70 39

Is the IDW at risk of being infiltrated by alt-right provocateurs?

The IDW has important distinctions from the alt-right. The IDW embraces individualism, the alt-right embraces white identity politics. The IDW is characterized by thoughtful discussion, the alt-right is characterized by irreverence simply for the sake of provoking reactions.

But there are a few similarities... both are proponents of free speech (but with different purposes in mind), both are opposed to intersectional identity politics and far left ideologies (but for completely different reasons), and both have taken advantage of online technologies to challenge the left's cultural taboos.

I'm not into banning anyone from speaking- I would never call for deplatforming or suspending accounts. But can we all create a cultural awareness of the important differences? Can we all resist propagating dumb things just because it "owns the libs?" (BTW, there are no SJWs on this site anyway, so there's no point.)

I just hope this group can have high standards of conduct and not get sucked into alt-right stupidity.

jnaatjes 7 Feb 27

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


Does the Alt-Right even exist, outside the imaginations or tactic classes of the Left? When I go looking for them and get directed to people like Jordan Peterson?!? So maybe it is just a phantom.

But if a Neo Nazi or White Supremacist or KKK group or organisation called the Alt-Right does exist, surely it has much more in common with the Extreme Left that has academia by the balls than it has with free speech advocates.

White Supremacy is just another identity group of people who want to be identified as members of their group first and as individuals second. Both sides see the world as a battleground of groups after power. What I hope the IDW Community will offer is a different approach, based on individualism and the presumption that it's our ideas that count, not the group we identify with.

I agree with everything you say, except I actually do think the alt right is dangerous. They do, indeed, exist... just ask Ben Shapiro.

Now, they are very small in numbers, as becomes obvious whenever they try to actually get together in person (i.e. The latest "unite the right" rally was tiny in numbers).

But here's where they're dangerous... despite being small in number, they're very good at what they do. In today's world, you don't need a ton of followers to be effective if you know what you're doing with social media. During the 2016 U.S. election,
I saw lots of people I knew who were normal conservatives reposting stuff that came from alt right, white nationalist websites/accounts. Some of their posts were alluring to conservatives because they were a big middle finger to the SJW crowd. But alt-righters and conservatives/classical liberals oppose the left's identity politics for very different reasons. And as conservatives have begun mingling with these nationalist populists, those ideals they held of limited government, the sovereignty of the individual, and Judeo-Christian values became adulterated with right-wing identity politics.

Right now this is only having an impact on the rhetoric, not really the policies, of the American right... Donald Trump spouted a lot of nationalist populist garbage during the election, but largely has not acted on it. Also, listen to Tucker Carlson on Ben Shapiro's Sunday Special and you'll see what I mean... absolutely appalling stuff coming from someone who is supposedly conservative. These ideas will eventually work their way into policy if we don't fight against them.

In short, the right wing is the only place in America where true liberalism is still alive. The alt-right threatens that by adulterating the philosophy (and, not to mention, discrediting conservatives as a whole, especially with Trump's winking and nodding at them to get their votes). And I don't know about you, but I'd rather not see a holy war between nationalist socialists and Marxist socialists. We have to hold the line against crazies on our own side and not turn a blind eye.

And in fact, I just got done arguing with someone on this site who put out a poll asking if Hitler was actually a good guy... possible answers were "yes" or "still, yes." And according to this person, 6 million Jews didn't really die in the Holocaust, and we shouldn't worry too much about antisemitism because there actually are a lot of legitimate problems with those Jews... ?

So yeah I'd say they exist.

Oh yes, they exist. To not recognize their existence would definitely be a mistake. Alt-right politics are very confusing and alien to me as an empirical thinker, and a Biology undergrad who understands the mechanics of phenotypic genetics. I'm not an expert the group because it's such a new thing, but I'm pretty sure it's based on strong conservative nationalism, and racial identity politics. 10,000 years ago there was no racial identity at all. Homo sapiens were so racially ambiguous until certain geographical features separated them and caused less genetic variability. With the invention of air, sea, and land travel, that is increasing genetic variability in a way we haven't seen before. It's a mathematical inevitability they just simply can't combat.

I think I agree @jnaatjes , but please clarify what you are saying about Tucker Carlson on Ben Shapiro,are you saying that either one of them is alt-right?

@JohnDawson no Ben Shapiro is about as far from alt right as you can get. I have immense respect for him. In 2016, he was the number one most persecuted journalistic figure in the world, and most of the hate came from the alt right because he was a Jew who had some reservarions about Trump.

Tucker isn't alt-right either. But I see him as being someone who would otherwise just be a conservative, but has been influenced by the nationalist populism that is part of the alt right's messaging.

In the interview with Ben, Tucker was arguing for things like government bans on self driving cars because they would put people out of s job who drive for a living. He was in favor of Trump's trade wars because he didn't want American companies to have to deal with too much competition from overseas. He argued against the free market because it "left some people behind." He sounded exactly like a leftist, except his target audience was Caucasian, blue collar workers instead of racial minorities and the LGBT community.

It's all just the politics of grievances. And it's completely without principle no matter which side it's coming from.

Thanks @jnaatjes I agree.

Well said.

I can confirm, for sure, that the alt-right DOES exist.

@jnaatjes I agree that the alt-right exists but believe the numbers are much smaller than the proverbial "they" would have you think. I happen to live in Charlottesville and can tell you that there were less then 40 at the infamous "unite the right "rally. That said, you are absolutely right that the risk of infiltration on this site is probable and that the best way to handle them is by calling them out on their ignorance and by not engaging in identity politics. If we keep the dialogue thoughtful, intelligent and honest,hopefully they they will get bored and go away. Ideally, maybe we can even change some minds!

@jnaatjes Jeeeesus... There's only 2500 members and that shit is popping up already, honestly I see now why you ask the question about the page being infiltrated.

@jnaatjes What sources do you regard as Alt-Right.

Look at political leanings as on a circular chart. At the bottom of the chart are middle of the roaders or people who don't follow politics at all. At the top are the most radical idealists on both sides who are willing to use ANY MEANS NECESSARY, including violence, to defend and protect their position. The so-called alt-right and radical left both meet there at the top of the circle. Both are an anathema to order, peace and prosperity. Period.

In it's infancy the ALT Right movement was merely for those who didn't agree with the Republicans or the extreme left. They named it Alternative Right because they liked conservative values but wanted something different from what was sold from staunch conservatives. It was taken over and infiltrated by supremacists and idiots, or paid. So NOW anyone who is a conservative is painted with the same brush being called Alt's annoying at best. Those here naming typical talk show hosts like Ben Shapiro as Alt Right are delusional. I was there in the beginning and some say people were hired to join who were extremists just to ruin and tarnish the movement and I'd have to agree.


If by alt right, you mean white supremacists, then you mean far leftist. All group identity politics is leftist politics. Individual politics are rightist. Just because the Democrats have decided to make white Christians the main enemy, does not mean the Republicans some how adopted white supremacists by default. Nazi's were national socialists. Republicans and conservatives believe in Nationalism but as an individual patriot. When the right goes too far right it's no government or anarchy. When the left goes too far it's socialism, communism and fascism. A true right-winged conservative sees an individual, not the group they want to identify with. White supremacists and Nazis have nothing to do with the conservative right and everything to do with the far left. The KKK was created by Democrats and has always been Democrats. Republicans were created to fight against slavery. I'm tired of the Democrats trying to change history and call us the racists when it has never been true.

Well said

I generally agree with this, and have spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to categorize a nationalist socialist.

It seems what distinguishes all the different ideologies that we call "right" is they are all nationalists, as you say. The libertarian version of nationalism is isolationism. The neo-con intervenes around the world, asserting America's dominance and protecting its interests abroad. And the alt-right believes nations should be defined by race... that blacks and whites in America should seperate into different nations and protect their own interests. The right disagrees on all sorts of stuff, except putting the interests of their own nation first, but they even disagree on how to accomplish that.

The left, on the other hand, is globalist, and really the only disagreement is on how far to push the envelope. Instead of defining the group by the community in which you live, they define it by your personal characteristics (black, white, gay, straight, rich, poor) and then, based on those characteristics, put you in groups that aren't bound by geography. So a leftist would expect a gay person to identify more with a gay person in Europe than with their straight next door neighbor.

On both sides, there's a tendency toward authoritarianism when they can't get their way. True liberals (aka not progressives) fight against authoritarians on both sides... the way the US fought both the Nazis and the Soviets.

So you can see there that there's definitely cross over between left and alt-right, because they both define your group by your race. But the difference is the alt-right wants a sovereign nation, the left wants something more like a new world order with no nations, probably with a bi-sexual, gender fluid, black woman as the supreme leader ?

@jnaatjes What you discribed as separating whites from blacks is not right-winged. The segregated South and Jim Crow laws were Demorcrats and the Nazis used the Jim Crow laws to formulate their anti-Jewish laws. FDR was a progressive, which is why it took him so long to fight against Hitler. Conservatives do not separate blacks and whites. They do not believe in handouts, they believe in equal opportunities for everyone. Equal outcomes only lead to everyone being equally poor with a small elite in power. When it comes to Nationalism vs. Globalism, it has nothing to do with race. A one World order would destroy all of our freedoms. Freedom is the Nationalism we are fighting for.

@shash I agree American Conservatives do not do that (or at least, the philosophy behind their politics is in conflict with doing so). That's because American Conservatives are liberal, in the classical sense of the term. The thing they are "conserving" is America's tradition of liberal, constitutional, representative democracy.

But if we're speaking globally, and across modern history, the only characteristic that seems universal to anyone on the right is they are all nationalists. That's the one thing they all oppose about the left... which is why Ben Shapiro is livid about Illhan Omar, and David Duke (who usually endorses Republicans) is in love with her... Ben and Duke share nothing in common except for their nationalism.

Basically I see "right" as a broader category, which basically just means nationalist, The terms conservative, libertarian, fascist, etc, are smaller groups that fall under that category, but are diametrically opposed in many, many ways... especially if you're comparing a libertarian with a fascist- basically nothing in common except they are both nationalistic.

@jnaatjes David Duke votes Republican only because the Democrats have made him their scape goat to appease all the other identites in their base. They villianize him to atone for their own sins. The democrats are the KKK. He was cast out but the right did not adopt him and the left, trying to call him right-winged, is only a deflection. They are wrong and any one who knows history knows this. The only power David Duke has is what the left gives him. His followers are far less in number than most church congregations. The Nazi's figured out that the quickest way to make Socialism work was to create the Nationalism of the Aryan race and demonize the Jewish race. Nationalism is not Nazism. Nazis were Facists. Facists are socialist tyrants, not conservative or right-winged. The leftist are now demonizing white Christian males in much the same way. Conservatism is limited government as the Founding Fathers planned, plain and simple.

@shash agreed. It's just that it means something different in different places. European conservatives are different than American conservatives.

You're right, nationalism alone is not Nazism. I'd break it down this way:

On the right...

Nationalism + liberalism = libertarianism

Nationalism + liberalism + Judeo-Christianity = American conservatism

Nationalism + Judeo-Christianity (sans liberlism) = American social conservatives

Nationalism + Socialism = Fascism

Nationalism + Socialism + White Supremaicism = Nazism

The left is much more simple:

Globalism + socialism = Marxism

Globalism + socialism + intersectionality = neo-Marxism

... that's about all the more complicated they get.

Essentially, I would contend that socialism is present on both the right and the left. But where there is no one who opposes socialism on the left, there's only a small minority on the right who supports it.

@shash as for the KKK being an invention of the Democrats, that's true. They've always been the Party who has full scale supported identity politics.

Republicans have always been the party of classical liberalism. But they've been far from perfect at walking up to their platform. So there are indeed authoritarians who rub shoulders with the GOP. Even though that's not what they say they stand for.

But yes, Republicans have done a better job than Democrats at least.

@jnaatjes I don't understand how Socialism, Fascism, white supremacism, and Nazism are on the right. The far right is anarchy and no government, absolute individual freedom, the complete opposite of Socialism and Facism where there is no individual freedom. All I've been trying to say is that the left has tried to paint white-supremists and Nazi's as far right when it is not the truth, they are far left, once removed from Communism.

@jnaatjes Just because the left says the right are the racist, biggot, homophobes because we don't believe in the group think or sacraficing individual freedoms for some "oppressed" group doesn't make it true.

@shash I get that. And you're certainly right about the Democrats. It's just... why don't Nazis like Communists, and vice versa? It's not economic issues .. they agree there. It's not individual freedom... they both despise it? So why don't they get along? Why is there a distinction at all?

The difference is Fascists believe in nationalism, and that bleeds over into racism when taken to such an extreme level.

Nationalism is the primary contention between fascists and communists. It's not the free market. It's not liberty. It's none of those things.

On a global scale, the right is just a conglomerate of people who are not the left. And the only thing all of these groups share is a love of country. That's the one characteristic universal to all groups who are not embraced by the left.

Conversely, hatred of one's own country defines leftism in all of its forms.

@shash And I totally see what you're saying... I'm just trying to be as specific as possible to make sense of this.

So I would say anarchy is not extreme right. It's an extreme form of one type of right-wing ideology... namely, libertarianism.

There are also anarchists on the left who want no private property and no government... you'd have to be tripping on acid to think that would work... which they usually are.

But once again, there you are... there's the globalist, universalist ideas that define all of left-wing ideas.

@shash I'm sorry to go on and on about this... but the reason I think this is important is because we have to be aware of corruption on our own side of the aisle if we want to preserve those ideas you talk about.

The alt-right isn't making headway with the SJW's. They're making headway with ordinary conservatives because they're good at making cleaver memes that "own the libs." Even if the movement itself never becomes fully main stream, I see it having a corrupting influence on the normal part of the right.

@jnaatjes I tried to look up the difference. It said Communism is supposed to be stateless in therory and probaby why they believe if globalism could be acheived the whole world would be Communist. Facism is nationalistic with a dictator. You said they both dismiss the individual which is true. Left vs. right is basically what's good for the group vs. what is good for the individual. That is why Communism, socialism, nazism, and facism are all far left ideologies and why white supremists are not on the right.

@jnaatjes What message do you believe the alt right is corrupting conservatives with?

@shash that white, blue-collar workers are victims of the evil globalists, so we need the government to regulate free markets to make sure "real Americans" retain their jobs.

For instance, Tucker Carlson said to Ben Shapiro that he wants to ban self-driving cars to protect the jobs of people who drive for a living. Or there's Donald Trump's push for trade tarrifs. Or there's the argument that the primary reason we should be worried about immigration (legal or not) is because "those Mexicans are stealing our jobs." Or there's the fact that Republicans are suddenly ok with the president overreaching with executive orders, even though they were livid about it when Obama was doing it.

Those things are not conservative. They don't value free markets. They don't value constitutional, limited government. They don't value personal responsibility... A conservative would say, "Tough. Workers need to make themselves competitive, and we'll let the free market run its course and produce the best outcome."

It's not conservatism. But it is right-wing. In today's language, we call it right-wing populism... but it's in the direction of nationalist socialism. That doesn't mean the entire Trumpian right are Nazis, by any means. Trump has actually governed fairly conservatively (surprisingly). But it is a step away from classical liberalism and in the direction of nationalist socialism. And if you have mainstream "conservative" commentators like Tucker Carlson espousing it, I fear it will eventually make its way into the platform and policies of the Republican Party.

Donald Trump may be better than Hillary would've been, but he's not a conservative. He's basically just someone who does whatever he thinks is advantageous. And during the election, that included "winking and nodding at the alt-right" as Ben Shapiro puts it.

@jnaatjes I guess I still don't see what you mean by alt right socialism on the right. I think what Tucker is concerned about is what kind of jobs will be around in the next decade whether globaly or nationally. With robotics and automation and driverless transportation, an awful lot of jobs will disappear. The left thinks they will solve the job scarcity with a guaranteed income and socialism. I think Tucker, as with most conservatives, would prefer a job for everyone, rather than a set income for everyone. Schools, like they did with computers in my generation, are not preparing students with the knowledge and skills they will need. Brick and mortar schools may even become extinct much like malls are. The concern with immigration is not so much the jobs they are taking but the fact that they are unskilled and draining the welfare system in many states. People need to work for society to function.

@jnaatjes can you do this again but put it into a triangle with liberalism bottom left, conservatism bottom right and authoritarian at the apex. So nazism would sit on a authoritarian-conservative axis and fascism on Liberal authoritarian axis. Or have I got that wrong. Not too interested in how religion intersects with it

@shash sure, there's some validity to that. But what you expressed isn't free market economics. The capitalist notion is that companies exist to provide goods and services to make a profit. Not to provide jobs. Republicans talk a lot about creating jobs because it's a good talking point that resonates with most Americans. But jobs are only a positive byproduct of a company.

Regulating the economy to artificially create or preserve jobs that would otherwise be obsolete isn't truly a conservative idea. It's a right-wing populist idea. It's better than the left's idea of just subsidizing people to not work at all, but ultimately you're stil redistributing wealth because you're taking away the chance to make money from the start-up with a new idea, and artificially giving more business to the old, established company.

Same thing with tarrifs. Tarrifs ultimately act as an indirect tax on the American consumer, and they redistribute wealth because it causes the cost of some goods to increase while the cost of another decreases. The government shouldn't be picking and choosing winners and losers, and yet that's what Trump wants to do with his trade policies. He's picking American steel as a winner at the expense of someone else.

Redistributing wealth. Picking winners and losers. These are all socialist ideas.

@Boohickert and I would disagree with that as well.

@MarkParker I think that's a good way of thinking about it. The more authoritarian the right and left get, the more they resemble each other. Ultimately those who desire power above all else are not very different from each other.

My most recent thought on this is to use a 2 dimensional chart, with left to right being globalism to nationalism, and top to bottom being individual sovereignty to state control. So top left quadrant would be liberal, top right would be libertarian, bottom left would be progressive, bottom right wouldn't be conservative. The extreme of the liberal quadrant would be a communal anarchist (like a hippie), the extreme of the libertarian quadrant would be an anarcho-capitalist, the extreme of progressive quandrent would be a communist, and the extreme of the conservative quadrant would be a fascist.

I wish I could've draw that instead haha

@jnaatjes Facism is on the left, not the right!

Hello jnaatjes. Sorry for my late entry, but I just wanted to mention the term "ethnonationalism". I see ethnonationalism as synonymous with white supremacy and Nazism. I thought it might help define nationalism better. Take care.


"American Conservatives do not do that (or at least, the philosophy behind their politics is in conflict with doing so). That's because American Conservatives are liberal, in the classical sense of the term. The thing they are "conserving" is America's tradition of liberal, constitutional, representative democracy."

It always kills me when someone does such a superb job of describing the republic, then calls it a democracy lol. Gets me every time.

Yours is the first post i've seen anywhere that correctly identifies a conservative. All i see are efforts to do so in contrast to modern day "liberals". I'm a firm believer in getting back to original language & intent. I think it will be THE most important aspect of the effort to right the republic, and kudos to you for the proper definition of a conservative. Hat's off.


I'm almost certain there are also undercover "antifa " for lack of a better word on here too.
It seems like the only ability we have as decent humans is to give them all a platform to spout their nonsense. Then berate them with facts instead of insults, so that they can't hide behind the"you are all oppressors" crutch people with bad ideas lean on

Dang, I hope no one finds out I'm secretly an undercover empiricist. Maybe I should wear a Trump hat and an Antifa shirt to mislead people into thinking I have a political opinion... Should work. haha


I'm pretty new here and older lol. I don't know what SJW stands for but I doubt it's senior just wandering. I enjoy seeing all sides of an issue, I learned to do that many years ago in debate preparations. The reason I thought I would give IDW a try, is because of the insults thrown around so freely on FB. I think people are much more civil when face to face then they are on the internet, but I find it sad that we can't we use this tool for an even greater range of understanding. I would consider myself conservative Christian, but I get called everything but. So, I hope I can be a part of this community and learn in a thoughtful atmosphere.

SJW is an acronym for social justice warrior. They are characterized by their extreme emotional outbursts and disdain for plain justice because that would involve being fair to everyone regardless of political alignment, and they can't live with that. Hypocrites, basically

@The_Farseer ok, thank you! Well, I'm not SJW phew! I'm not KKK and I'm not Antifa. So I think I'm good. Lol Honestly, I don't think most people claim those things, atleast not they identify as. The biggest thing on FB is everyone else TELLING YOU what you are. That's where it always gets ugly. I've been called white supremacist, I think because I vote for Trump. I get called odiot and racist, but I have never been a bit racist. I probably am a bit of an odiot sometimes lol
Most people don't use names for themselves, but they seem to be clairvoyant when it comes to others,..... I have come across a Palestinian once, he hated my God and some other choice words.. I am against abortion and that's always none of my business if someone wants to kill full term babies... I call them uninformed murderers ouch but true. I want a wall at the border and that puts me into racist white supremecy... I don't know what that has to do with border security....different doctopnary I guess. I think I'm pretty normal, but who knows. I don't like labels only issues, but it still makes me a boogyman... I'm not really sure what the issues are on here and how people feel about them. I guess you have to find a topic and strike up a conversation. Thank you for the help on SJW, I'm not up on all these acronyms. I just found out what POS was though, I'm not going to use that guy. Lol

@LyndaDavis Welcome, welcome to this grand experiment!

@LyndaDavis Yeah, none of those things make you racist. Don't listen to the leftists.

if you think you are inherently superior because of your race, or if the value you put on someone is based solely upon their skin color and not their personal merit... that makes you a racist. Caring about border security just makes you a sane person.

I get so sick of the left conflating these things. Their intellectual dishonesty is mind blowing.

@LyndaDavis I fall into the same category as you, older christian conservative. I have joined this platform for the same reasons as you. I hope it works.

@ReturnFreedom I do too! It's not as busy here, but I think it will grow. There are a lot of intellectuals here and much to learn, I hope there is room and interest in a little wisdom via experience. ??


Perhaps it doesn't matter if they do come in. If this is truly to be a marketplace of diverse ideas, then won't the best ideas drift to the surface and the least be discarded?

Yes. It should be an open marketplace and no one should be banned. But just because it's an open marketplace doesn't mean you have to buy the crappiest products on the market. Calling stupid ideas for what they are, while not trying silence them, is an important part of the open exchange.

You can see from this thread even that so many conservatives are so put off by the false claims the left makes about racism and Nazis, that some are willing to pretend that those things don't exist at all.

I hope this group can be more discerning.

@jnaatjes "Stupid ideas" may be in the eye of the beholder. We can have brilliance here, elucidating truths that need examination---but remember--"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." And which poster is the horse, and which the cowboy?


Here here.

It's bad enough we tend to get branded as alt-right in order to justify dismissal of our words.

Which I think is a very deliberate and strategic move by the radical left, I might add.

Right on. We can't join up with an ugly group just because we have a common enemy.

It's like a non-violent version of what happened in Syria. Moderate rebels joined forces with ISIS fighters because they both hated Assad and felt like they could use the firepower. But then ISIS sets up a caliphate, and then it's like, well why did we do this in the first place?

Yep, same as the Feminists allied with Islam and Marxism, they've got no idea what they're getting into.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend... Until that enemy doesn't exist any more, and then you're done!


To be fair (and I have NOT read all of the comments yet), how do you suggest to limit honest discourse if someone of the alt-right is not allowed to present their thoughts? I mean, I, as a 1st gen Mexican, hate the idea of white supremacy, but how would you propose to isolate, stop and limit the free speech of said individual? Let the m post their ideas/thoughts and let reason rise up and conduct intellectual conversations! If they get aggressive or violent (in words?) then maybe an issue can be addressed, but as a group, let people think for themselves and reason for themselves.

By the way, extremist, elitist, socialist, communist, white supremacist, et al, views views are fairly easy to spot, expose and defeat with intelligence, so don't be afraid of them!



I simply cannot "like" this comment enough! Bravo! Well-spoken! You should have had my love child decades ago, if I'd have known you.


We'll have to see if we can create that awareness and maintain it. Tough thing to do sometimes. "A Republic - if you can keep it" . We have a lot to live up to - I am eager to try.


This is the internet, so there will always be a few. Eventually, I'd even expect a few trolls. Ultimately, it's up to the rest of us to hold a higher standard. As is often said, "don't feed the trolls." They eventually get bored and go harass someone else.

Absolutely agree, when people start the insults or try to antagonize it should just be ignored or reported in serious cases.


Alt-right by definition means left or wrong. Alternative not of the mainstream. The only reason for the words alt-right is because it sound provocative and cool. They took a swastika and turned it in to a hate symbol. It means well or good. The term alt-right makes as much sense as anti-fascist. They are not anti fascist they are fascist. If we are going to have any ground to stand on we need to unify behind the idea that right is right and alt is fascist.


Just my own view - but the whole Alt-Right and Alt-Left thing is misleading in today's context. Most of the real issues do not divide neatly along left/right lines. The real issues tend to be more Globalist vs Nationalist or Elitist vs Populist. Good example of this are Brexit - where neither Labour nor Tories have a unified position on this. Also the Yellow Vest protest in France - it is neither left nor right but rather the disenfranchised lower and middle class vs the Paris based elitists and globalists.

More often that not, the use of the term "alt-right" is used as an attempt to discredit a populist movement rather than addressing the actual problems. Same for alt-left.


As much as I agree with this I also disagree with parts of it. When are we gonna stop labeling people? I know alot of folks who have been labeled one thing or another from one party or another and none of them actually fit in there. Like liberals or alt right. The umbrella statements have to stop. Lumping people who may fall in the center of a party or a different party in general doesnt help anything. Identity politics are the lowest form of politics on the planet.

That's a good point. I don't know how to get around it, but I've found political ideologies and philosophies very difficult to categorize accurately because they have so many different permutations and evolutions. I do find it fascinating trying to make sense of the mixing of different ideas though, as impossible as it is to do it perfectly.

This. Labels are leftist tactics. I can listen to anyone and debate issues on their own merits. Check all of your labels, branding and pigeonholed preconceptions at the door and just enter the arena with your facts.

Reading through all of the comments in this thread has me more concerned with the potential or worse yet the desire for this place to become an echo chamber.

This place if my understanding is correct is intended to be the antithesis of those social media platforms. Not a confirmation bias lounge for the hive minded types that drove people like me here in hopes of something different.


I think the word intellectual is a barrier. I can say anything. But if it has no substance or audience, my need for constant validation isn't sufficed. This is an environment of air breathers. I don't think libs can breath air long. I think it makes them melt or something. If you want them stop talking just ask for a valid point... crickets


I could only hope so too, and I suppose time will tell on that much.


What you mean by alt-right? I read a book by Dinesh DeSousa “ The Big Lie” He brilliantly shows how the llabsls are confusing.

@michaelBurns2 , I am sorry that I make your brain suffer. Unfortunately I did not review my post before I sent it. I definitely need new glasses.?The correct sentence should be “ He brilliantly shows how the labels are confusing.


The alt-right is still not a well-defined group. The part that plays identity politics could be a problem. But I think there is a small portion (of the already small subset of alt-righters who are more or less just ironically making memes) that has a very useful function in that they can make "offensive" words, phrases and images into comedy. And this "redemption" of such words and images takes power away from those on the alt-right (and elsewhere) who want to use those phrases to spread fear and hatred. I believe that even though there are probably not many SJW types on this site, we still need our boundaries of what we think is acceptable to be pushed, so that more topics will become less taboo. We may not explicitly exclude topics from our conversations on this site, but everyone is sensitive to some topics and we could use an engine of boundary pushing even for us. That is why the "silly" section on this site is so crucial, in my opinion.

I think you're right... for instance, there's clearly a difference between figures like Milo Yiannopoulos and Richard Spencer... I don't like either one, but there are gradations of stupidity there. The left conflates these two, along with anyone to the right of Karl Marx, and calls them all fascists or alt right. Just as has happened to the term "racist," when you do this, it becomes useless in identifying actually agregious behavior, and allows disgusting people to get away with their bad behavior because no one trusts the label anymore.

There are 2 groups of "alt-righters" that I think are actually dangerous and deserve the label. There's the hard-core, blood and soil, white seperatist types like those who marched in Charlottesville, and then there's the trolls... who wander around the internet calling black people the "N" word, denying the haolocaust, and photoshopping Ben Shapiro into gas chambers, not because they actually are Nazis, per say, but because they want a reaction.

The question is what to do with these people. Deplatforming is counterproductive and dangerous because it fosters sympathy for their movement, infringes on their liberty (which they're still entitled to, even if they're idiots), and threatens the liberties of any other dissenting voices.

I think the best thing we can do is let them post, and then either forcefully respond with sound arguments, or just ignore them completely... you'd have to determine which course to pursue on a case by case basis. The goal would be discrediting while also not indulging them or dignifying their stupidity with a lot of attention.

@jnaatjes challenge those you disagree with, you do all a service with that. That is the only way. Deplatforming just forces hateful people underground. Victimhood hoxers need to be tried in courts of law and convicted if found guilty!


I think one of the easiest distinctions make is the purpose behind the support of Speech.

The IDW community wants speech so all ideas are heard and put intellectual consternation where bad ideas are challenged and overcome by good ideas.

The alt-right supports speech so THEIR ideas are allowed be heard.

The alt-right has personal and selfish reasons support speech, the IDW community supports it due the value of all individuals.

Right. It should be legal and allowable for you to say stupid things. But that doesn't mean you should be aiming to say stupid things. Freedom of speech carriers with it responsibility. The point is so we can parse through the ideas and arrive at the best ones.


In my opinion, just let them talk. Don't ban them or anything. just let them talk. they gonna end up shooting themselves in the foot. You just gotta hope they are willing to learn and won't start throwing their bs around.


I think the point scoring system that the page uses will help prevent it to be honest. I can only hope that they get bored and move elsewhere when they see how civilised the platform is. It did cross my mind though, I really hope that doesn't happen because I've only been here a week and it's just what I've been looking for, you all rock so far and I'm loving the topics and conversations at hand.


Honestly the best way to diffuse a situation like that is to let them know that arguing over opinion or politics is absolutely futile and a waste of everyone's time. I tend to make friends or enemies by the lack of response to provocation by both sides. If someone has an original perspective or idea on a subject I haven't heard before, that will spark my interest. If I hear the same idea or opinion by 1,000 different people, I will let them know that idea bores me. I would expect the same from others to let me know I'm basically echoing the same mantra.

Yep, ideologues are boring.


The “alt-right” is an invention of the left. There are only Right and Wrong. Tagging the differences that make up different mindsets is only causing more opportunities to make comparison like you just did.
Free speech is an absolute necessity regardless of the reason. Focus on the words to know who is right and who is wrong. Pairing us up is if they are part of us... is the danger you speak of.

One lesson I have recently learned and taken to heart is that “right and wrong” are subjective. People do not all value the same things, so even when it comes to deceptively “simple” “universal truths” such as “right amd wrong”, there is in fact no universal undertanding. As far as I understand it, the far left SJW narrative is DEPENDING partly on the notion of a universal “right and wrong”. Conservatives are WRONG and therefore justifiably ignored or deplatformed. Have you read “The Righteous mind” by Jonathan Heidt? It should be required reading for everyone. You have to check it out. The notions of obsolute “Right and wrong” are the enemy of free thought and inquiry.


In your first sentence you dive right into identity politics. If you want to encourage individualism why are you trying to outline the definitions of groups? What if I want to talk about "white genocide" does that make me alt-right? Ive never called myself that, nor do I identify as one

Groups do and should exist on the basis of belief. That's why you can "become" an American. We welcome those who subscribe to the ideals we hold of inidivual liberty, etc. At least... that's the way it's supposed to be.

Groups should not exist based upon immutable characteristics like race. But that's exactly what the alt-right advocates for.

If you believe in a white ethno-state, and that blacks are dumber than whites, and that the holocaust wasn't a big deal, we can and should point out that you're a Nazi.

If we can't name anything we can't make sense of anything.

@jnaatjes so Japanese people are nazis? And the chinese? Jamaicans too? That makes no sense, why you would single out white people like that? Kinda makes you seem like a racist. Would you say that asians or Jews on average smarter then caucasians? It actually sounds to me like you want to label people that talk about things that you find uncomfortable. If somebody wants a black ethno state, no one should bother them. They can believe whatever they want, so long as people don't get hurt people should be free to advocate for whatever they want. When you take away a person's ability to discuss things rationally, you are not doing anybody a service, you are in fact doing the opposite. If their idea is bad, so be it, rational discourse will expose that. Taking away the option for a peaceful resolution will always end in violence.


I typically do not believe in disallowing any speech that doesn't encourage or insight violence. However there are limits and sadly there are racist white first idiots amongst us, just like there are Alt Left Psychos. And I don't want to be within a thousand miles of either type. They should ALL be booted from any platform. I am sick of Alteveryone. I don't even want to see them never mind debating these losers and honestly if they start flocking here thinking it's a great place to be a white first racist and are not booted as soon as they spout their white loving BS. I will be removing myself. We should all judge people on their actions, abilities and personalities, not their skin color.

Agreed 100% about how awful their doctrine is. And I sympathize with your frustration. But I honestly think deplatforming them is counterproductive, and also dangerous from a free speech perspective.

You can't always keep crazies away. I'd only leave if it became prominent or if lots of people were dumb enough to go alon with them.

yes free speech except if you don't like it.
Just let everyone say what they think and follow it or ignore it. If you are not interested in debate, why are you even here? Seems like there are plenty of places suitable for you.


I’m really not sure why there’s so many long posts on this. The alt right isn’t infiltrating anywhere that has anything resembling “community guidelines” anytime soon.


Isn't using the term "Alt Right" considered identity politics... I recall Ben Shapiro being labeled "Alt Right" Now, he's a founding member of the IDW.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:20937
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.