Aftermath of the bigoted channel 4 interview and other sensationalist muckrakers.

[Theodarzna]

Do you think it is a possibility that the alt-right exists as a reaction to a movement that is attempting to dismantle certain traits that have proven to be extremely advantageous to survival, like in-group preference? It seems like the alt right is fighting against people who are carrying on the same mindset of the communists of the last century, namely that we could have a utopia if only we could change fundamental human nature that evolved over hundreds of thousands of years in response to reality.

I think to some extent the Alt-Right is a response to the Politics of Tumblr, but its a recognition that some of the shit SJW's are spitting isn't entirely inaccurate and has to be addressed or is fundementally true. Like Identity mattering a great deal. Plus the recognition that the left wing view on "In-Group Preferences" is very unevenly applied. They would never tell Non-Whites to not act in group interests and even encourage it. I cannot say if its because there are Crypto-Communists lurking about since it is hard to describe SJW's as geniune Communists with their second or third hand Judith Butler ideology and bland endorsement of Neo-Liberalism and consumer culture.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean if someone who was alt-right was okay with race mixing it would sort of undermine their whole argument.

Definitely not getting invited to the Jared Taylor Meet and Greet and definitely not going to be invited to the Richard Spencer ethnostate.

[Zython]

In-group preference has not extremely advantageous to survival in 2017. You are basically arguing against adaptation to new circumstances on the basis that previous adaptations worked so well for previous circumstances. "I used a hammer to drive every nail I ever saw, so it must also drive this screw"

Exactly. People misunderstand adaptive strategies as universal advantages, rather than environmental responses. There's only one universally advantageous trait in all of nature, and that's the ability to change.

[Zeek Daniels]

The interviewer was terrible. She wasnt putting words in his mouth she was stuffing them in their with her foot. It was despicable. She wouldnt let him explain himself after she twisted his words and when ever he gave a better example of his stance she would always change the subject so he couldnt educate the audience any further.

She deserves any negative feedback shes getting in the comments. And any media outlet trying to spin this as hating on women or that shes a victim is despicable as well.

[Gutpile]

You need to up your meme game, it's rather pitiful. You are trying to argue against things that I didn't say. Sorry, you failed... maybe next time, slugger.

Here, start with the wiki... there's some big words in it, but if you sound them out slowly, you might have a shot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right

I get all my views from wikipedia.

[Theodarzna]

The alt-right are ethno-nationalists, so if you aren't an ethno-nationalist, you are most likely not alt-right... These are just political ideologies, they aren't clubs, so you can say you are something without believing that thing, but that doesn't mean the definitions of those words change.

I'd say I am an Ethnic Nationalist, but I'd argue Spencer is a Racial Nationalist. White isn't really an ethnicity. Ethnicity is something more and different from a purely biological lineage or say a haplogroup catagory.

[NineSpine]

The interviewer was terrible. She wasnt putting words in his mouth she was stuffing them in their with her foot. It was despicable. She wouldnt let him explain himself after she twisted his words and when ever he gave a better example of his stance she would always change the subject so he couldnt educate the audience any further.

She deserves any negative feedback shes getting in the comments. And any media outlet trying to spin this as hating on women or that shes a victim is despicable as well.

One person in that room was seriously trying to make the argument that lobster neurons can give us valuable insight into how to organize a technologically advanced human society.

[Kalis]

You aren't even making sense. Marxism is ENTIRELY about class. Replacing class with race makes it not Marxism anymore. Marxism without class struggle is a nonsensical concept.

That replacement is the neo- part, it would just be Marxism if it hadn’t changed at all.

This is all just a not-so-clever way to disregard people you disagree with by playing Seven Degrees of Karl Marx so that you can push them aside without having to address their argument. How can old school leftists who are sympathetic to marxism hate identity politics because they aren't marxist when the right wing hates them because they are marxist? That doesn't make any sense, and it all ignores that identity politics is just a modern term to describe something that precedes Marx. James Madison discusses what is basically identity politics in the federalist papers.

It does make sense, as neo-Marxism is not Marxism, hence why old school lefties don’t like it, but has the same goal of dismantling current society, so the right wingers hate it.

Identity politics is not traditional Marxism, it is a development of it, that changes the dynamic and who gets to be in the ‘in group’. This is why you can have fascists that hated Nazism, even though they are related political ideologies.

[OrcsRLame]

Great, quote the bill. Prove me wrong.

I will do better. I will link you the full text of the billl. It's quite short. http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en...6/royal-assent

I find the quote unnecessary due to the bill's length, but I'm going to quote it anyway, as I get the sense that you are the kind of person that will 'claim victory' if I don't provide you the information in the particular way that you like.

The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor,

I have bolded the parts I find particularly relevant. If you actually read the damn thing, it's ambiguous. By a strict reading of the bill, if you in any way infringe upon the opportunities of a trans person to have the life they wish, then you are in violation of that bill if the court can prove that you were motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on the fact that they're trans.

The fact that it's ambiguous matters, because transgender activists try to frame things like refusing to use a trans person's pronouns as hateful abuse. Hell, just look at @Endus. In this very thread he has argued that refusing to use someone's preferred pronouns is abuse. Nathan Rambukkhana argued that discussing Jordan Peterson's ideas in a class made the class unsafe for trans students. It's not cut and dry. It's up to the courts to decide what is and isn't abuse and what is and isn't hateful.

So hypothetically. If you refused to use a trans person's preferred pronouns, they could take you to court on the grounds that they felt abused, unsafe and unfairly targeted due to their gender identity. They might not win, but hell, they might. In my experience, it's usually the one that can afford the most expensive lawyers that wins in that case. Better hope the trans person you offended isn't rich, or you're fucked.

Note that you won't go to jail if you're found in violation of Bill C-16. Unless you don't pay the fine, then you will go to jail.

[Machismo]

I get all my views from wikipedia.

Well, it looks like you've run out of any snarky comments, so sad. At this point, you have simply decided to continuing embarrassing yourself over and over again.

But hey, at least I proved myself right, even if you don't want to address the content.

[Rennadrel]

It's not really drama.

Peterson went onto a show and the host misrepresented everything he was trying to say. He stumped her so bad that she had to take a pause to collect her thoughts. She was on the attack the entire time. Peterson just sat there while she humiliated herself.

It was pretty hilarious, that amount of self ownage hasn't been seen on the internet in over a decade.

[NineSpine]

That replacement is the neo- part, it would just be Marxism if it hadn’t changed at all.



It does make sense, as neo-Marxism is not Marxism, hence why old school lefties don’t like it, but has the same goal of dismantling current society, so the right wingers hate it.

Identity politics is not traditional Marxism, it is a development of it, that changes the dynamic and who gets to be in the ‘in group’. This is why you can have fascists that hated Nazism, even though they are related political ideologies.

You actually believe that identity affiliations and in-groups started to exist after Marx? Seriously? You think racial identity politics in the United States is a 20th century development? What fucking planet are you on?

When the right wing used the Southern Strategy they were being Marxists?

[Theodarzna]

If you're white you will be.

Because your race is important and the fact that you ideologically disagree with them isn't... Because... Identity politics.

Identity politics are a cancer imo.

Husband is only half by their standards and daughter is 3/4th by their standards. I'm overall fine with Identity politics. There is no revoking it practically.

[Gutpile]

I will do better. I will link you the full text of the billl. It's quite short. http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en...6/royal-assent

I find the quote unnecessary due to the bill's length, but I'm going to quote it anyway, as I get the sense that you are the kind of person that will 'claim victory' if I don't provide you the information in the particular way that you like.







I have bolded the parts I find particularly relevant. If you actually read the damn thing, it's ambiguous. By a strict reading of the bill, if you in any way infringe upon the opportunities of a trans person to have the life they wish, then you are in violation of that bill if the court can prove that you were motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on the fact that they're trans.

The fact that it's ambiguous matters, because transgender activists try to frame things like refusing to use a trans person's pronouns as hateful abuse. Hell, just look at @Endus. In this very thread he has argued that refusing to use someone's preferred pronouns is abuse. Nathan Rambukkhana argued that discussing Jordan Peterson's ideas in a class made the class unsafe for trans students. It's not cut and dry. It's up to the courts to decide what is and isn't abuse and what is and isn't hateful.

So hypothetically. If you refused to use a trans person's preferred pronouns, they could take you to court on the grounds that they felt abused, unsafe and unfairly targeted due to their gender identity. They might not win, but hell, they might. In my experience, it's usually the one that can afford the most expensive lawyers that wins in that case. Better hope the trans person you offended isn't rich, or you're fucked.

Note that you won't go to jail if you're found in violation of Bill C-16. Unless you don't pay the fine, then you will go to jail.

Yay! Free speech! Yay!No more Wrongthink!

[Mad_Murdock]

It was pretty hilarious, that amount of self ownage hasn't been seen on the internet in over a decade.

So what you are saying, is women shouldn't be allowed to own themselves?

[Kalis]

You actually believe that identity affiliations and in-groups started to exist after Marx? Seriously? You think racial identity politics in the United States is a 20th century development? What fucking planet are you on?

When the right wing used the Southern Strategy they were being Marxists?

I don’t come from the US, so I don’t give a shit about your parochial view of politics.

You are the Cathy Newman in this exchange, you’re attributing claims to me I haven’t made.

[Gutpile]

So what you are saying, is women shouldn't be allowed to own themselves?

So what you're saying is, women should be allowed to be slave owners?

[Venant]

Do those traits happen to be xenophobia and racism?

In-group preference has not extremely advantageous to survival in 2017. You are basically arguing against adaptation to new circumstances on the basis that previous adaptations worked so well for previous circumstances. "I used a hammer to drive every nail I ever saw, so it must also drive this screw"

I doubt that in-group preference will ever not be useful from an evolutionary standpoint. The issue with the alt right is that they are a reaction to forces that are attempting to deconstruct the in-group preferences of other groups, while at the same time having extremely high in-group preference among themselves. Don't you believe that the quasi-religious beliefs of the modern progressive are a strong signal of in-group preference? Of course, the position of the alt-right is that such ideological groups will fail in the long run when in opposition with culturally enforced group identities.

If we need identity-based stratification in order for society to function, why do you also insist that the groups you personally belong to should be on the top? Seems awfully convenient if you ask me.

This is how in-group preference works for all groups. All groups want to put their own group at the top, I believe it is a reflection of human nature that exists because it is beneficial for survival in the long run. Sure you can make moral arguments, but you could also make a moral argument that you should show compassion by going and hugging people with the plague, which is a moral argument that would lead to the extinction of its purveyors.

[NineSpine]

"Look at this ridiculous thing he is saying, haha, isn't it so obviously ridiculous?"

Uh... No? Why is it obviously ridiculous?

Because even looking at his statements in the most narrow way possible, saying that lobsters need hierarchies and humans have roughly similar nervous systems, therefore humans need hierarchies is fundamentally ridiculous. example:

https://www.wired.com/2014/02/dog-br...al-processing/

OH MY GOD! HUMANS AND DOGS HAVE BRAINS THAT HANDLE VOCALIZATIONS IN ROUGHLY SIMILAR WAYS! Clearly the obvious intellectually takeaway from this is that humans should communicate with each other like dogs do, right? No, it would be fundamentally ridiculous to assume that a tangential similarity between humans and a random animal imply our behavior must naturally resemble that animal, right?

- - - Updated - - -

I doubt that in-group preference will ever not be useful from an evolutionary standpoint. The issue with the alt right is that they are a reaction to forces that are attempting to deconstruct the in-group preferences of other groups, while at the same time having extremely high in-group preference among themselves. Don't you believe that the quasi-religious beliefs of the modern progressive are a strong signal of in-group preference? Of course, the position of the alt-right is that such ideological groups will fail in the long run when in opposition with culturally enforced group identities.



This is how in-group preference works for all groups. All groups want to put their own group at the top, I believe it is a reflection of human nature that exists because it is beneficial for survival in the long run. Sure you can make moral arguments, but you could also make a moral argument that you should show compassion by going and hugging people with the plague, which is a moral argument that would lead to the extinction of its purveyors.

I believe you've taken the ramblings of a handful of young dickhead liberals living at college, and made a faulty assumption that those views can be extrapolated onto a large segment of the left in general. I think you've bought into a very silly and transparent media narrative that is basically taking the late night TV "LOOK AT THIS IDIOT WE INTERVIEWED ON THE STREET" sketch and used it as a basis for classifying how hundreds of millions of people actually think.

[Venant]

I think to some extent the Alt-Right is a response to the Politics of Tumblr, but its a recognition that some of the shit SJW's are spitting isn't entirely inaccurate and has to be addressed or is fundementally true. Like Identity mattering a great deal. Plus the recognition that the left wing view on "In-Group Preferences" is very unevenly applied. They would never tell Non-Whites to not act in group interests and even encourage it. I cannot say if its because there are Crypto-Communists lurking about since it is hard to describe SJW's as geniune Communists with their second or third hand Judith Butler ideology and bland endorsement of Neo-Liberalism and consumer culture.

Do you think that in-group preference is still useful? Or perhaps I should say, do you think that humans still need traits that are beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint, or have humans stopped evolution? It seems like many people believe history has ended.

[Machismo]

I doubt that in-group preference will ever not be useful from an evolutionary standpoint. The issue with the alt right is that they are a reaction to forces that are attempting to deconstruct the in-group preferences of other groups, while at the same time having extremely high in-group preference among themselves. Don't you believe that the quasi-religious beliefs of the modern progressive are a strong signal of in-group preference? Of course, the position of the alt-right is that such ideological groups will fail in the long run when in opposition with culturally enforced group identities.



This is how in-group preference works for all groups. All groups want to put their own group at the top, I believe it is a reflection of human nature that exists because it is beneficial for survival in the long run. Sure you can make moral arguments, but you could also make a moral argument that you should show compassion by going and hugging people with the plague, which is a moral argument that would lead to the extinction of its purveyors.

What "in-group preferences" are those that should be maintained? It sure sounds like you are referencing xenophobia and racism, yet are dancing around the subject.

I'd much rather judge people by their actions, not by the actions of others. I do this, because that's how I would prefer to be judged.