but is today being used as a means of hand-cuffing the Right. The #AltRight believes in three things: 1.Nationalism. 2. Western civilization. 3. Winning. Everything else is negotiable or a means to one of those three ends. We aren't conservatives. We aren't philosophers. And we don't care about the Constitution, the Rights of Man, the Enlightenment, the Holocaust, or anything else with capital letters that is likely to get in the way. [0] > They can not be advocating for abolition of the constitution. They certainly can be (and some quite clearly are, more to the point) advocating for it's abolition, or at least it being treated as a tool of convenience to be used only insofar as it furthers other goals and ignored/dismissed otherwise. > This is a trait of the left who has no other wish than to eliminate Governemnt Constitutioal bound as well as the Bill of Rights (ie. no free speech, no right to self defense, no innocent before being proven guilty, no due process). The right to self-defense is not an enumerated Constitutional right, though its a traditional legal privilege enshrined in both criminal common law and most statutes. It's notably (as an individual right) not referenced in the second amendment, which is unusual in that it does provide a justification for the legal right it protects. All of the other points are points on which traditionally the conventional right has been weak and the conventional left stronger, though its true that neither has viewed “free speech” as unbounded which has resulted in some who do (or who at least have a more expansive view of the bounds) to challenge the conventional left as being opposed to it. [0]

biggerbistro 9y ago

You are comparing apples to oranges though? The number of people I've had discussions with that (in a roundabout way) advocate for the removal of free speech (hate speech) greatly favors the left. Comparing the most radicalized people on the right to the more centrist of the left is inappropriate.