3 ms·

I have become effectively alt-right (it is complicated, but for HN purposes it suffices), from a libertarian conservative, in the last two years, specifically b

I have become effectively alt-right (it is complicated, but for HN purposes it suffices), from a libertarian conservative, in the last two years, specifically because of behavior like that of this interviewer. I no longer think it is possible to engage in dialog with people who think dialog is not possible. The punch-a-nazi meme, its acceptance across my social circles (including HN), the our-violence-is-speech-their-speech-is-violence talking points, etc. have pushed me to some very shocking and depressing conclusions.

megaman22 9y ago
It's scary how effectively this sort of thing can push reasonable people towards the fringes. I've noticed the same somewhat disturbing tendency in myself and others who would otherwise be relatively centrist, but are disgusted at some of the antics and rhetoric villifying them.
Jach 9y ago
Would this not be analogous to becoming an atheist just because you don't like some of the practitioners of your faith? Or maybe another related faith? What do you see as the way forward if dialog can't happen?
- quantumofmalice 9y ago
  > What do you see as the way forward if dialog can't happen? Peaceful separation is my hope. But it is a faint hope.
pas 9y ago
What's your view on the prevalence of unsupported prejudice (racism, xenophobia, etc)? I don't really understand why SJW groups don't sue people for their racist/"nazist" remarks, other than it's expensive. There are some famous cases https://www.cnet.com/news/taking-trolls-to-court-lawsuit-targets-daily-stormer-internet-nazis/ https://www.cnet.com/news/taking-trolls-to-court-lawsuit-tar... , but probably SJWs want instant gratification, hence the punching. That doesn't make it acceptable, mostly because it's not even funny. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpyBPwCmfn0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpyBPwCmfn0 ) > I no longer think it is possible to engage in dialog with people who think dialog is not possible. Yes, some people seem to be completely lost.
- quantumofmalice 9y ago
  > What's your view on the prevalence of unsupported prejudice I don't like the careless negativity about non-european people that you see on the alt-right, but I see much more casual negativity towards europeans on the left that goes uncommented on. Broadly I'm coming to agree with Greg Johnson: the best way for peoples to get along is for each people to have their own sovereign country, and I don't think that has to come from a place of viciousness. I view european people the same as I view the japanese, israelis or nigerians: they deserve their own countries and spaces to live the way they see fit.
  - pas 9y ago
    Huh. That's a pretty simplistic view, to the point of uselessness. Voluntary segregation works to a degree, but the nation state model breaks down fast when you consider different groups within. Just look at the problems in Israel with the Ultra Orthodox people, they are hard liners on many issues (women's rights for example). And what does European mean in the context of the US? Should they just pack up and come home and give the land back to the various native tribes? Because currently the Nazi problem (white supremacy, racism, fixed gender roles, fixed family structure, fixed sexual orientation - but let's simply focus on the racism thing) is that radical progressives rattle the cage because they see the systemic injustice against natives/others. And reservations (giving [not taking, in this case] land to people) haven't solved shit, they're still hopeless addicts (alcohol/opioids/etc). In this sense the problem is, that people have too little minds, they lack the big picture. Some people (SJWs) see the injustice and want to go and cuddle the addicts, and blame the people who are better off; whereas other people (alt-right) point at the addicts and have the audacity to sincerely ask "how much money do we want to pour into them?", while of course both groups missing the point that there's a reason why they are worse off. Accepting that yeah, it'd be good for the natives as a group to "move on" psychologically - even if very strictly speaking it's their right to hold a nihilistic apocalyptic view of the world (after all, their world ended more than a hundred years ago [the last skirmish happened almost exactly 100 years ago in 1918 January]), or accepting that maybe there really was no dog whistling in the H&M jungle monkey hoodie, all of these, of course, doesn't address the current situation of easy to describe groups (like "inner city blacks") having serious problems, and the seemingly paradoxical treatment (give them enough welfare, so they can wither away their lives on cheap drugs). Indeed, the rationally obvious strategy is to set up a nice and fair triage process and let that decide how much effort/resource should be allocated to solving/treating the problems of various regions, groups, substance abuse patterns, different manifestations of poverty and lack of social mobility. This way it might turn out that solving the problem of Appalachian (mainly white trash) abusing prescription drugs has a higher priority than solving inner city poverty. Or more likely it'll turn out that both need attention, both need resources, both present some high cost-benefit ways to reduce the problems, yet neither are completely solvable withing a generation, nor are either somehow morally more important than the other, but they are both severely worsened by ideologically muddy approach by previous (federal, state and local) administrations and power structures (such as perceived and real admission difference of universities between the aforementioned disadvantaged groups).

megaman22 9y ago

It's scary how effectively this sort of thing can push reasonable people towards the fringes. I've noticed the same somewhat disturbing tendency in myself and others who would otherwise be relatively centrist, but are disgusted at some of the antics and rhetoric villifying them.

Jach 9y ago

Would this not be analogous to becoming an atheist just because you don't like some of the practitioners of your faith? Or maybe another related faith? What do you see as the way forward if dialog can't happen?

quantumofmalice 9y ago
> What do you see as the way forward if dialog can't happen? Peaceful separation is my hope. But it is a faint hope.

pas 9y ago

What's your view on the prevalence of unsupported prejudice (racism, xenophobia, etc)? I don't really understand why SJW groups don't sue people for their racist/"nazist" remarks, other than it's expensive. There are some famous cases https://www.cnet.com/news/taking-trolls-to-court-lawsuit-targets-daily-stormer-internet-nazis/ https://www.cnet.com/news/taking-trolls-to-court-lawsuit-tar... , but probably SJWs want instant gratification, hence the punching. That doesn't make it acceptable, mostly because it's not even funny. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpyBPwCmfn0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpyBPwCmfn0 ) > I no longer think it is possible to engage in dialog with people who think dialog is not possible. Yes, some people seem to be completely lost.

quantumofmalice 9y ago
> What's your view on the prevalence of unsupported prejudice I don't like the careless negativity about non-european people that you see on the alt-right, but I see much more casual negativity towards europeans on the left that goes uncommented on. Broadly I'm coming to agree with Greg Johnson: the best way for peoples to get along is for each people to have their own sovereign country, and I don't think that has to come from a place of viciousness. I view european people the same as I view the japanese, israelis or nigerians: they deserve their own countries and spaces to live the way they see fit.
- pas 9y ago
  Huh. That's a pretty simplistic view, to the point of uselessness. Voluntary segregation works to a degree, but the nation state model breaks down fast when you consider different groups within. Just look at the problems in Israel with the Ultra Orthodox people, they are hard liners on many issues (women's rights for example). And what does European mean in the context of the US? Should they just pack up and come home and give the land back to the various native tribes? Because currently the Nazi problem (white supremacy, racism, fixed gender roles, fixed family structure, fixed sexual orientation - but let's simply focus on the racism thing) is that radical progressives rattle the cage because they see the systemic injustice against natives/others. And reservations (giving [not taking, in this case] land to people) haven't solved shit, they're still hopeless addicts (alcohol/opioids/etc). In this sense the problem is, that people have too little minds, they lack the big picture. Some people (SJWs) see the injustice and want to go and cuddle the addicts, and blame the people who are better off; whereas other people (alt-right) point at the addicts and have the audacity to sincerely ask "how much money do we want to pour into them?", while of course both groups missing the point that there's a reason why they are worse off. Accepting that yeah, it'd be good for the natives as a group to "move on" psychologically - even if very strictly speaking it's their right to hold a nihilistic apocalyptic view of the world (after all, their world ended more than a hundred years ago [the last skirmish happened almost exactly 100 years ago in 1918 January]), or accepting that maybe there really was no dog whistling in the H&M jungle monkey hoodie, all of these, of course, doesn't address the current situation of easy to describe groups (like "inner city blacks") having serious problems, and the seemingly paradoxical treatment (give them enough welfare, so they can wither away their lives on cheap drugs). Indeed, the rationally obvious strategy is to set up a nice and fair triage process and let that decide how much effort/resource should be allocated to solving/treating the problems of various regions, groups, substance abuse patterns, different manifestations of poverty and lack of social mobility. This way it might turn out that solving the problem of Appalachian (mainly white trash) abusing prescription drugs has a higher priority than solving inner city poverty. Or more likely it'll turn out that both need attention, both need resources, both present some high cost-benefit ways to reduce the problems, yet neither are completely solvable withing a generation, nor are either somehow morally more important than the other, but they are both severely worsened by ideologically muddy approach by previous (federal, state and local) administrations and power structures (such as perceived and real admission difference of universities between the aforementioned disadvantaged groups).