6 ms·

A lot of people are going to compare this publication to "bog Conservative" -- or worse, 'alt-right' -- online publications. A friend sent me an article for th

A lot of people are going to compare this publication to "bog Conservative" -- or worse, 'alt-right' -- online publications. A friend sent me an article for the first time today and it took the words out of my head - and it's not at all what I would consider right-wing. Does the word 'white' in the headline of this piece make you nervous: https://quillette.com/2018/08/17/a-closer-look-at-anti-white-rhetoric/ https://quillette.com/2018/08/17/a-closer-look-at-anti-white... ? Will you skim the headline, downvote this and fail to read the part that talks heavily about the new NYT editor and hundreds of her tweets, combines other examples and advances a thesis that there's a new type of religious ideology that's taken hold in the U.S., while traditional religion waned? If so, then you're precisely what the conversation is about: people who sit idly by as a new dogmatism takes hold under the guise of righteousness. As a traditionally Left person myself, I'm deeply troubled by the discourse in the U.S., where the Left and the extreme Right use the same phraseology and attitude, while the former feels vindicated and justified (because they are on the correct side). And throwing away due process in the interest of the Greater Good? If you're not reminded of the Salem Witch Trials, you should be reminded of Stalin's purges just the same. Stepping out of right-versus-left politics, the idea is to remain skeptical of all group-think, regardless of where it comes from. edit: grammar

Kye 8y ago
>> "As a tradinally Left person myself, I'm deeply troubled by the disourse in the U.S., where the Left and the extreme Right use the same phraseology and attitude, while the former feeling vindicated and justified. And throwing away due process in the interest of the Greater Good?" I mean, yeah, but Quillette is still a rag. It exists to exhaust people with the time, energy, and knowledge to debunk it so people without that will be duped by its arguments that only seem reasonable on the surface and one or two layers below, right above the trash. Quillette is like a knowledge slot machine to people who want to be well-informed but don't have the resources to do it without leaning on others who do. It lures you in with surface plausibility.
- mancerayder 8y ago
  We read rags all day: Politico, Vox, even the Guardian and the NYT do plenty of ragging. It's not all flak-jacket reporting with helicopters buzzing overhead and sandstorms; there's plenty of polemics to go around. The article I linked above is very rational and supported with references.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - Kye 8y ago
    I'm sure it is, but I don't see why Quillete needs to be given attention. It's bad media. It feeds on people without enough patience to resist skilled manipulation. It leans on confirmation bias and hammers it in. Someone elsewhere likened it to Galileo. Quillette is more like the Church. It says "the Earth is flat!" How many times do you walk someone through the math of proving the Earth is roundish before you realize it's futile? Unchecked confirmation bias always wins. The best treatment is to starve it of air. It doesn't need profiles in mostly credible outlets. It needs a faulty backup and restoration plan and a power surge.
    - markdog12 8y ago
      > It doesn't need profiles in mostly credible outlets. It needs a faulty backup and restoration plan and a power surge. Who sounds like the church?
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - klagermkii 8y ago
spamizbad 8y ago
People probably call it alt-right because it was founded by RebelTV alumni... which is a reasonable assumption to make.
- mancerayder 8y ago
  Do you have a reference for that? I did a search for "Quillette Alt-Right" and I got a ton of articles from them against the Alt-Right, and comparing the extreme Left to the alt-Right. It's Patreon-supported, is that alt-right too?
  - spamizbad 8y ago
    It was founded by Claire Lehmann, who worked for the Canadian far-right Rebel Media (RebelTV). I don’t personally consider it alt-right, but i think someone viewing it that way is totally reasonable given her media background.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - jlawson 8y ago
      RebelTV is not alt-right; it's founder has explicitly disavowed any association with the group/term. (Not to mention all the non-whites and women they employ.)
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Hasknewbie 8y ago
> I'm deeply troubled by the discourse in the U.S., where the Left and the extreme Right use the same phraseology and attitude It's pretty simple: there is a burgeoning Reactionary Left in the US. For the last few generations 'left' essentially meant 'progressive' so there's some lag in updating people's mental schema and naming it what it is. As a foreigner, I am less worried by its existence (it's not unique with regards to other countries, and it's relatively small) than by the willingness of the more mainstream left to either downplay or appease it... But the US also have a very opportunistic political culture, so they're probably used to foster some narrative (it reminds me of the Republicans in 2009 wondering how they can take advantage of this Tea Party thing. Same thing here, with the Dems trying to find a way to use these identitarians to their benefit -- what could possibly go wrong?).
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
paulpauper 8y ago
That is why the IDW (which includes Jordan Peterson) is seeing so much growth in spite of (or maybe because) of America's hyper-partisan media and political landscape. People are tired of the mudslinging and BS. They want the truth and o be able to engage in civil dialogue.
roenxi 8y ago
> And throwing away due process in the interest of the Greater Good? If you're not reminded of the Salem Witch Trials, you should be reminded of Stalin's purges just the same. Indeed. Most of the rhetoric seems to have a tit-for-tat feel to it. I don't know how the rest of the right wing feel, but things like the Russia conspiracy theories are a lot more palatable in light of older, even more insane conspiracy theories like Obama instituting Sharia law or being born in Kenya. The concerning parts of the dialog are the innocuous elements where due process starts to break down. Slogans like "Resist" and "Not My President" are more scary than most of the rest to me - the health of the system are more important than political ideology. Hopefully they don't mean what they are literally saying, but it'll be scary if that language breaks out of America and starts to spread across the rest of the Anglosphere.
- kough 8y ago
  > the health of the system are more important than political ideology this is basically the rallying cry of the radical left. it's ok if not all of their reaction is good as long as it's possible: good ideas should rise to the top.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Most of the rhetoric seems to have a tit-for-tat feel to it. Forget about tit for tat. Let's talk about principles. Innocent until proven guilty. Rule of law. The right of free speech. As per usual, the side holding power wishes to dispense with those principles, so they can proceed to get their way, "for the greater good." The other side, knocked onto its back foot, is the one talking about principles. In the 60's, it was the other way around, at least at first. (Then, as now, there are opportunists on the far extremes, hoping to gain power by fanning the flames of outrage.) Now, power is not only embodied in television and print media, it's also mediated by the viral potential of social media. There is one side which seeks to reserve the power of virality to itself, all the while holding onto the declining power of traditional media. It's precisely for situations like this, that the principles were created. It's precisely this kind of imbalance that the principles are supposed to help bring back towards the center. the health of the system are more important than political ideology Hear hear. (Center-left person here.)
- 8y ago
fromMars 8y ago
I think you have to separate phraseology from intent. From where I sit, it appears that many "alt-right" types espousing views on racial or gender superiority fervently believe these concepts. That's not the case for most on the left. Instead, the hostility from the left is more directed towards those that hold these prejudicial views.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  I think you have to separate phraseology from intent. Better yet, do an analysis of subjects, verbs, and objects. If you diagram the sentences and analyze the rhetoric, what you'll see is that certain groupings of people based on hard to change outward characteristics are characterized as harmful, while certain others are characterized as inherently good. The further towards the extremes of both ends of the political spectrum you go, the more of this you find. Instead, the hostility from the left is more directed towards those that hold these prejudicial views. Are you saying that no one on the left calls out particular racial groups and demonizes them? The truth is the opposite. The further left you go, the more identitarian the rhetoric becomes, until certain skin colors are called out as being inherently bad.
  - fromMars 8y ago
    > Are you saying that no one on the left calls out particular racial groups and demonizes them? Again, that is why I mentioned phraseology versus intent. > Are you saying that no one on the left calls out particular racial groups and demonizes them? And this is my point. I don't entirely agree with this statement. I believe the situation is more subtle as the Jeong case illustrates. Instead, it would be fairer to say that the further left you go (in the US), there is animosity towards conservatism and racism and some on the left believe that this conservatism is mainly supported by a certain segment of whites. I agree that sometimes an unfortunate phraseology is used by those that muddies the meaning.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      Instead, it would be fairer to say that the further left you go (in the US), there is animosity towards conservatism and racism Go far enough left, and what you'll see is there's animosity towards one kind of racism, combined with energetic forwarding of another kind of racism, plus other identitarian tribalist ideas. The above is then combined with nonsensical linguistic games denying the bigotry, claiming that there's some directional arrow based on inherent characteristics. I agree that sometimes an unfortunate phraseology is used by those that muddies the meaning. Political extremists on both the far left and far right are demonizing entire groups of people based on ethnic subcultural markers, skin color, and other hard to change characteristics. We know what that is, historically. We already have words and definitions for that sort of thing. Those definitions are universal and orthogonal from any particular identity. It's only in recent years that people have tried to sell the public nonsensical "unfortunate phraseology." "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength." It's the evil that disguises itself as good in the eyes of many that does the most damage.

Kye 8y ago

>> "As a tradinally Left person myself, I'm deeply troubled by the disourse in the U.S., where the Left and the extreme Right use the same phraseology and attitude, while the former feeling vindicated and justified. And throwing away due process in the interest of the Greater Good?" I mean, yeah, but Quillette is still a rag. It exists to exhaust people with the time, energy, and knowledge to debunk it so people without that will be duped by its arguments that only seem reasonable on the surface and one or two layers below, right above the trash. Quillette is like a knowledge slot machine to people who want to be well-informed but don't have the resources to do it without leaning on others who do. It lures you in with surface plausibility.

mancerayder 8y ago
We read rags all day: Politico, Vox, even the Guardian and the NYT do plenty of ragging. It's not all flak-jacket reporting with helicopters buzzing overhead and sandstorms; there's plenty of polemics to go around. The article I linked above is very rational and supported with references.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Kye 8y ago
  I'm sure it is, but I don't see why Quillete needs to be given attention. It's bad media. It feeds on people without enough patience to resist skilled manipulation. It leans on confirmation bias and hammers it in. Someone elsewhere likened it to Galileo. Quillette is more like the Church. It says "the Earth is flat!" How many times do you walk someone through the math of proving the Earth is roundish before you realize it's futile? Unchecked confirmation bias always wins. The best treatment is to starve it of air. It doesn't need profiles in mostly credible outlets. It needs a faulty backup and restoration plan and a power surge.
  - markdog12 8y ago
    > It doesn't need profiles in mostly credible outlets. It needs a faulty backup and restoration plan and a power surge. Who sounds like the church?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - klagermkii 8y ago

spamizbad 8y ago

People probably call it alt-right because it was founded by RebelTV alumni... which is a reasonable assumption to make.

mancerayder 8y ago
Do you have a reference for that? I did a search for "Quillette Alt-Right" and I got a ton of articles from them against the Alt-Right, and comparing the extreme Left to the alt-Right. It's Patreon-supported, is that alt-right too?
- spamizbad 8y ago
  It was founded by Claire Lehmann, who worked for the Canadian far-right Rebel Media (RebelTV). I don’t personally consider it alt-right, but i think someone viewing it that way is totally reasonable given her media background.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - jlawson 8y ago
    RebelTV is not alt-right; it's founder has explicitly disavowed any association with the group/term. (Not to mention all the non-whites and women they employ.)
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Hasknewbie 8y ago

> I'm deeply troubled by the discourse in the U.S., where the Left and the extreme Right use the same phraseology and attitude It's pretty simple: there is a burgeoning Reactionary Left in the US. For the last few generations 'left' essentially meant 'progressive' so there's some lag in updating people's mental schema and naming it what it is. As a foreigner, I am less worried by its existence (it's not unique with regards to other countries, and it's relatively small) than by the willingness of the more mainstream left to either downplay or appease it... But the US also have a very opportunistic political culture, so they're probably used to foster some narrative (it reminds me of the Republicans in 2009 wondering how they can take advantage of this Tea Party thing. Same thing here, with the Dems trying to find a way to use these identitarians to their benefit -- what could possibly go wrong?).

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

paulpauper 8y ago

That is why the IDW (which includes Jordan Peterson) is seeing so much growth in spite of (or maybe because) of America's hyper-partisan media and political landscape. People are tired of the mudslinging and BS. They want the truth and o be able to engage in civil dialogue.

roenxi 8y ago

> And throwing away due process in the interest of the Greater Good? If you're not reminded of the Salem Witch Trials, you should be reminded of Stalin's purges just the same. Indeed. Most of the rhetoric seems to have a tit-for-tat feel to it. I don't know how the rest of the right wing feel, but things like the Russia conspiracy theories are a lot more palatable in light of older, even more insane conspiracy theories like Obama instituting Sharia law or being born in Kenya. The concerning parts of the dialog are the innocuous elements where due process starts to break down. Slogans like "Resist" and "Not My President" are more scary than most of the rest to me - the health of the system are more important than political ideology. Hopefully they don't mean what they are literally saying, but it'll be scary if that language breaks out of America and starts to spread across the rest of the Anglosphere.

kough 8y ago
> the health of the system are more important than political ideology this is basically the rallying cry of the radical left. it's ok if not all of their reaction is good as long as it's possible: good ideas should rise to the top.
stcredzero 8y ago
Most of the rhetoric seems to have a tit-for-tat feel to it. Forget about tit for tat. Let's talk about principles. Innocent until proven guilty. Rule of law. The right of free speech. As per usual, the side holding power wishes to dispense with those principles, so they can proceed to get their way, "for the greater good." The other side, knocked onto its back foot, is the one talking about principles. In the 60's, it was the other way around, at least at first. (Then, as now, there are opportunists on the far extremes, hoping to gain power by fanning the flames of outrage.) Now, power is not only embodied in television and print media, it's also mediated by the viral potential of social media. There is one side which seeks to reserve the power of virality to itself, all the while holding onto the declining power of traditional media. It's precisely for situations like this, that the principles were created. It's precisely this kind of imbalance that the principles are supposed to help bring back towards the center. the health of the system are more important than political ideology Hear hear. (Center-left person here.)
8y ago

fromMars 8y ago

I think you have to separate phraseology from intent. From where I sit, it appears that many "alt-right" types espousing views on racial or gender superiority fervently believe these concepts. That's not the case for most on the left. Instead, the hostility from the left is more directed towards those that hold these prejudicial views.

stcredzero 8y ago
I think you have to separate phraseology from intent. Better yet, do an analysis of subjects, verbs, and objects. If you diagram the sentences and analyze the rhetoric, what you'll see is that certain groupings of people based on hard to change outward characteristics are characterized as harmful, while certain others are characterized as inherently good. The further towards the extremes of both ends of the political spectrum you go, the more of this you find. Instead, the hostility from the left is more directed towards those that hold these prejudicial views. Are you saying that no one on the left calls out particular racial groups and demonizes them? The truth is the opposite. The further left you go, the more identitarian the rhetoric becomes, until certain skin colors are called out as being inherently bad.
- fromMars 8y ago
  > Are you saying that no one on the left calls out particular racial groups and demonizes them? Again, that is why I mentioned phraseology versus intent. > Are you saying that no one on the left calls out particular racial groups and demonizes them? And this is my point. I don't entirely agree with this statement. I believe the situation is more subtle as the Jeong case illustrates. Instead, it would be fairer to say that the further left you go (in the US), there is animosity towards conservatism and racism and some on the left believe that this conservatism is mainly supported by a certain segment of whites. I agree that sometimes an unfortunate phraseology is used by those that muddies the meaning.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Instead, it would be fairer to say that the further left you go (in the US), there is animosity towards conservatism and racism Go far enough left, and what you'll see is there's animosity towards one kind of racism, combined with energetic forwarding of another kind of racism, plus other identitarian tribalist ideas. The above is then combined with nonsensical linguistic games denying the bigotry, claiming that there's some directional arrow based on inherent characteristics. I agree that sometimes an unfortunate phraseology is used by those that muddies the meaning. Political extremists on both the far left and far right are demonizing entire groups of people based on ethnic subcultural markers, skin color, and other hard to change characteristics. We know what that is, historically. We already have words and definitions for that sort of thing. Those definitions are universal and orthogonal from any particular identity. It's only in recent years that people have tried to sell the public nonsensical "unfortunate phraseology." "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength." It's the evil that disguises itself as good in the eyes of many that does the most damage.