Is the alt-right better or worse than the establishment right?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Is the alt-right better or worse than the establishment right?

«‹›30 »

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Puritans were really into sex, it just had to be married sex.

# ? Sep 25, 2016 04:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 7, 2024 05:28

Jygallax: Oct 17, 2011; Every human being deserves respect. Even if if they are a little different.

Women in conservative Christian marriages aren't pressured to do anything.

Now let me tell you about how modern feminists are doing nothing about issues of consent and communication in relationships

You know, because we live in oppositeville.

# ? Sep 25, 2016 04:24

Nude Bog Lurker: Jan 2, 2007; Fun Shoe

on the left posted:

I don't know if you read my post or not, but it's not sexist to point out that women are being pressured into one-sided and degrading sexual practices, under the guise of female empowerment.

Yes, that's exactly the kind of line you pull out when you want to use social justice activism as an excuse for abusive behavior.

Again, this is a great line for shaming Asian men who complain about white privilege in dating. Honestly, it's best to pretend publicly like these things aren't true and deny them viciously if brought up, yet privately take full advantage of a skewed social playing field.

elliot pls go

# ? Sep 25, 2016 04:30

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Accusing women in casual dating of somehow disrespecting themselves, is abusing feminist rhetoric to slut-shame women. To then go on and imply such women would make bad parents is just straight up backwards idiocy. Congrats on our esteemed visitors for demonstrating first hand how stupid and terrible the alt-right is.

BrandorKP posted:

I think the establishment had an opportunity to be different than their extreme elements. That possibility was missed entirely, rejected outright, or identified too late by different parts of the right. It's now too late for that. There are only a few pundits and politicans on the right I wouldn't call cowards now.

I don't think the two can be separated cleanly, even if one is still worse than the other. Establishment conservatism has, since reageanism, fostered white resentment politics to get ahead as much as possible, and to further their business and tax-cutting agenda. To say that it had an 'opportunity' to be different is to assume that the alt-right isn't the logical consequence of their own actions, for the past couple of decades.

If anything, the logical (or 'default') choice would have been to concede some ground, accept the victory of the civil rights stuff, and try to create some new ideological backdrop - that didn't happen, instead they saw an opportunity for short term political gain (at the expense of the country of the whole), and took it. The alt-right is the chickens coming back to roost.

# ? Sep 25, 2016 04:34

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

on the left posted:

I've turned a lot towards "maybe the Christians have the right idea" after experiencing the dating market in the past few years. Women are lying to themselves that letting guys treat them like a jizz rag is empowering and sex positive. Any decent looking guy in a city can have a couple girls in rotation at all times, and do things with them that would make a 70's porn star blush, without condoms, because they didn't grow up during the HIV scare. Tilting pendulum away from this dynamic would probably be a good thing for society.

source your quotes pengy

# ? Sep 25, 2016 04:39

Rush Limbo: Sep 5, 2005; its with a full house

The alt right is basically focused on youth with traditional right wing ideologies (white supremacy, anti-women, etc) that the establishment right have largely managed to obfuscate with dogwhistle language.

While there are definite attempts by establishment leeches on the movement (think Breitbart and other right wing media) to introduce some measure of obfuscation as seen by Milo's various attempts at being Reasonable, the movement itself is largely composed of people who either haven't learned to dogwhistle or don't feel the need to.

I'm not sure if Trump himself is an actual return to form of the right not concealing their actual beliefs because I'm not entirely convinced that they're beliefs he actually has and isn't just saying what people want to hear.

Ultimately though you are who you pretend to be, so you must be careful who you pretend to be.

# ? Sep 25, 2016 09:21

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Who What Now posted:

Women choosing their sexual partners and activities is somehow a bad thing? Whelp, better return to Christian Puritanism!

Either gender sleeping around while they have children is kind of bad. Is that really the most horrible thing ever? For a society to hold that perhaps its preferable that there be two bread winners for a family? Or is it bad to want children to have stable families? Note I would also hold this for Gay couples as well. Before you have children? Hey if you want to risk your body on venereal diseases that's your right. Even if its a pretty stupid choice.

Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 14:10 on Sep 25, 2016

# ? Sep 25, 2016 14:08

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

Crowsbeak posted:

Either gender sleeping around while they have children is kind of bad. Is that really the most horrible thing ever? For a society to hold that perhaps its preferable that there be two bread winners for a family? Or is it bad to want children to have stable families? Note I would also hold this for Gay couples as well. Before you have children? Hey if you want to risk your body on venereal diseases that's your right. Even if its a pretty stupid choice.

No, what's most preferable is for society to ensure that a child is properly cared for regardless of parental situation. Requiring both parents be earning to ensure the safety and well-being of a child is awful, and forcing or pressuring unhappy people to stay together for the sake of that child has been proven not to work. Why would we want society to return to when bitter, loveless marriages were a norm?

# ? Sep 25, 2016 15:00

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Who What Now posted:

No, what's most preferable is for society to ensure that a child is properly cared for regardless of parental situation. Requiring both parents be earning to ensure the safety and well-being of a child is awful, and forcing or pressuring unhappy people to stay together for the sake of that child has been proven not to work. Why would we want society to return to when bitter, loveless marriages were a norm?

Because unlike you I know some people who have raised children as single parents and they say they would prefer to have someone to help them raise their children. Also there are those studies suggesting children brought up in families that are stable do better.

http://www.clasp.org/resources-and-publications/states/0086.pdf

Look I am sorry that your liberal ideal is challenged by actual facts. Also yes parents should sacrifice some of their happiness to the development of their children, its called responsibility. Now of course a government can best promote stable relationships by ensuring that people can live without insecurity in their lives through economic initiatives but to suggest that we shouldn't expect parents to be responsible is rather hilarious.

Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Sep 25, 2016

# ? Sep 25, 2016 15:08

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

Crowsbeak posted:

Because unlike you I know some people who have raised children as single parents and they say they would prefer to have someone to help them raise their children. Also there are those studies suggesting children brought up in families that are stable do better.

http://www.clasp.org/resources-and-publications/states/0086.pdf

Look I am sorry that your liberal ideal is challenged by actual facts. Also yes parents should sacrifice some of their happiness to the development of their children, its called responsibility. Now of course a government can best promote stable relationships by ensuring that people can live without insecurity in their lives through economic initiatives but to suggest that we shouldn't expect parents to be responsible is rather hilarious.

You didn't even read your own study, did you?

Edit:

Literally from the first page:

The Study you Googled Without Looking At posted:

While the increased risks faced by children raised without both parents are certainly reason for concern, the majority of children in single-parent families grow up without serious problems. In addition, there continues to be debate about how much of the disadvantages to children are attributable to poverty versus family structure, as well as about whether it is marriage itself that makes a difference or the type of people who get married.

Edit2: You know what would be great at eliminating any problems caused by poverty? Ensuring single-parents aren't in poverty in ways other than forcing them to stay in toxic relationships!

Who What Now fucked around with this message at 15:27 on Sep 25, 2016

# ? Sep 25, 2016 15:17

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Who What Now posted:

You didn't even read your own study, did you?

I did

The study you didn't read posted:

4
Research shows that, on average, children of divorced parents are disadvantaged compared to
children of married-parent families in the area of educational achievement.
11
Children of divorce are more than twice as likely to have serious social, emotional, or psychological problems as
children of intact families�25 percent versus 10 percent.

Most divorced families with children experience enormous drops in income, which lessen
somewhat over time but remain significant for years�unless there is a
subsequent parental cohabitation or remarriage.
13
Declines in income following divorce account for up to half the
risk for children dropping out of high school, regardless of income prior to the divorce.
14
The effects of divorce on children often last through adulthood. For instance, adult children of
divorce are more likely to experience depression and their own divorces�as well as earn less
income and achieve lower levels of education�compared with adults whose parents remained
married.

4
Research shows that, on average, children of divorced parents are disadvantaged compared to
children of married-parent families in the area of educational achievement.
11
Children of divorce are more than twice as likely to have serious social, emotional, or psychological problems as
children of intact families�25 percent versus 10 percent.
12
Most divorced families with children experience enormous drops in income, which lessen somewhat over time but remain significant for
years�unless there is a subsequent parental cohabitation or remarriage.
13
Declines in income following divorce account for up to half the risk for children dropping out of high school, re
gardless of income prior to the divorce.
14
The
effects of divorce on children often last through adulthood. For instance, adult children of
divorce are more likely to experience depression and their own divorces�as well as earn less
income and achieve lower levels of education�compared with adults whose parents remained
married.
15
Widowed parents Death of a spouse is a relatively uncommon cause for single parenthood today. More than 90
percent of children reach adulthood with both parents living.
16
In 1998, only 3 percent of white children and 5 percent of black children were living with a widowed mother.
17
Although death of a parent does put children at a disadvantage, children of widowed pare
nts do the best of all categories of children of single parents. Children of widowed mothers are a
bout half as likely to drop out of high school or have a teen birth as children of divorce or children born outside of
marriage.
18
Never-married mothers Childbirth and childrearing outside of marriage have become increasingly prevalent in the U.S.
Among children living with single mothers, the proportion living with never-married mothers increased from 7 percent to 36 percent between 1970 and 1996.
19
In 1996, 7.1 million children lived with a never-married parent.
20
Children of never-married mothers are at risk of experiencing negative outcomes and are among
those most likely to live in poverty. Roughly 69 percent of children of never-married mothers
are poor, compared to 45 percent of children brought up by divorced single mothers.
21
Never-married mothers are significantly younger, have lower incomes, have fewer years of education,
and are twice as likely to be unemployed as divorced mothers.
22
While age of the mother has some effect, most of the differences between
the two groups remain even when age is taken into account.
23
Regardless of the mother�s age at birth, a child born to an unmarried mother is less likely to co
mplete high school than a child whose mother is married.
24
While we know the number of children born to never-married mothers, we don�t really know
how many spend their entire childhood living with a mother who never marries or cohabits. Part
of the increase in children living with never-married mothers is attributable to the increase in
children born to cohabiting couples, which are often reported as single-mother families.
Therefore, although these children are living with unmarried mothers, many
may also have their fathers or other males in their households

Once agian I am sorry that reality doesn't fit your hedonist, libertine fantasy

# ? Sep 25, 2016 15:29

PupsOfWar: Dec 6, 2013

Do we really need to draw these distinctions between the young, rude racists who enjoy video games and the old, polite racists who enjoy golf?

The ideologies never seem that different, except where Trump's outlandishness has produced a certain xenophobic mania regarding immigration (which was already a thing for certain neocon hard-liners like Sessions) and protectionism

Both believe in cutting social services to the bone to pay for more tax-breaks for the rich.
Both believe in continuing to stick our collective dick into the beehive that is the geopolitics of the Middle East.
Both believe in walking back civil rights for women and minorities.
Both believe in eradicating our already-threadbare workers' protection laws and environmental regulations.
Both believe that the police have a right and a duty to murder black and hispanic men at the slightest real or imagined provocation.

imho this is largely an aesthetic and rhetorical division.

PupsOfWar fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Sep 25, 2016

# ? Sep 25, 2016 15:31

Mc Do Well: Aug 2, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

Ti & Do emphasize that choosing to reproduce is not something to be taken lightly. I was raised with a good sex ed program that covered how the body works and the difference between bacteria and viruses and different kinds of VD. Really what this goes back to is the futurism of the early 20th century - modernity makes things fast, cheap, and disposable. You as an individual have to discern how to live in such a world - "What goes into someone's mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them."

The past few decades are just filled with adulterous bastards, but we can get past it. Planned Parenthood is an objectively good thing if individuals know their bodies, and I think people who say God opposes it are very incorrect.

# ? Sep 25, 2016 15:51

Meme Emulator: Oct 4, 2000

Who What Now posted:

Women choosing their sexual partners and activities is somehow a bad thing? Whelp, better return to Christian Puritanism!

All the youngsters will not stop talking about eating rear end, making eating rear end memes where spongebob is talking about eating rear end, and getting mouth and rear end related STDs and, frankly, I think its getting gross.

# ? Sep 25, 2016 16:23

TomViolence: Feb 19, 2013; PLEASE ASK ABOUT MY 80,000 WORD WALLACE AND GROMIT SLASH FICTION. PLEASE.

Crowsbeak posted:

I did

Once agian I am sorry that reality doesn't fit your hedonist, libertine fantasy

Children should be raised communaly by parents, siblings and extended family in concert with and with the support of the wider community. There, problem solved. No loveless sham marriages, no stigma for single parents, the child gets all the support and socialisation they need and nobody has to get stepped on or told off. Collective and social, rather than individual, responsibility should be the emphasis. You know, while we're being all prescriptive and poo poo.

# ? Sep 25, 2016 16:28

LloydDobler: Oct 15, 2005; You shared it with a dick.

I haven't really seen any progressive views in the alt-right about GBLT rights, especially from their poster boy Milo. He himself has a nice right wing hypocritical "do as I say not as I do" view on homosexuality, claiming that being gay is wrong and if he could choose not be gay he would. Basically the closest point to being progressive is admitting it's natural and not a choice. But that's hardly enough when he disavows it in the same sentence, and brands himself a "dangerous human being" on the side of his tour bus.

"we'll accept women and faggots (and even coloreds) as long as they hold right wing views" is not new or something that sets the alt-right apart.

# ? Sep 25, 2016 16:49

Mantis42: Jul 26, 2010

At least under the Puritans Chad was forced to stick to one girl, letting the rest of us have a chance.

# ? Sep 25, 2016 17:09

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

TomViolence posted:

Children should be raised communaly by parents, siblings and extended family in concert with and with the support of the wider community. There, problem solved. No loveless sham marriages, no stigma for single parents, the child gets all the support and socialisation they need and nobody has to get stepped on or told off. Collective and social, rather than individual, responsibility should be the emphasis. You know, while we're being all prescriptive and poo poo.

Well show me research that thats better then a two parent home.

# ? Sep 25, 2016 18:54

TomViolence: Feb 19, 2013; PLEASE ASK ABOUT MY 80,000 WORD WALLACE AND GROMIT SLASH FICTION. PLEASE.

Crowsbeak posted:

Well show me research that thats better then a two parent home.

Oh, I didn't realise you were one of those "evidence-based tyranny" kind of guys.

# ? Sep 25, 2016 19:04

Rush Limbo: Sep 5, 2005; its with a full house

The nuclear family is a rather recent invention and not really been the norm for thousands of years, and isn't really the norm in many, many countries even now. In Africa, Latin America, the Middle East and huge parts of Asia the extended family is much more prevalent and even in America/Europe the concept of the nuclear family is dying.

# ? Sep 25, 2016 19:09

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Ddraig posted:

The nuclear family is a rather recent invention and not really been the norm for thousands of years, and isn't really the norm in many, many countries even now. In Africa, Latin America, the Middle East and huge parts of Asia the extended family is much more prevalent and even in America/Europe the concept of the nuclear family is dying.

Yes and thats not the same thing as this collectivist idea of child rearing.

# ? Sep 25, 2016 19:16

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

rudatron posted:

I don't think the two can be separated cleanly, even if one is still worse than the other. Establishment conservatism has, since reageanism, fostered white resentment politics to get ahead as much as possible, and to further their business and tax-cutting agenda. To say that it had an 'opportunity' to be different is to assume that the alt-right isn't the logical consequence of their own actions, for the past couple of decades.

They had to opportunity to not put their ideology and ideas above the rest of us.

They also chose power above those ideals, backing a candidate who is only for himself.

Previously they fostered it and exploited it for votes, now it's what they are. Here's the question i would ask. Was there a time in the past when the establishment of the GOP would have been able to choose not to back a nationalistic, racist, authoritarian, nationalist, narcissist?

I'm not trying to abstract here. When I think back, I'm thinking of specific people. Would Dan Miller have accepted this? Would H.W. Bush ( we know that one). Absolutely choices made decades ago set this in motion and some of these people participated in those choices. But many of the R politicians I saw growing up I think would have rejected this.

Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Sep 25, 2016

# ? Sep 25, 2016 19:19

TomViolence: Feb 19, 2013; PLEASE ASK ABOUT MY 80,000 WORD WALLACE AND GROMIT SLASH FICTION. PLEASE.

Crowsbeak posted:

Yes and thats not the same thing as this collectivist idea of child rearing.

It totally is, though. I was raised by a single parent in concert with her parents, my aunts, uncles and cousins and with the help of the broader community that I was a part of. It wasn't a kibbutz or anything and half my friends were raised the same way. This dumb canard about needing two parents like god intended is bullshit. People get bad starts in life because the support isn't there due to poverty or social disintegration, not because of the decline of marriage or the nuclear family.

# ? Sep 25, 2016 19:29

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

TomViolence posted:

It totally is, though. I was raised by a single parent in concert with her parents, my aunts, uncles and cousins and with the help of the broader community that I was a part of. It wasn't a kibbutz or anything and half my friends were raised the same way. This dumb canard about needing two parents like god intended is bullshit. People get bad starts in life because the support isn't there due to poverty or social disintegration, not because of the decline of marriage or the nuclear family.

Oh lol, so we just got your word. Despite research to the contrary. Also I suggested that ensuring economic stability was part of it

# ? Sep 25, 2016 19:47

Mc Do Well: Aug 2, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

Crowsbeak posted:

Also I suggested that ensuring economic stability was part of it

The assembly line wasn't going to last forever - Ti & Do's vehicles came out of that psychological project that was the post-war Anglo culture

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj24-445qu0

It seems to me The Brave New World isn't so bad if we all want to be mature about it. Each of us can still learn how to be part of a crew, like the Bebop. I feel that hereditary bloodlust is always bad news and individuals can view each other in another light.

# ? Sep 25, 2016 20:07

Groovelord Neato: Dec 6, 2014

young people are having less sex than the prior generations. which is bizarre since tinder is about a billion times easier than having to go to a bar on the regular.

# ? Sep 25, 2016 20:17

Hollismason: Jun 30, 2007; FEEL FREE TO DISREGARD THIS POST

It is guaranteed to be lazy, ignorant, and/or uninformed.

They're much worse because they lean toward the conspiracy minded more.

This was actually posted on my fb post. They're completely paranoid and conspiracy minded. They'll joke " Ha Ha Jews control the media " but they're not really joking.

Hollismason fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Sep 25, 2016

# ? Sep 25, 2016 20:21

Rush Limbo: Sep 5, 2005; its with a full house

I grew up in both an extended family and the more 'standard' nuclear family and ironically it was only in the latter where we ever really wanted for anything.

I grew up on a Traveller's site and it was literally thanks to that, that despite having both parents, we weren't basically up poo poo creek without a paddle. My mother and father married young and if it wasn't for the extended family we had, they probably would have ended up homeless.

Nobody would employ my father for the longest time because of his Indian heritage and where his fixed address was (in the UK travellers/Romani are hugely discriminated against)

Despite him having to travel it could be for months at a time to find steady work we never wanted for anything and no other kids did either.

It was only when we moved into our own place we ever had any money trouble or ever experienced any real hardship when it came to food or other essentials.

# ? Sep 25, 2016 20:29

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

McDowell posted:

The assembly line wasn't going to last forever - Ti & Do's vehicles came out of that psychological project that was the post-war Anglo culture

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj24-445qu0

It seems to me The Brave New World isn't so bad if we all want to be mature about it. Each of us can still learn how to be part of a crew, like the Bebop. I feel that hereditary bloodlust is always bad news and individuals can view each other in another light.

SUre Shen JI Yang. I'm sure you're fine with making some humans too supid to actually function but be workers.

# ? Sep 25, 2016 20:30

Mc Do Well: Aug 2, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

Crowsbeak posted:

SUre Shen JI Yang. I'm sure you're fine with making some humans too supid to actually function but be workers.

Nah that really shouldn't be necessary, but right now we have a pretty bad situation with things like IVF access and Zika. The prolife/prochoice debate dances around the uncomfortable existential question - no one asks to come into this world. Proper education and contraception access ideally means new humans are only conceived intentionally - for some reason this has been controversial. I may be wrong but one source of this is a primal mindset that sees as wombs as soldier factories.

# ? Sep 25, 2016 20:50

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

McDowell posted:

Nah that really shouldn't be necessary, but right now we have a pretty bad situation with things like IVF access and Zika. The prolife/prochoice debate dances around the uncomfortable existential question - no one asks to come into this world. Proper education and contraception access ideally means new humans are only conceived intentionally - for some reason this has been controversial. I may be wrong but one source of this is a primal mindset that sees as wombs as soldier factories.

It shouldn't even be considered. THe world in BNW is a vile place. Unless you'd want your children to be one of the intentionally intellectually deprived workers in it.

# ? Sep 25, 2016 21:03

Mantis42: Jul 26, 2010

Groovelord Neato posted:

young people are having less sex than the prior generations. which is bizarre since tinder is about a billion times easier than having to go to a bar on the regular.

Yea if you're in the top 10% most attractive guys. Why do you think everyone else is having less sex?

# ? Sep 25, 2016 22:49

King Possum III: Feb 15, 2016

Mantis42 posted:

Yea if you're in the top 10% most attractive guys. Why do you think everyone else is having less sex?

That's it exactly.

I don't know about Tinder, but if you're not part of the 10% on Grindr you might as well forget it.

# ? Sep 25, 2016 22:58

Groovelord Neato: Dec 6, 2014

Mantis42 posted:

Yea if you're in the top 10% most attractive guys. Why do you think everyone else is having less sex?

i mean i'm fit and dress well and got great teeth does that automatically put me in the top 10 percent? cuz my face aint great imo.

i guess the pickings are slim on tinder cuz the girls matching me should be able to do way better.

# ? Sep 25, 2016 23:04

BarbarianElephant: Feb 12, 2015; The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

Jygallax posted:

Well this thread has taken a turn

Like if you say Bloody Mary into the mirror 3 times, if you talk about the alt-right on the internet, the alt-right show up. Countdown to thread being closed due to being full of alt-right poo poo starts here....

# ? Sep 25, 2016 23:42

Fututor Magnus: Feb 22, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

Maybe take a look at any MoonMan "parody" song and come back to me on whether the alt-right is any better than the establishment right.

# ? Sep 25, 2016 23:48

I Killed GBS: Jun 2, 2011; by Lowtax

The "Alt-right" contains literal unironic nazis, so i'm gonna go with "worse than"

# ? Sep 26, 2016 00:53

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

They're better in that they aren't actually resonsible for poo poo happening, they're worse in that if they were, we'd get a lot worse poo poo happening.

# ? Sep 26, 2016 00:56

I Killed GBS: Jun 2, 2011; by Lowtax

OwlFancier posted:

They're better in that they aren't actually resonsible for poo poo happening, they're worse in that if they were, we'd get a lot worse poo poo happening.

I'm p. sure they were responsible for assassinating one of your MPs recently

# ? Sep 26, 2016 00:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 7, 2024 05:28

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

I Killed GBS posted:

I'm p. sure they were responsible for assassinating one of your MPs recently

They've got a long way to go before they match the death toll of our establishment right.

Like, our currently elected, "rape camps for profit" "get the disabled to kill themselves to avoid paying to support them" right.

# ? Sep 26, 2016 01:01

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Is the alt-right better or worse than the establishment right?

«‹›30 »