Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Owlofcreamcheese
May 22, 2005
Probation
Can't post for 9 years!
Buglord

WampaLord posted:

I also theorize that this alt-right thing might just be a big "phase" for a lot of these young men, like how SA was extremely libertarian for a while and then the userbase aged out of it. Maybe when they get jobs and wives and poo poo like that they won't be as concerned about trolling folks online.

I feel like libertarianism can be a transitional state for a teen with a conservative background. It's rejecting a bunch of the arbitrary rules of the religious side of conservatism and saying "everything would be fair if we treated everyone the same". And it kinda does seem like it'd work if everyone was a grey featureless blob with the same background and same opportunities. And it's only when you see we live in a sin cursed world that already has inequalities and random events and different wants and backgrounds that you find out why it wouldn't be a good solution.

Like there is a clear path through libertarianism to liberalism if you are raised conservative. There feels like there is less a transition from alt-right to anything. Except by abandoning it and just doing something else entirely.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Pussy Cartel
Jun 26, 2011



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'd really like to know what sort of perfectly valid dissent is being unfairly pathologized by the no-true-leftists? Racial? Sexual? Religious?

Crowsbeak
Oct 9, 2012

by Azathoth
Lipstick Apathy

Panzeh posted:

More like most of em.

Whatever Doctor House told you must be right.

Panzeh
Nov 27, 2006

"..The high ground"

Crowsbeak posted:

Whatever Doctor House told you must be right.

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.

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.

Panzeh
Nov 27, 2006

"..The high ground"

Crowsbeak posted:

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

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

Rush Limbo
Sep 5, 2005

its with a full house
Even the concept of marriage being a good thing for children is fairly recent as it was typically only the scenario where poorer people had that arrangement, with the mother typically being the only one the child would ever meaningfully interact with, and in more well off families not even that was the case as a Nanny would typically do the actual arduous job of raising the kids.

The idealised marriage has never existed. We've managed to get by so far.

WampaLord
Jan 14, 2010

How did the alt right thread become a discussion on marriage and children?

Owlofcreamcheese
May 22, 2005
Probation
Can't post for 9 years!
Buglord

WampaLord posted:

How did the alt right thread become a discussion on marriage and children?

The alt-right love of the word "cuck"

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

by Azathoth

WampaLord posted:

How did the alt right thread become a discussion on marriage and children?

Apparently allowing whores to divorce is a failure of liberal values and legitimizes the alt-right.

Rush Limbo
Sep 5, 2005

its with a full house
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.

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.

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.

steinrokkan
Apr 2, 2011



Soiled Meat
"Social structures have no value and it wouldn't matter if they were destroyed."
- somebody who is wondering why reactionary politics have not been eradicated yet

Rush Limbo
Sep 5, 2005

its with a full house

Crowsbeak posted:

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.

I fully acknowledge that Churchill was a bastard of the highest degree. He's also a bastard who happened to win, which counts for a lot in Britain.

A Buttery Pastry
Sep 4, 2011

Delicious and Informative!
:3:

Crowsbeak posted:

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.
I think "genocidal lunatic" falls under monster.

Mc Do Well
Aug 2, 2008

by FactsAreUseless

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.

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

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 22, 2006




David Brooks just wrote an opinion piece on this. It's better than most of his pieces. It is also way too late and will be ignored by the conservative establishment.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...8jtvfnGP_UlkifA

Phone posting so I'm not going to quote the text.

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.

Mc Do Well
Aug 2, 2008

by FactsAreUseless

Crowsbeak posted:

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.

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

Here is the complete passage

quote:

Then some Pharisees came and tested Him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?”

Jesus answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses order a man to give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

Jesus answered, “It was because of your hardness of heart that Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but it was not this way from the beginning. Now I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman, commits adultery.”

His disciples said to Him, “If this is the case between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry.”

“Not everyone can accept this word,” Jesus answered, “but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way; others were made that way by men; and still others live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

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.

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.

Mc Do Well
Aug 2, 2008

by FactsAreUseless

Crowsbeak posted:

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.

He said not everyone can accept it because most humans think joining the cult and choosing celibacy/castration is weird - but it is the way into the Kingdom of Heaven. Do spoke about how if everyone started overcoming the world it would cause a major crisis and it isn't likely to happen, especially now that the Away Team is gone. The human kingdom will manage its population one way or another - I'm trying to keep the Evolutionary Level Above Human on your mind - look at the 'true lies' of established religions - they place some value on denying sexuality. But they adulterate that message with the idols of flags, family crests, etc.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Name Change
Oct 9, 2005


McDowell posted:

He said not everyone can accept it because most humans think joining the cult and choosing celibacy/castration is weird - but it is the way into the Kingdom of Heaven. Do spoke about how if everyone started overcoming the world it would cause a major crisis and it isn't likely to happen, especially now that the Away Team is gone. The human kingdom will manage its population one way or another - I'm trying to keep the Evolutionary Level Above Human on your mind - look at the 'true lies' of established religions - they place some value on denying sexuality. But they adulterate that message with the idols of flags, family crests, etc.

Can you guys talk about the alt-right instead of whatever the gently caress this post is?

Mc Do Well
Aug 2, 2008

by FactsAreUseless

OneThousandMonkeys posted:

Can you guys talk about the alt-right instead of whatever the gently caress this post is?

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?

Some Guy TT
Aug 30, 2011

Who What Now posted:

Apparently allowing whores to divorce is a failure of liberal values and legitimizes the alt-right.

It's really more that extremist inflammatory comments like this encourage the alt-right. Even on a reasonably moderated forum like SA, anyone who has the gall to suggest that maybe the Sexual Revolution has had negative outcomes in addition to positive ones is immediately caricatured as some sort of knuckle-dragging caveman whose political beliefs can only possibly be explained by a tiny penis and sexual inadequacy with women. Honestly, you guys (and it is almost always guys, not gals who do this) really need to step back sometimes and realize that you look like total assholes when you do this, and this is what drives people to the other side, just out of sheer spite. The alt-right's mouthpieces might be total twats, but they're at least smart enough not to insult the people they need to convince directly. Read up about Milo in person. He's perfectly nice to people of opposing political beliefs when they're in the same room as him, and it always catches them off guard.

They're also very good about using evidence to support their points and referring to direct examples. Shoot, Rush Limbaugh built his career off of that. Obviously the mere presence of evidence does not automatically make them correct (it's all a matter of interpretation), but it does make the potential audience feel like they're being treated as equals rather than being condescended to.

Like, look at this derail. Weird theological bullshit when I doubt anyone in this thread is even Christian. Meanwhile this

Panzeh posted:

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

...Is just nonchalantly treated like a completely accurate statement not needing any kind of evidential support. Like, if you're going to argue that monogamous pair-bonding is some sort of emotional hellscape, and that by extension almost all of human history and most of the non-Western world right now has just been a string of inherently unsatisfying relationships, that really strikes me as something requiring a stronger citation than conventional wisdom.

OwlFancier
Aug 22, 2013

I mean, I would suggest that most of human history has been of women being the property of their husbands and their husbands doing whatever they want with them, and the concept of a "relationship" in the modern sense not really being a thing.

But, I suppose there is no particular requirement for infidelity in that.

Some Guy TT
Aug 30, 2011

While I do agree with that, at the same time, people living in that situation then (or even today) could still be happy. Whereas plenty of people living with our more "correct" modern social mores can be shockingly unhappy, to the point that a TV show like Girls explicitly romanticizes this unhappiness.

I don't think you have to be alt-right to acknowledge the contradiction there. But increasingly it seems like unless you're in an alt-right friendly forum, acknowledging this contradiction is likely to get you dogpiled for being a regressive.

OwlFancier
Aug 22, 2013

I'm not sure the assertion was that infidelity necessarily makes people unhappy, merely that it is rather prevalent for a society which likes to behave as though it is not.

I would, however, be a bit... skeptical of someone going to lengths to point out that "actually people can still be happy even if marital rape was legal therefore..."

Some Guy TT
Aug 30, 2011

That's really only true for us, though. Earlier in this thread someone mentioned how the extended family is common for child-rearing worldwide. Those societies, though, are quite conservative, way more than anything the alt-right proposes we go back to. When adultery comes up we're always thinking of Victorian England or Leave it to Beaver, yet we also romanticize "village to raise a child" mindsets that in practice are often just as socially conservative.

edit: It's not a literal one-to-one thing, I think with the alt-right it's more they're wondering why we have to assume literally everything about the way people used to view relationships was bad when we're not that much better off. It's possible to say, wait until marriage before having sex while also being morally opposed to marital rape.

Some Guy TT fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Sep 29, 2016

OwlFancier
Aug 22, 2013

Er, are we?

Communal child rearing is a thing everywhere as far as I know, assuming you have enough family to do so it is generally common for grandparents and such to help look after children. Not everybody does have that sort of family however, it depends a lot on where you live and what happened recently there, as well as your economic circumstances. Your environment dictates how much childcare you need, how much time you're able to spend with your children, how long you have to work, what your childhood was like etc. People are products of their environment and their childraising similarly so.

I'm not sure what "socially conservative" means in the context of infidelity also, "I am a man so I own women" is a very traditional viewpoint with a long history to it.

I'm having a bit of trouble following you in general actually, I feel like we're talking past each other?

OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Sep 29, 2016

TheNakedFantastic
Sep 22, 2006

LITERAL WHITE SUPREMACIST

WampaLord posted:

How did the alt right thread become a discussion on marriage and children?

Why do you think?

Some Guy TT
Aug 30, 2011

OwlFancier posted:

Communal child rearing is a thing everywhere as far as I know, assuming you have enough family to do so it is generally common for grandparents and such to help look after children. Not everybody does have that sort of family however, it depends a lot on where you live and what happened recently there, as well as your economic circumstances. Your environment dictates how much childcare you need, how much time you're able to spend with your children, how long you have to work, what your childhood was like etc. People are products of their environment and their childraising similarly so.

For conservatives that's what they mean by "family breakdown"- people don't have access to their families anymore, and that's what bringing down the social order. Divorce, which by its nature destroys families, can be seen as a part of this, even in cases where it's the best possible option. Gay marriage similarly makes a mockery of the idea of marriage/family since gay couples can't (directly) produce children.

But yeah, at that point they're getting into abstractions, which has a lot to do with how the alt-right came up to begin with. Traditional religious conservatives want the family structure because it's the way it's always been done. Alt-right wants that structure because they think it's an improvement over the one they're currently using, which is why they tend not to care about stuff like gay marriage since that doesn't actually affect them in any tangible way.

TheNakedFantastic
Sep 22, 2006

LITERAL WHITE SUPREMACIST
Modern society for many people is one defined by the disintegration of the family, social isolation, and the importation of millions of foreigners to avoid demographic (profit) collapse. The alt right is more than anything a reaction to this trend and why Trump has been as successful as he has- he's (pretends to be) anti immigrant and anti globalism, things that coincide with the collapse and eradication with the previous identity of the nation. Trump knows that these people are desperate for salvation so lying or spraying and praying with rhetoric is fine, the alternative is to accept the destruction of the old America. The alt right is not fundamentally different from any other historical reactionary movement.

OwlFancier
Aug 22, 2013

Some Guy TT posted:

For conservatives that's what they mean by "family breakdown"- people don't have access to their families anymore, and that's what bringing down the social order. Divorce, which by its nature destroys families, can be seen as a part of this, even in cases where it's the best possible option. Gay marriage similarly makes a mockery of the idea of marriage/family since gay couples can't (directly) produce children.

But yeah, at that point they're getting into abstractions, which has a lot to do with how the alt-right came up to begin with. Traditional religious conservatives want the family structure because it's the way it's always been done. Alt-right wants that structure because they think it's an improvement over the one they're currently using, which is why they tend not to care about stuff like gay marriage since that doesn't actually affect them in any tangible way.

That has absolutely nothing to do with recent changes in sexual culture, however.

It has far more to do with say, capitalism working to monetize everything. Rather than doing work for yourself you are today encouraged to work for your employer, so you can spend money with someone else to do the things you would normally do for yourself. i.e, you go to work to pay for childcare so you can go to work more, you work more to pay for quick-prepare food so you can spend more time at work.

If there is any force eroding "family values" it is the one attempting to profit from every facet of productive capacity a human can create, rendering the unmonetized exchange of labour for the common good, a thing of the past. In both cases the alternative and traditional right do not act in a manner consistent with their professed goals because they both loving love capitalism. Thus, either they're all idiots, or their professed goals and concerns are not their actual goals and concerns.

In the interests of charity I would have to assume that rather than being actually concerned about familial and social cohesion, they instead just like a social order where they, which is to say, (aspirationally) wealthy white men are in charge. Any other justifications for it are after the fact.

Which, surprise surprise, their idealized 1950's vision of how society should be, would firmly entrench.

Some Guy TT
Aug 30, 2011

While I agree with you in principle as to the causes, I don't agree with you that the alt-right's motivation is rooted in wanting the white man to be in charge again. A person can be wrong as the origins and solutions of their problems without their motivation having to be essentially authoritarian.

Let's not pretend we're dealing with binaries here. Leftist movements absolutely love capitalism when it coordinates with their political beliefs, and if you read alt-right sites a huge sticking with them is how obviously corporate projects (say the Ghostbusters reboot) are being dressed up in the heroic attire of social justice when it's obvious to anyone that the actual motivation is just to make a quick buck.

For another example, Trump has built his entire campaign over attacking all the money in politics. That this is obviously completely at odds with the fact that Trump is himself exactly the kind of person who shoves money into politics does not change the fact that people across all political spectrums are very disgusted with how everything in our society revolves around money.

OwlFancier
Aug 22, 2013

That would depend on what you class as "leftist" because my understanding of the word would preclude any support of capitalism. I appreciate that the term has broad and varied use, however.

The alt right detests social justice full stop, their dislike of its presence in media is not motivated by a dislike of its transparency as a money grab, their dislike of its presence in media is that they hate the entire message, heartfelt or not. If they attack its shallowness in a portrayal it is really only as an attempt to attack those who enjoy it because it is a message they support, even if shallow.

People across the political spectrum do not dislike that society revolves around money, they may at best dislike that they don't have the money, or that money is supporting a thing they hate (like social justice) but imbalanced power is absolutely appealing to a significant chunk of the political spectrum, their complaint is merely that it is unbalanced against them, or at least they perceive it to be so. A true desire to end power inequality would not produce someone who subscribes to the alt right, or the traditional right.

Some Guy TT
Aug 30, 2011

a typical member of the alt-right posted:

People across the political spectrum do not dislike that society revolves around money, they may at best dislike that they don't have the money, or that money is supporting a thing they hate (like the alt-right) but imbalanced power is absolutely appealing to a significant chunk of the political spectrum, their complaint is merely that it is unbalanced against them, or at least they perceive it to be so. A true desire to end power inequality would not produce someone who subscribes to social justice, or the traditional left.

...Not trying to be a dick or anything, I just find it uncanny how eerily similar so much of the rhetoric thrown around is if you flip the terms around.

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

Baronjutter
Dec 31, 2007

"Tiny Trains"

Is there even an exact definition of alt-right? It seems to have blown up into this huge nebulous buzzword that anyone who feels remotely "progressive" can throw at anything or anyone they don't like. I've seen it on SA, in random facebook political arguments. If things get heated enough or someone says the wrong buzzword suddenly the accusations of "alt-right! you're alt-right!!" start to fly. It's seemingly morphing into a meaningless pejorative like "neo-liberal"

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Typo
Aug 19, 2009

Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

Jygallax posted:

A lot of people contextualize the alt right as a sort of younger version of the right that's more open on certain social issues or basic neo-nazis, but a big part of the alt right that's not really discussed as much as it should be is the way that many large segments of the alt right are really this bizarre resurgence of extreme traditionalist Christianity among young people. Some of the scariest alt righters I encounter are bizarre quite young people who slaver at the thought of a Russia-esque repressive Christian theocracy complete with a loss of all the sexual and personal freedom we think of young people wanting today.

/r/nofap immediately comes to mind when I read this lol, they seem every bit as fanatical as that creepy old guy from church who tells kids masturbation is wrong

Typo fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Sep 29, 2016

  • Locked thread