6 ms·

Alt-Right Pipeline

32 points by alex_young 4y ago

local_crmdgeon 4y ago
As someone who Bardfinn would likely call alt right (i think my fanatic support of Israel/Jews makes that untrue) I’m happy to answer questions. Basically nothing in this wiki page is accurate.
- smitty1e 4y ago
  "Volume of fire has an accuracy all its own."--U.S. Marine In the propaganda war, substance is irrelevant and repetition is key. At some point, society is going to heave a collective sigh and thumb its nose at all of these online scandal-peddlers. It's all a colossal farce, and cannot implode quickly enough, on the Left of Right.
- foogazi 4y ago
  Don’t get the Bardfin reference What makes you likely alt-right ?
local_crmdgeon 4y ago
[flagged]
- whatshisface 4y ago
  The best (worst) part was the social credit style graph analysis that linked various people to the alt right via degrees of separation.
- GavinMcG 4y ago
  He's given people like Alex Jones and Gavin McInnes a platform—something that McInnes himself (for example) has said directly helped recruitment to the Proud Boys.
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    Oh no! Recruitment to a group led by an Afro-Cuban that opposed the organized street violence across our nation, from over a billion dollars in arson damage to dozens of murders (including Antonio Mays Jr and David Dorne)?!?!? Say it isn’t so!
    - GavinMcG 4y ago
      > McInnes is open about his glorification of violence. In a speech, he described a clash with Antifa outside a talk he gave at NYU last year: “My guys are left to fight. And here’s the crucial part: We do. And we beat the crap out of them.” He related what a Proud Boy who got arrested told him afterward: “It was really, really fun.” According to McInnes: “Violence doesn’t feel good. Justified violence feels great. And fighting solves everything.” https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/gavin-mcinnes-proud-boys-poisonous-violence/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/gavin-mcinnes-proud-b...
  - local_crmdgeon 4y ago
    Alex Jones is nuts but also not part of the alt right. McInness might be tangentially related. I'm saying this as someone who spends a lot of time in far right spaces. These people are only ever made fun of, same with Ben Shapiro and TPUSA. Most of the major people at this point are anonymous.
    - GavinMcG 4y ago
      > These people are only ever made fun of That doesn't mean they're "tangentially related." They sow the seeds that grow into extreme right wing commitments and actions like insurrection. McInness didn't raid the capitol himself, but the organization he founded has five members standing trial right now, including its current national leader.
      - local_crmdgeon 4y ago
        [flagged]
- zetsurin 4y ago
  >The alt-right pipeline has been found to begin with the intellectual dark web community, which is made up of internet personalities that are unified by an opposition to identity politics and political correctness, such as Joe Rogan, Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin, and Jordan Peterson. Don't think it's saying he's responsible, but an "internet personality" opposed to identity politics and political correctness. I don't follow rogan enough to know much about him, but i'd say it's very accurate about jordan peterson.
j0eblow 4y ago
who is the author?
- LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
  Ze fancy Fuhrer from his loft above the cliffs on the far side of the moon. Via inceptional cyber-Vril.
zmgsabst 4y ago
How dare the minority in education start organizing for equal rights! Those alt-right incels wanting equal rights are such radicals! …wait, what? I think people are underestimating the bias of their own tribe and that many people are “de-programming” from radical leftwing ideas (eg, systemic racism against Asians or systemic misandry in education) by finding content which exposes inconsistencies in those narratives and points out their underlying bigoted nature. When you’re part of a cult, you start accusing everyone of being “alt right” when they leave.
- whatshisface 4y ago
  It doesn't take a huge amount of effort to find actual Nazis trying to use those communities as a recruiting ground, but trying to blame Jordan Peterson for that is insane and counterproductive. (Well, it's productive if you don't care about the Nazis and your real enemies are conservatives who have found a way to appeal to youths...)
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    In fact, calling men who think it’s wrong that the majority sex in education receives special privileges (preferred acceptance; programs like Women in STEM) while the minority receives a cold shoulder “Nazis” is the fastest way to legitimize Nazism. Of course, one could argue that the collectivist authoritarians who believe in a racist ideology and are systematically enacting that at places like Harvard and Yale are the actual Nazis — who are merely trying to deflect by calling everyone else a “Nazi”.
    - whatshisface 4y ago
      I'm talking about actual self-identified Nazis.
    - matheusmoreira 4y ago
      > calling men who think it’s wrong that the majority sex in education receives special privileges while the minority receives a cold shoulder “Nazis” is the fastest way to legitimize Nazism Funny you mention that. In my country, government used to allow anyone to report their own gender and race. Then they added quotas for minorities in federal schools. Obviously this resulted in a lot of people self-identifying as minorities. To fix that "abuse" they created something I can only describe as a racial tribunal. People literally assemble and judge if you're black enough to fill that quota. Not just based on your skin color, place of origin and your culture but also anthropometry such as skull shape and size. I've seen actual published documents detailing criteria for this. Not even Nazi Germany was like this. In Nazi Germany, they just judged if you were german enough based on your ancestry.
tennisflyi 4y ago
Article needs some sort of lock. Ripe for vandalism.
- smitty1e 4y ago
  But enough about Wikipedia in general. Notwithstanding pure science/math topics, one is safe to assume anything there is at least airbrushed, if not pure propaganda.
j0eblow 4y ago
I'll ask it again. Who is the author of this article?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ajdude 4y ago
  You can view the history of who contributed what: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Alt-right_pipeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Alt-right_pipe...
  - rasengan0 4y ago
    MediaWiki is great about viewing contributions and contributors for users Initial version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alt-right_pipeline&oldid=1098058249 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alt-right_pipelin... source reference: https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/10108 https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/10108
- LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
  Ze fancy Fuhrer from his loft above the cliffs on the far side of the moon. Via Vrilcyberinception.
clnq 4y ago
I am not convinced that the proposed “alternative influence network” is much different from any echo chamber with influential figures on social media. Including people like Joe Rogan in the supposed AIN makes this article even less convincing. Joe Rogan has interviewed guests of very varied political leanings, and he himself seems to have a complex not strictly partisan world view. Should one never interview right-leaning people on their shows to avoid being dragged into these “influence networks”? I’m also very skeptical of the “guilt by association” type ideas that seem foundational to such pipelines or networks. I could be wrong, but they seem like a shaky foundation for this radicalization theory to me. Simply talking with someone should not mean you subscribe to their politics or endorse those views. In fact, I think that this kind of “guilt by association” rhetoric is further segregating people into echo chambers, and it’s unhelpful.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- TMWNN 4y ago
  >Joe Rogan has interviewed guests of very varied political leanings To many on the left, this alone is "proof" that Rogan is The Other, which must be censored. To put another way, this is exactly why Spotify hosting him was so controversial among the bien-pensant. Like the more recent attempted boycott of Hogwarts Legacy, the attempt to relegate Rogan to wrongthink was a miserable failure. Once the HL boycott failed those backing it did their best to rewrite history and claim that they never expected to succeed; did this happen with the Spotify attack?
tus666 4y ago
Communistopedia being politically unbiased as always.
csense 4y ago
This article uses terms that de-legitimize certain types of discourse, such as "radicalization", "extremist figures," "hate speech" and "misinformation." Who decides whether the theory that COVID-19 originated in a Chinese lab is a scientific hypothesis to be tested, or "misinformation" to be suppressed? Who decides that Jordan Peterson is an "extremist figure" but RuPaul is not? Why are (generally left-leaning) people trying so hard to keep certain concepts out of the marketplace of ideas? If those ideas are so obviously wrong and bad, why should they be censored and suppressed, rather than discussed and refuted? The article should be re-written from a more neutral point of view. As it is, it implicitly endorses a certain framing of the issues it discusses. Usually Wikipedia has better standards.
- burglins 4y ago
  AFAIK, it is on par with other articles on wikipedia.[0] [0] https://larrysanger.org/2021/06/wikipedia-is-more-one-sided-than-ever/ https://larrysanger.org/2021/06/wikipedia-is-more-one-sided-...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- kgwxd 4y ago
  It's pretty simple. If the ideas being presented, ad nauseam, bring undue harm to other people, the left is going to want to take a step back. The lab origin theory itself is not harmful, but the way it was presented by the right absolutely was. The base is FAR more prone to knee-jerk violence than the left. To many of them, china lab leak = Chinese people should be physically attacked. The knee-jerk suppression of discussion was caused by the knee-jerk violence. Jon Stewart could talk about it because he argued in good faith. Tucker Carlson was very obviously looking to rile up the base knowing damn well the logical leaps they would make.
  - clnq 4y ago
    Is there any proof of any significant number of people justifying violence towards the Chinese because of the lab leak theory? It takes many logical leaps. First, one has to believe the lab leak happened, which we can’t say with certainty — there is a lot of circumstantial and weak evidence on both sides, it is very speculative. Secondly, one would need to believe there is culpability (it was not an accident). Thirdly, one would have to believe that all Chinese are collectively culpable, which alone is pretty ridiculous. And one more logical leap is necessary to agree that random violence would constitute appropriate justice (people generally feel that even when criminals are unduly murdered, this does not make things equitable for the harmed party). These leaps already require a very radicalized audience. I don’t believe this will work to radicalize a substantial number of people. And even putting all of that aside, calls for violence are outside social norms and considered hate speech. The problem is not discussing the lab leak theory, it’s doing so outside the social norms. If we say that lab leak discussion is hate speech, that is simply incorrect.
shashurup 4y ago
This wasn't as bad as confusing hotmail for hotmale (not a big mistake when English is not your native language). But I was more like learning something new about pipelines :(

32 points by alex_young 4y ago

As someone who Bardfinn would likely call alt right (i think my fanatic support of Israel/Jews makes that untrue) I’m happy to answer questions. Basically nothing in this wiki page is accurate.

smitty1e 4y ago
"Volume of fire has an accuracy all its own."--U.S. Marine In the propaganda war, substance is irrelevant and repetition is key. At some point, society is going to heave a collective sigh and thumb its nose at all of these online scandal-peddlers. It's all a colossal farce, and cannot implode quickly enough, on the Left of Right.
foogazi 4y ago
Don’t get the Bardfin reference What makes you likely alt-right ?

local_crmdgeon 4y ago

[flagged]

whatshisface 4y ago
The best (worst) part was the social credit style graph analysis that linked various people to the alt right via degrees of separation.
GavinMcG 4y ago
He's given people like Alex Jones and Gavin McInnes a platform—something that McInnes himself (for example) has said directly helped recruitment to the Proud Boys.
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  Oh no! Recruitment to a group led by an Afro-Cuban that opposed the organized street violence across our nation, from over a billion dollars in arson damage to dozens of murders (including Antonio Mays Jr and David Dorne)?!?!? Say it isn’t so!
  - GavinMcG 4y ago
    > McInnes is open about his glorification of violence. In a speech, he described a clash with Antifa outside a talk he gave at NYU last year: “My guys are left to fight. And here’s the crucial part: We do. And we beat the crap out of them.” He related what a Proud Boy who got arrested told him afterward: “It was really, really fun.” According to McInnes: “Violence doesn’t feel good. Justified violence feels great. And fighting solves everything.” https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/gavin-mcinnes-proud-boys-poisonous-violence/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/gavin-mcinnes-proud-b...
- local_crmdgeon 4y ago
  Alex Jones is nuts but also not part of the alt right. McInness might be tangentially related. I'm saying this as someone who spends a lot of time in far right spaces. These people are only ever made fun of, same with Ben Shapiro and TPUSA. Most of the major people at this point are anonymous.
  - GavinMcG 4y ago
    > These people are only ever made fun of That doesn't mean they're "tangentially related." They sow the seeds that grow into extreme right wing commitments and actions like insurrection. McInness didn't raid the capitol himself, but the organization he founded has five members standing trial right now, including its current national leader.
    - local_crmdgeon 4y ago
      [flagged]
zetsurin 4y ago
>The alt-right pipeline has been found to begin with the intellectual dark web community, which is made up of internet personalities that are unified by an opposition to identity politics and political correctness, such as Joe Rogan, Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin, and Jordan Peterson. Don't think it's saying he's responsible, but an "internet personality" opposed to identity politics and political correctness. I don't follow rogan enough to know much about him, but i'd say it's very accurate about jordan peterson.

j0eblow 4y ago

who is the author?

LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
Ze fancy Fuhrer from his loft above the cliffs on the far side of the moon. Via inceptional cyber-Vril.

zmgsabst 4y ago

How dare the minority in education start organizing for equal rights! Those alt-right incels wanting equal rights are such radicals! …wait, what? I think people are underestimating the bias of their own tribe and that many people are “de-programming” from radical leftwing ideas (eg, systemic racism against Asians or systemic misandry in education) by finding content which exposes inconsistencies in those narratives and points out their underlying bigoted nature. When you’re part of a cult, you start accusing everyone of being “alt right” when they leave.

whatshisface 4y ago
It doesn't take a huge amount of effort to find actual Nazis trying to use those communities as a recruiting ground, but trying to blame Jordan Peterson for that is insane and counterproductive. (Well, it's productive if you don't care about the Nazis and your real enemies are conservatives who have found a way to appeal to youths...)
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  In fact, calling men who think it’s wrong that the majority sex in education receives special privileges (preferred acceptance; programs like Women in STEM) while the minority receives a cold shoulder “Nazis” is the fastest way to legitimize Nazism. Of course, one could argue that the collectivist authoritarians who believe in a racist ideology and are systematically enacting that at places like Harvard and Yale are the actual Nazis — who are merely trying to deflect by calling everyone else a “Nazi”.
  - whatshisface 4y ago
    I'm talking about actual self-identified Nazis.
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    > calling men who think it’s wrong that the majority sex in education receives special privileges while the minority receives a cold shoulder “Nazis” is the fastest way to legitimize Nazism Funny you mention that. In my country, government used to allow anyone to report their own gender and race. Then they added quotas for minorities in federal schools. Obviously this resulted in a lot of people self-identifying as minorities. To fix that "abuse" they created something I can only describe as a racial tribunal. People literally assemble and judge if you're black enough to fill that quota. Not just based on your skin color, place of origin and your culture but also anthropometry such as skull shape and size. I've seen actual published documents detailing criteria for this. Not even Nazi Germany was like this. In Nazi Germany, they just judged if you were german enough based on your ancestry.

tennisflyi 4y ago

Article needs some sort of lock. Ripe for vandalism.

smitty1e 4y ago
But enough about Wikipedia in general. Notwithstanding pure science/math topics, one is safe to assume anything there is at least airbrushed, if not pure propaganda.

j0eblow 4y ago

I'll ask it again. Who is the author of this article?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ajdude 4y ago
You can view the history of who contributed what: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Alt-right_pipeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Alt-right_pipe...
- rasengan0 4y ago
  MediaWiki is great about viewing contributions and contributors for users Initial version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alt-right_pipeline&oldid=1098058249 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alt-right_pipelin... source reference: https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/10108 https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/10108
LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
Ze fancy Fuhrer from his loft above the cliffs on the far side of the moon. Via Vrilcyberinception.

clnq 4y ago

I am not convinced that the proposed “alternative influence network” is much different from any echo chamber with influential figures on social media. Including people like Joe Rogan in the supposed AIN makes this article even less convincing. Joe Rogan has interviewed guests of very varied political leanings, and he himself seems to have a complex not strictly partisan world view. Should one never interview right-leaning people on their shows to avoid being dragged into these “influence networks”? I’m also very skeptical of the “guilt by association” type ideas that seem foundational to such pipelines or networks. I could be wrong, but they seem like a shaky foundation for this radicalization theory to me. Simply talking with someone should not mean you subscribe to their politics or endorse those views. In fact, I think that this kind of “guilt by association” rhetoric is further segregating people into echo chambers, and it’s unhelpful.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
TMWNN 4y ago
>Joe Rogan has interviewed guests of very varied political leanings To many on the left, this alone is "proof" that Rogan is The Other, which must be censored. To put another way, this is exactly why Spotify hosting him was so controversial among the bien-pensant. Like the more recent attempted boycott of Hogwarts Legacy, the attempt to relegate Rogan to wrongthink was a miserable failure. Once the HL boycott failed those backing it did their best to rewrite history and claim that they never expected to succeed; did this happen with the Spotify attack?

tus666 4y ago

Communistopedia being politically unbiased as always.

csense 4y ago

This article uses terms that de-legitimize certain types of discourse, such as "radicalization", "extremist figures," "hate speech" and "misinformation." Who decides whether the theory that COVID-19 originated in a Chinese lab is a scientific hypothesis to be tested, or "misinformation" to be suppressed? Who decides that Jordan Peterson is an "extremist figure" but RuPaul is not? Why are (generally left-leaning) people trying so hard to keep certain concepts out of the marketplace of ideas? If those ideas are so obviously wrong and bad, why should they be censored and suppressed, rather than discussed and refuted? The article should be re-written from a more neutral point of view. As it is, it implicitly endorses a certain framing of the issues it discusses. Usually Wikipedia has better standards.

burglins 4y ago
AFAIK, it is on par with other articles on wikipedia.[0] [0] https://larrysanger.org/2021/06/wikipedia-is-more-one-sided-than-ever/ https://larrysanger.org/2021/06/wikipedia-is-more-one-sided-...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kgwxd 4y ago
It's pretty simple. If the ideas being presented, ad nauseam, bring undue harm to other people, the left is going to want to take a step back. The lab origin theory itself is not harmful, but the way it was presented by the right absolutely was. The base is FAR more prone to knee-jerk violence than the left. To many of them, china lab leak = Chinese people should be physically attacked. The knee-jerk suppression of discussion was caused by the knee-jerk violence. Jon Stewart could talk about it because he argued in good faith. Tucker Carlson was very obviously looking to rile up the base knowing damn well the logical leaps they would make.
- clnq 4y ago
  Is there any proof of any significant number of people justifying violence towards the Chinese because of the lab leak theory? It takes many logical leaps. First, one has to believe the lab leak happened, which we can’t say with certainty — there is a lot of circumstantial and weak evidence on both sides, it is very speculative. Secondly, one would need to believe there is culpability (it was not an accident). Thirdly, one would have to believe that all Chinese are collectively culpable, which alone is pretty ridiculous. And one more logical leap is necessary to agree that random violence would constitute appropriate justice (people generally feel that even when criminals are unduly murdered, this does not make things equitable for the harmed party). These leaps already require a very radicalized audience. I don’t believe this will work to radicalize a substantial number of people. And even putting all of that aside, calls for violence are outside social norms and considered hate speech. The problem is not discussing the lab leak theory, it’s doing so outside the social norms. If we say that lab leak discussion is hate speech, that is simply incorrect.

shashurup 4y ago

This wasn't as bad as confusing hotmail for hotmale (not a big mistake when English is not your native language). But I was more like learning something new about pipelines :(