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?

«‹›3 »

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

Is a nazi worse the Geroge W? Yes. One can be reasoned with and the other makes one want to open up some Gulags.

# ¿ Sep 25, 2016 00:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 19, 2024 08:39

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

icantfindaname posted:

I don't believe in 11 dimension chess analyses, so when liberals say they want the alt-right to go away and to have the old right back, I think it's fair to take that opinion at face value, and not to take it as meaning they want schism

Might just be that nazis are far worse than neo cons,

# ¿ Sep 25, 2016 00:44

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

Monogamy is ideal.

# ¿ Sep 25, 2016 02:39

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

Epitome of Macho posted:

Monogamy is for insecure cishet white males who can't appreciate a woman's sexual self-expression and believes in the antiquated view that children should be raised by both parents to be successful.

I am just going to let this statement speak for itself.

# ¿ Sep 25, 2016 03:11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OwlFancier posted:

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.

If Trump is elected I bet their cannidates will be seen marching to power across Europe and they'll make a death toll in Western Europe unequeled in 70 years. I suspect my country after it exterminates our own Alt right and with a dictator will this time have to eliminate the European nation state this time.

ToxicSlurpee posted:

The alt-right is bizarre in that they try to play themselves up as ambitious youngsters who are the true progressives but want to take America back to the 19th century. I find it absolutely confusing that they're so gung-ho for "economic freedom" when what they're advocating was utterly disastrous when it actually existed. Meanwhile they screech about freedom of speech being sacred but tell black protesters to shut the gently caress up and stop inconveniencing everybody with their "doing things visible things while black" crimes.

Alt-right makes them sound like they're some kind of alternative to American right wing politics but really they're the same thing wrapped in a different package. Instead of wrapping it in religion they wrap it in some vague definition of freedom.

They are only for freedom if you're part of a poorly defined group that is white male American. If you;re not you're to be their slaves. I would prefer to put them in temporary slavery say five to ten years so they can come to learn how much they should have appreciated their positions originally.

# ¿ Sep 26, 2016 02:41

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

Blue Star posted:

Do you all think that the alt-right might become more powerful and influential over the years, or will they become less powerful than they already are?

If Trump is elected more powerful, at least until a coup happens and then they are exterminated.

# ¿ Sep 26, 2016 03:56

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

gobbagool posted:

Why stop there? I mean as long as you're generating so much breathless pearl clutching, just say that the entire earth will vanish in a singularity and the universe will cease to exist once Trump is elected? Are you by chance a member of the American media?

I recognize that there are people who need to fear their natures.

McDowell posted:

The idea that a 'real' family is a mommy, a daddy, a mortgage, and 3+ kids is part of the problem. People see life as a checklist and everyone thinks they are entitled to reproduction. The social darwinist logic Americans are so attached to demands an eventual population cull.

Well the data shows having two of either gender is beneficial.

Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Sep 26, 2016

# ¿ Sep 26, 2016 17:14

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

Who What Now posted:

There are four things listed there, dude. "Either" doesn't apply.

So wait your saying kids of gay parents shouldn't be allowed?

# ¿ Sep 26, 2016 18:11

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

Epitome of Macho posted:

Stop projecting your bigotry onto others.

Hey the study says its better to have two parents. Be they gay or straight. Sorry if the data doesn't fit your hedonistic vision.

# ¿ Sep 26, 2016 18:25

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

Who What Now posted:

You are vastly overestimating your understanding of the data.

# ¿ Sep 26, 2016 18:36

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

Who What Now posted:

Literally everyone (including your own study) disagrees with you, but sure, you're the only one that's right and it's everyone else that's wrong.

Show me where the study says those in single families do better then those with two parents.

# ¿ Sep 26, 2016 18:47

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

Who What Now posted:

How about you do me one better and show where in the study it says that the problems absolutely can't be attributed to things like poverty or social status.

When did I say that wasn't a factor?

# ¿ Sep 26, 2016 21:01

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

Who What Now posted:

Every single time flatly ignored people bringing up other factors to say that no, it only matters that there is a two parent household. Like here:

Wait asking for research that being raised by a single parent is better is now ignoring other factors? Good to know.

# ¿ Sep 26, 2016 21:26

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

Who What Now posted:

Your own study says that you can't conclude the children's performance is directly attributable to their parental situation, what about that don't you get?

They concluded that negative results are more likely in non both parents married situations.

# ¿ Sep 26, 2016 21:36

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

Arglebargle III posted:

I think the alt-right is an empty shell with no ideas that can accomplish anything in government. I worry that their candidates including Trump are puppets for anyone with some sort of workable policy idea that might come along. I think this is the end game of the hollowing out of the GOP. It's hard to imagine any conservative government in the US that doesn't exist to serve big business, at least in the domistic pshere.

That isn't true, they do have ideas. Enslave the blacks and gas the Jews, and white women should have to act like women in the first season of Madmen.

(They just want themselves to be able to gently caress around not women).

# ¿ Sep 27, 2016 15:34

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

steinrokkan posted:

The alt right are the usual social rejects who would be in a different time and place wife-beating machos, or recruits of some pillaging warlord. They have no political ideas, they are just instinctively lashing out against things they see around them because they are frustrated, feel like there is nothing they can do with their lives, and as a consequence feel insecure and emaciated.

In the 50s or 60s they would be Ignatius T. Reiley. in medieval times they would be the camp followers.

# ¿ Sep 27, 2016 17:40

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

spotlessd posted:

Maybe they just resent liberal pathologizing of any and all dissent, which incidentally is a project largely undertaken by people with no actual insight one way or the other. One of the most active threads on this forum is 81 pages of the most infantile made up bullshit that serves no purpose other than to develop a jargon to classify and taxonomize all the different badthinks. It's the very definition of armchair "academic politics". You'd think the broad failure of progressive strategy at the level "uhhh well old people will just die and then there won't be any more problems" would engender like a shred of self-awareness and some sense of opposition to neoliberalism being mandatory to left politics but here we are~

I'm actually not even a liberal. I just recognize that nazis need to be corrected be it through education, or be it through camps.

# ¿ Sep 28, 2016 07:19

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

Panzeh posted:

loving on the side a lot is a really common feature of the two parent home historically.

So the edgy communists best response is. "Well some people cheat".

# ¿ Sep 28, 2016 14:32

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

Panzeh posted:

More like most of em.

Whatever Doctor House told you must be right.

# ¿ Sep 28, 2016 16:46

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

Panzeh posted:

Having mistresses was pretty much the thing to do as a married man back in the day. You said that was bad for children.

Meanwhile Jesus 'hitler' Christ is laughing to the bank as loveless marriages held together by children become abusive quite often.

So now all marriages are abusive as well Ah to be a communist edgelord.

# ¿ Sep 28, 2016 17:16

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

Panzeh posted:

It's good to have a window into the Islamic State.

I think I actually cut myself on the edge.

# ¿ Sep 28, 2016 17:57

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

Ddraig posted:

Hitler was raised in a two parent household. Churchill was raised by his Nanny.

Both went on to do extraordinary things and both are figures the alt right would admire in their own special way.

One kicked the poo poo out of the other, though. The one with the nanny.

Clearly Nannies are the best option since while you may still end up a genocidal lunatic, you at least have the admiration of your nation for beating up a worse one.

Let's be honest. Churchill was also a bit of a monster what with starving the Bengals and using gas on revolting natives in Iraq.

# ¿ Sep 28, 2016 17:59

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

McDowell posted:

Jesus said individuals should be eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven.

Actually he didn't he said some would choose to do so. I do love how the people attacking marriage here love to openly lie.

# ¿ Sep 28, 2016 21:23

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

McDowell posted:

True, but my point is that the 1950's nuclear family ideal is off base.

Here is the complete passage

Marriage is meant to be an analogue for 'Check Partners' in the Evolutionary Level Above Human - which can also by understood through 'Star Trek The Next Generation' and the Binars - a cybernetic species that lives in pairs. The whole 'get married and have kids ASAP' program that many so-called Christians push is an abomination. It is better to be celibate than to reproduce under social or biological duress.

SO then why did he say not everyone can accept it? Oh wait because not everyone can be a eunuch. Once again nice to see you're openly lying between your teeth. But par for the course.

# ¿ Sep 28, 2016 23:08

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

McDowell posted:

You could say I'm posting under the Dark Enlightenment. I may be wrong but I believe the Second Coming happened in the 20th Century. What would Jesus Doe?

The dark enlightenment has as many atheists as it has Christians. It really is for people who think their above everyone else but think libertarians are too soft. Also I am a Christian if a particularly bad one. Also yes maybe you all who think relationships with one other partner are bad can provide evidence for why that is.

Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Sep 29, 2016

# ¿ Sep 29, 2016 04:40

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

Typo posted:

imo it's basically younger people who

1) Don't really give a poo poo about economic issues, maybe a few leans left on them
2) Don't really give a poo poo about religion
3) Sees "political correctness" as the ultimate demon (even more than Islam)
4) Most of all, feel a sense of white victimhood, that the current state of American culture, especially in traditional liberal enclaves are de facto racist against white christians and are so concentrated on outdated racial struggles that they are naive about encroaching threats like Muslims
5) Misogyny, very much in line with their belief that blacks or browns have a leg up on whites, they believe that women have a leg up on men. In reality this is heavily related to their inability to get girlfriends in their teens/college years, leading them to believe that female has disproportionate power over men.

In reality they are simply regressing to the mean of modern right wing movements, American conservatism is really quite unique in their ability to veil over white identity politics with libertarian economic ideas. The Alt-Right is only an American phenomenon because they would simply be "the right" or "the far right" in most European countries. Along with their counterparts in say Germany, this group of people as a political force has serious problem with attracting women or minorities into their fold because their ideas are so explicitly based on resentment of them.

I would agree with this I would add however that economically they tend to either be as you say, or else subscribe to a more extreme form of Libertarianism. That being Miesseian economics. As I see alot tend to like to fall back on sociopaths like Hans Herman Hoppe, Rothbard, or LVM.

# ¿ Sep 29, 2016 06:29

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

steinrokkan posted:

The "problem of high school sex" is in fact a problem of being unable to socialize, due to any number of personal or family pathologies that could probably have been be easily addressed if more resources were put to it, or if they came from less dysfunctional backgrounds. Reducing the issue to not getting laid is just further shaming them for their lack of masculine achievements, and drives them deeper into self loathing and frustration, and therefore towards hating people around them.

I would agree with this. Attacking someone for not getting laid is frankly a rather toxic masculinity and if you are going to attack them, suggesting they are sexually inadequate really doesn't help your case as it comes across as not much better then when they use that word cuck.

Wait we got rid of the word filter.

# ¿ Sep 29, 2016 07:22

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

The "acceptance" towards gays some are claiming is only white gays and it is towards gays that also hate women.

# ¿ Sep 29, 2016 14:25

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

Who What Now posted:

It's not the idea that having a relationship with one other partner is bad, it's the idea that you are bound forever and ever to the first person you gently caress is what's bad. Not all relationships last forever and forcing people to remain in an unhappy or even openly hostile one is what's bad.

Do most people marry the first person they gently caress? Now of course people should probably not be willing to just get into relationships willy nilly. But I doubt most marry the first person they have sex with.

Also for anyone who wants to rebuild social organizations, bringing back universal service would do wonders.

# ¿ Sep 29, 2016 20:59

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

Sethex posted:

You mean pretty much the campus culture across most NA universities?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-jEQYHAFfjg

Wait so you think someone who is openly racist can't be racist. Oh lol. Now you say all millenials are evil leftists by linking to the alt right. I think we got our self a nazi here. BTW I prefer Stormfront to you because they're honest about what subhumans they are.

# ¿ Sep 30, 2016 13:16

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

steinrokkan posted:

Wasn't 8chan established because people were banned from 4chan for posting CP.

Why would you read that.

This. I mean especially since that has to be a good way to end up on a fbi watch list for "possibly watches CP:.

# ¿ Sep 30, 2016 13:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 19, 2024 08:39

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

Sethex posted:

Oh yeah I remember saying all those things.

You're a prime example of why the D&D title used to read "you are racist"

Well it's true. Sorry if I triggered you.

# ¿ Sep 30, 2016 14:03

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

«‹›3 »