How are alt rights not just Neo Nazis?

[Deleted]

I'm not the one making the argument, burden falls on those that are.

See the links wikipedia provides and the ongoing article. You are very welcome to disprove the supporting articles.

It is up to you to prove that wikipedias definition is wrong, if you state that it is wrong.

Also, wikipedia is an open platform. You may contribute to wikipedia by altering the article to be more appropriate. But better bring good evidence, as a lot of people will reread your change and approve it or revert it if it is wrong.

[bladeXcrasher]

Oh, so it is about the "quality" of a line of a dictionary definition? While you cant bring any argument to counter the definition?

Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Learn why it isn't considered a primary source, that's basic comp and rethoric 1 there.

[smokii]

When I see old footage of Nazis burning books, and then look at how the far left wants to censor all information they find offensive, its pretty hard to believe the shit touted by them that only the right are like Nazis.

honestly, i wonder where all this "far left" stuff comes from.

i've never heard of antifa, except from my brother in law, whose spent too much his time reading alt-right stuff on the web. he was a trump supporter and a breitbart reader, even though he's british and has never been to the states.... his opinion on it all has changed of recent though, as trump has proven to be a total twat.

but again, to re-iterate, where the fuck does all this lefty bullshit come from? very specifically please, sources if possible.

i'd call myself a lefty, but far left? nazi left? wtf? do the people spouting this shite actually understand the words they are using?

[Deleted]

Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Learn why it isn't considered a primary source, that's basic comp and rethoric 1 there.

Thanks for your opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

Currently i am amused that a moderator of one of the sub forums on this site publically questions a dictionary without proving his points just to get his agenda going.

People never cease to amaze me.

[Ryme]

See the links wikipedia provides and the ongoing article. You are very welcome to disprove the supporting articles.

We're going in circles now. In logical discourse, the person making the claim has to provide the proof. You claim that wikipedia article defines the alt-right, I point out there's nothing in sources backing that up. You refer me back to the sources.

To be clear here and not lose focus, I think there's a great many neo nazi and white supremacist people who claim to be alt-right, but I'm just not convinced of the definition on wikipedia as being the definition of alt right.

This is because the movement has no structure, no agreed goals, no central body, nothing at all. There's no good definition for alt right because none exists, it's a shambolic movement that seems to be often conflated with 4chan trolling. Hell, if we want to go back to wikipedia and follow that, the article even states this in the "belief" section.

[bladeXcrasher]

Thanks for your opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

Currently i am amused that a moderator of one of the sub forums on this site publically questions a dictionary without proving his points just to get his agenda going.

People never cease to amaze me.

That's not an opinion.

[Ryusei]

honestly, i wonder where all this "far left" stuff comes from.

i've never heard of antifa, except from my brother in law, whose spent too much his time reading alt-right stuff on the web. he was a trump supporter and a breitbart reader, even though he's british and has never been to the states.... his opinion on it all has changed of recent though, as trump has proven to be a total twat.

but again, to re-iterate, where the fuck does all this lefty bullshit come from? very specifically please, sources if possible.

i'd call myself a lefty, but far left? nazi left? wtf? do the people spouting this shite actually understand the words they are using?

Check antifa protests on youtube. Come back and tell us they are not nazis.
Hints: You hate white people? You're racist. You can't exclude *this one evil priveleged race* from others.

[Deleted]

We're going in circles now. In logical discourse, the person making the claim has to provide the proof.

Yeah, and wikipedia brought the proof.

You question the definition, so you have prove your claims it is false. And no, that isnt a fallacy. Noone wants you to prove none existence, but the existence of arguments that counter wikipedias definition.

You claim that wikipedia article defines the alt-right, I point out there's nothing in sources backing that up. You refer me back to the sources.

Which you werent able to argument against. Yes, the sources actually back up the definition.

To be clear here and not lose focus, I think there's a great many neo nazi and white supremacist people who claim to be alt-right, but I'm just not convinced of the definition on wikipedia as being the definition of alt right.

So you counter proven facts with your bias and your opinion. Great deal.

This is because the movement has no structure, no agreed goals, no central body, nothing at all. There's no good definition for alt right because none exists, it's a shambolic movement that seems to be often conflated with 4chan trolling. Hell, if we want to go back to wikipedia and follow that, the article even states this in the "belief" section.

To quote wikipedia:

Part of the Politics and elections and Politics series on
Neo-fascism

[Deleted]

i've never heard of antifa, except from my brother in law, whose spent too much his time reading alt-right stuff on the web. he was a trump supporter and a breitbart reader, even though he's british and has never been to the states.... his opinion on it all has changed of recent though, as trump has proven to be a total twat.

Antifa actually exist and have done for a few decades. It is mainly a place to go for people who want a fight but prefer punching skinheads than minority groups. Fine with me.

The actual numbers of antifa members are very small though. They appear to have larger membership because they always outnumber actual fascist groups 5 to 1-the number of racists actually willing to take a stand on the streets, rather than just whine about movies or something on the internet, is miniscule.

In general though you are correct, most manifestations of "leftism" the alt right conjure are largely imaginary.

[Ryme]

@rym Since we clearly can't seem to grasp each other's points, let's agree to disagree. It hardly seems worth all this arguing over what definition of alt right is best

[Deleted]

@rym Since we clearly can't seem to grasp each other's points, let's agree to disagree. It hardly seems worth all this arguing over what definition of alt right is best

So you want me to agree you question facts without proving they are wrong?

How about "No"?

You know, the sun is the center of our solar system, no matter how much you argue it isnt.

There are truths. There are lies. And there are opinions.

If i state the alt right contains a lot of neo nazis, it is a fact. See Richard Spencer and his group.

If wikipedia states, the "alt-right, or alternative right, is a loose group of people with far-right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in favor of white nationalism, principally in the United States, but also to a lesser degree in Canada and Europe." while bringing proofs they are proven facts.

If you state, wikipedia is wrong, while not bringing evidence, you are lying.

There is a difference between facts and opinions. You cant counter a fact by having another opinion. The holocaust happened. No "alternative truth" which hides behind free speech will ever change that.

[Deleted]

Are you going to question facts for your agenda?

Everything on Wikipedia isn't factual, relevant, or accurate.

If the majority of a group are neo nazis, you are able to call the group a neo nazi organization.

And given that not a single one of them are 'neo-Nazis' As evidenced by your own link.
'White supremacy' =/= Neo-Nazi.

Next you want to pretend the Klu Klux Klan isnt racist, only because it also contains one single black person.

No, by your logic, the NAACP is the same thing as the KKK.

[Ryme]

So you want me to agree you question facts without proving they are wrong?

How about "No"?

You know, the sun is the center of our solar system, no matter how much you argue it isnt.

There are truth. There are lies. And there are opinions.

If i state the alt right contains a lot of neo nazis, it is a fact. See Richard Spencer and his group.

If wikipedia states, the "alt-right, or alternative right, is a loose group of people with far-right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in favor of white nationalism, principally in the United States, but also to a lesser degree in Canada and Europe." while bringing arguments they are, they are proven facts.

If you state, wikipedia is wrong, while not bringing evidence, you are lying.

The mind boggles...

Did you read the supporting articles? There's no supporting evidence in any of them - the first is close to opinion piece, the second and third assume definition and the last is talking about Richard Spencer.

None of these articles offer anything empirical to back up the claim they are supporting. The burden is now on you to show that they do.

I'm sorry if this seems rude to you, I really don't want to be in confrontation, but you haven't show or demonstrated anything. You're trying to hide behind an appeal to authority in wikipeida, nothing more.

Calling to question the sources of an article, to show whether not they represent what you think they represent is not me lying. It's me calling to question some sources, if you stand by them, you need to show why.

[Deleted]

None of these articles offer anything empirical to back up the claim they are supporting. The burden is now on you to show that they do.

No it isnt. It is up to you to prove your points that wikipedia is wrong. You are questioning them, and not me.

I'm sorry if this seems rude to you, I really don't want to be in confrontation, but you haven't show or demonstrated anything. You're trying to hide behind an appeal to authority in wikipeida, nothing more.

No, i am using a public source to argument. You just use your opinion to counter the definition given, while you dont bring up any proofs which counter wikipedia.

Calling to question the sources of an article, to show whether not they represent what you think they represent is not me lying. It's me calling to question some sources, if you stand by them, you need to show why.

So you call people to question sources while you dont bring evidence the sources are wrong?

Bias, nothing more. And outright lying as you cant prove your claim wikipedia is wrong.

To show you how it works:

a) People on wikipedia make a claim
b) People on wikipedia offer links to prove the claim
c) It's a fact
d) You claim wikipedia is wrong

Now you should
e) Offer links which disprove wikipedia
f) correct the word definition on wikipedia

That is how wikipedia works for a long time already. The articles you read are a result of hundreds or even thousands of reiterations of the volunteers working for wikipedia.

[Ryme]

No it isnt. It is up to you to prove your points that wikipedia is wrong. You are questioning them, and not me.

This again? OK, so burden of proof in a nut shell works like this, you assume false and have to demonstrate truth. We assume that the definition is false, the articles are supposed to show that it's true. I point out they do not, you need to prove that they do.

So you call people to question sources while you dont bring evidence the sources are wrong?

Bias, nothing more. And outright lying as you cant prove your claim wikipedia is wrong.

Nope, logical discourse.


- - - Updated - - -

@rym what you are doing is commonly called an argument from ignorance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

[Deleted]

This again? OK, so burden of proof in a nut shell works like this, you assume false and have to demonstrate truth. We assume that the definition is false, the articles are supposed to show that it's true. I point out they do not, you need to prove that they do.

You dont need to use plural to feel more adequate. I dont need to prove anything, as i quote a public source created and reiterated by thousands of volunteers. You are free to change the article on wikipedia, but you need to follow the rules i gave you, friend.

Nope, logical discourse.

It would be a logical discourse if you would bring arguments and sources which disprove wikipedias article.

You dont, so your rant stays an outright lie.

@rym what you are doing is commonly called an argument from ignorance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

No, I am just telling you how wikipedia works, and that not i am the one who defines the term, but a commonly used public available dictionary you are free to disprove.

[Deleted]

So you want me to agree you question facts without proving they are wrong?

Everything on Wikipedia isn't by default a fact.
Especially since the citations, aren't even purporting to be factual, but rather opinion pieces.

If i state the alt right contains a lot of neo nazis, it is a fact.

is it?
If i state you are a Neo-Nazi is that also a fact?
Or does only you have the magic powers to dictate perception of reality?
(Hint, that belief is not healthy).

If wikipedia states

Your first thing wrong - Wikipedia does not state anything.
The Citations state things - Wikipedia is just an aggregation.

the "alt-right, or alternative right, is a loose group of people with far-right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in favor of white nationalism, principally in the United States, but also to a lesser degree in Canada and Europe." while bringing proofs they are proven facts.

There are four citations here, two of which are not relevant, as they speak of for Canada and Europe, leaving:
https://blog.ap.org/behind-the-news/...-the-alt-right

Here is an example from the AP news report:


With an ideology that’s a mix of racism, white nationalism and old-fashioned populism, the “alt-right” has burst into the collective consciousness since members showed up at the Republican National Convention to celebrate Trump’s nomination last summer.

That's what the AP thinks about Style.
More importantly, note the clear and total absence of 'Nazi'.

http://quillette.com/2017/06/01/para...conservatives/
With a title like that, do i even need to read it?
But i did:

At its core, the alt-right is an ethnonationalist movement – nativist, isolationist, protectionist, populist, socially illiberal, and frequently antisemitic.

Please learn that A, Wikipedia is not a 'dictionary', B, that Wikipedia is not stating anything in an of it self, C, that it is the Citations that matter.

[Deleted]

Everything on Wikipedia isn't by default a fact.

Thanks for your opinion. You dont mind that i stopped reading here, dont you?

[Vorkreist]

So you want me to agree you question facts without proving they are wrong?

How about "No"?

You know, the sun is the center of our solar system, no matter how much you argue it isnt.

There are truths. There are lies. And there are opinions.

If i state the alt right contains a lot of neo nazis, it is a fact. See Richard Spencer and his group.

If wikipedia states, the "alt-right, or alternative right, is a loose group of people with far-right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in favor of white nationalism, principally in the United States, but also to a lesser degree in Canada and Europe." while bringing proofs they are proven facts.

If you state, wikipedia is wrong, while not bringing evidence, you are lying.

There is a difference between facts and opinions. You cant counter a fact by having another opinion. The holocaust happened. No "alternative truth" which hides behind free speech will ever change that.

Alt-right , my special leftist fantasy land where everyone who disagrees with me comes from.

[Deleted]

Alt-right , my special hate fantasy land where everyone who agrees with me comes from.

Fixed that for you, sir.