Why do people accept the idea of alt right but not alt left?

[Machismo]

I don't want to "avoid authoritharianism". There is absolutly no irony. I'm not an anarquist or an anarco-capitalist of any sort.

I have no trouble with authorithy, as long as it has a rationality in serving the interests of the people who give that authorithy it's power in the first place.

I don't exactly understand where I stated authorithy in itself is the issue.

The issue comes when those same people within that government urn and use the same authoritarianism to take away something you like. BY supporting such forms of authority, you give tacit permission for the same to be done to you.

[Glorious Leader]

I make a very strong distinction between "liberals" and "leftists".

Liberals are reasonable people who have noble intentions. I may disagree with their methods to achieve their goals, but are decent people.

LEftists are dangerous and if left to their own device and allowed to gain power, kill lots and lots of people. Mao's China, Stalins Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia just to name a few.

- - - Updated - - -



Capitalism at it's core is people engaging in voluntary economic transactions. Capitalism isn't perfect, but it's a hell of a lot more altruistic than any form of communism could ever hope to be.

Their is literally nothing voluntary about capitalism. Capitalism requires violence, the violence of the state in order to function. Private property is violence.

[Dug]

You mean antifa shit bricks? No, but I was attending school at ASUs downtown Phoenix campus campus when Trump came to town.

Got to see the dude that got shot in the nuts with the pepper ball whine a d cry his way to his car.

Wasn't antifa, but was still funny. Thanks for being intetested in my life, I hope you're having a great day.

Cali to Arizona eh? You sure get around. Dedicated to the college kid bashing I'll give ya that

[Glorious Leader]

It's sort of unavoidable if the aim is to stop people from doing something. Using institutional power to enforce anything, even if it's, say, freedom of speech is necessarily authoritarian. Even if I as a libertarian support government policies that protect libertarian ideas, that's a form of authoritarianism.

And thats fair. I can respect an honest libertarian even if i disagree with you. What i have no respect for is the hypocrits who bemoan "statist" and "violence" while demanding state violence to enforce their owm views.

[bewbew]

I had to explain to 5 year old the other day what a "Nazi" was, because he keeps hearing the word. My 5 year old, who just recently verbalized that his skin color is different than that of some of his friends, who are latino, and black. Quite frankly I would rather not have a conversation with my son AT FIVE that there are some people in this world that hate others for no other reason than the color of their skin. But thanks to the media and the "altruistic" efforts of Antifa... and I don't want to sound like I am minimizing the tragedy of Heather Heyer's death, but had 4000 not been there to protest the piddly what 400 KKK... they wouldn't have made such a large target for these hate groups, full of unhinged people.

To go on a complete tangent...

The #1 enemy of actual nazis weren't blacks or latinos. It was jews.

German jews were, in many cases, undiscernible from "aryan", "pure" germans. The discrimination process they had were often ridiculous and anti-scientific to the extreme. I studied in a jewish college and most of the german descendants looked...german. Many had grandparents who were actual germans and fled from Nazi Germany.

Explaining nazi as anyone that holds racial prejudice is simplifying what actual nazis were, and ignores that, througth history, groups have held hostility for others just on the merit of them being sligthy, visually different.

In that regard, nazis were not special at all.

[Theinquisition]

Cali to Arizona eh? You sure get around. Dedicated to the college kid bashing I'll give ya that

To be fair, I keep it limited to those that are trying to attack people unprovoked.

[hrugner]

Serious question. The liberals on this site are always complaining about the alt right but refuse to accept that an alt left exists. Do they just think there are no extremists in their party or something?

Many people(41%) don't accept the alt-right label either. The below poll shows people for the most part either have no opinion on the alt right or are against it.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/pag...-20-2017/2235/

It's a made up group intended to force political divisions by grouping unrelated movements together and pretending it's a super movement. This is intended to counter the rapidly vanishing partisanship over the past 70 years.
http://www.people-press.org/interact...arty-id-trend/

The "alt-left" is just as bullshit as the "alt-right" and any information regarding either group can be safely dismissed as deliberate fear mongering for the sake of dividing the populace and keeping the current factions in power.

[jibberbox85]

It's relevant because why you use the term tells others something about your motivation.

The "alt-right" is a group that invented that label for themselves; referring to them just means you're referring to that group.

Talking about the "alt-left" when no such group actually exists means you're deliberately attacking a fictional boogeyman out of a sense of naked false equivalence, in a form of partisan slander.

That's what "matters".

Anyone could form a "group,'' and call it what they want. I could get a group of dogs and cats together and call it the "Alt Left"

[bewbew]

Private property is violence.

And this is why "Leftists" and "Rightists" can't get to a common ground.

- - - Updated - - -

The issue comes when those same people within that government urn and use the same authoritarianism to take away something you like. BY supporting such forms of authority, you give tacit permission for the same to be done to you.

Only if you assume there isn't a legitimate and an illegitimate use of power...

[PC2]

It's sort of unavoidable if the aim is to stop people from doing something. Using institutional power to enforce anything, even if it's, say, freedom of speech is necessarily authoritarian. Even if I as a libertarian support government policies that protect libertarian ideas, that's a form of authoritarianism.

It depends on the specific idea. If the idea asserts force, then yes it's a form of authoritarianism. If the idea is purely defending civil rights, there is nothing authoritarian about that.

[Dug]

To be fair, I keep it limited to those that are trying to attack people unprovoked.

Or just protesting against your idols

[Machismo]

And this is why "Leftists" and "Rightists" can't get to a common ground.

- - - Updated - - -



Only if you assume there isn't a legitimate and an illegitimate use of power...

I have stated a legitimate use for power, to restrict an action that causes harm to another. That's it. That is what I feel to be legitimate, and I remain consistent in that belief. It creates an ideal equilibrium, and maximizes the most possible freedom.

The problem with people who push for more authoritarianism, is that they then complain when such measures are used against them. I don't see why they bother to complain, they literally asked for it. The worst are those who claim to be libertarians... and act in a nationalistic manner. The two are mutually exclusive ideals.

[A dot Ham]

To go on a complete tangent...

The #1 enemy of actual nazis weren't blacks or latinos. It was jews.

German jews were, in many cases, undiscernible from "aryan", "pure" germans. The discrimination process they had were often ridiculous and anti-scientific to the extreme. I studied in a jewish college and most of the german descendants looked...german. Many had grandparents who were actual germans and fled from Nazi Germany.

Explaining nazi as anyone that holds racial prejudice is simplifying what actual nazis were, and ignores that, througth history, groups have held hostility for others just on the merit of them being sligthy, visually different.

In that regard, nazis were not special at all.

But it wasn't limited to Jews.

I am married to a History teacher.

In the context of current events, this is what a Nazi is, or what people mean, when they say "Nazi".

In actuality the alt-right would tell you that they want nothing more than the preservation of white culture, white influence, and equate the feeling disenfranchisement to actual segregation, or discrimination. Whilst waving their confederate flags, and swastika hankies... the REAL threat, are the ones that are trying to hide, successful business men, influential in the profit and non-profit world, who want to move away from shaved heads, confederate flags, and swastikas... all the things that overtly identify a person as a moron, (I mean white supremacist). So then it becomes easier to just say well if you're white, and still hold true to republican principles after all this... you must also be a... racist, fascist, etc.

[Ahovv]

Because the "alt right" is a specific group that named themselves the "alt right".

There's no such thing as the "alt left" because no group created that label to self-identify; it's a slur created out of malice by their ideological opponents.

That doesn't mean there aren't extremists on the left wing. They just aren't "alt left". It's not like the alt-right label was invented to refer to right-wing extremists as a whole, either. It's a specific group, and they made up the label for themselves. There are right-wing extremists, like Islamic fundamentalists, who aren't "alt-right", because that's not an umbrella term for extremism in the first place.

I've been in some alt-left facebook groups before; they were primarily civil libertarians, economic welfare-statists and foreign policy non-interventionists, anti-SJW. So they matched my beliefs pretty well and labeled themselves alt-left.

But that's not what people like Trump are referring to as alt-left. Usually that term is applied to anarchist groups including Antifa.

Personally I don't see the reason to call them alt-left, I'd rather just call them anarchists.

[bewbew]

It depends on the specific idea. If the idea asserts force, then yes it's a form of authoritarianism. If the idea is purely defending civil rights, there is nothing authoritarian about that.

Authority, at least in philosophy, reffers specifically to the right to use power.

If an State is valid as an expression of a social contract between it's citizens, who grant it the power to judge and enforce it's laws it means the state has...Authority. There are no civil rights without an authority to enforce it. Hell, there are no civil rights without some sort of political organization (at least a polis).

Civil rights reffer to citizens, not "humans".

- - - Updated - - -

But it wasn't limited to Jews.

I am married to a History teacher.

In the context of current events, this is what a Nazi is, or what people mean, when they say "Nazi".

Which is a pretty silly use in the first place.

Nazis hated other white people too. Associating Nazis with white power makes no sense.

In actuality the alt-right would tell you that they want nothing more than the preservation of white culture, white influence, and equate the feeling disenfranchisement to actual segregation, or discrimination. Whilst waving their confederate flags, and swastika hankies... the REAL threat, are the ones that are trying to hide, successful business men, influential in the profit and non-profit world, who want to move away from shaved heads, confederate flags, and swastikas... all the things that overtly identify a person as a moron, (I mean white supremacist). So then it becomes easier to just say well if you're white, and still hold true to republican principles after all this... you must also be a... racist, fascist, etc.

This is true.

[Theinquisition]

Or just protesting against your idols

Which idol?

[Jinpachi]

Same can be said for the right.

You can say it all you want, won't make it any more true. There's a huge distinction between the basement dwelling cave troll alt-right members and normal, conservative, Americans.

[Xandrigity]

You can say it all you want, won't make it any more true. There's a huge distinction between the basement dwelling cave troll alt-right members and normal, conservative, Americans.

That was exactly my point. There is a huge distinction between the two.

[spanishninja]

Because the alt-right is a self-described group.

The alt-left is something that conservatives made up to make the alt-right seem like it had an equivalent.

naming them that isn't necessary to make people realize that there is an extreme left equivalent.

[Glorious Leader]

And this is why "Leftists" and "Rightists" can't get to a common ground.

- - - Updated - - -



Only if you assume there isn't a legitimate and an illegitimate use of power...

Because facts are inconvenient. Right wingers who bemoan state violence except for the grossest state violence are hypocrits.