|
semper wifi posted:maybe it's because your opinions are not objectively correct and you can reasonably arrive at a different ones despite education and access to information Richard Spencer posted:Indeed, one wonders if those people are people at all, or instead soulless Golems, animated by some dark power quote:Whites do and other groups don’t. In the banality of normal life and in our most outlandish dreams, in both our Narrative and theirs, to be white is to be a striver, a crusader, an explorer and a conqueror. We build, we produce, we go upward. quote:As Europeans, we are, uniquely, at the center of history. We are, as Hegel recognized, the concept of world history. No one will honor us for losing gracefully. No one mourns the great crimes committed against us. For us, it is conquer or die. This is a unique burden for the white man, that our fate is entirely in our hands. And it is appropriate because within us, within the very blood in our veins as children of the sun lies the potential for greatness. quote:We were not meant to beg for moral validation from some of the most despicable creatures to pollute the soil of this planet. quote:Hail Trump. Hail our people. Hail victory. these are totally views you can reasonably arrive at 
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 13:08 |
|
|
It's generally more fun. They go for humor first and, since they're all self-proclaimed shitheads, it doesn't matter how far they go in pursuit of it. Bot voting something to the top of Reddit or trolling some retard on YouTube is considered entertainment. It's just one more victory in the cultural war they feel is going on. Where as the left online is all infighting and identity politics. Every post feels like you're stepping on somebody's toes. Like it shouldn't be up for debate that New Deal policies and unions are a good thing for our nation but of course somebody here will post that they were inherently racist institutions. Or on Reddit, you'll see stupid Hillary fans trying to overrun /r/Political_Revolution (which has garbage moderation) or circlejerking in /r/Enough_Sanders_Spam. It's demoralizing. You feel like you're a part of a disappearing group. Large portions of the left behave more like the religious right than the liberals of old. (although I guess I'm talking about the alt-right more than the extreme far-right. i'd also guess it's partially a 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' mindset. trump fans get to play both sides against each other which makes bernie democrats feel closer to trump than they do to a third way war hawk like hillary)
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:long winded, divorced from reality articles written by guys with weird rear end names that nobody's ever heard of, how long was the thread about that pro-reparations ta-nehisi coates essay? lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:these are totally views you can reasonably arrive at ok i didnt actually know who that guy was lol i just saw thiel on there
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
I think you're a bit delusional if you honestly believe that OP. Do you think any mainstream discussion platform online that wasn't explicitly created for the purpose of discussing right wing politics had a population that preferred Trump over Hillary? (4chan is the only one I can think of and that's pushing the limits of mainstream, and the worst of it is in their dedicated right wing politics forum.) Can you tell me what sort of places you're talking about? What lead to this belief? If your real question is "why are people on the right allowed to congregate on the internet at all?" then well, I'm not all that interested in the topic, but that's not what it sounds like.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:ok i didnt actually know who that guy was lol i just saw thiel on there oh you mean Theil, the guy spending millions of dollars to try and create a floating libertarian city-state in international waters? i mean, you're talking about Peter “The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women—two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians—have rendered the notion of ‘capitalist democracy’ into an oxymoron.” Thiel, right? The guy who wrote a rambling, incoherent essay in the Wall Street Journal defending the concept of corporate monopoly? That guy who was all like “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.” The openly gay, pro-marijuana immigrant who supports a political party that's openly hostile to all of those things? just making sure we're talking about the same guy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
I like how people are saying the Left is too fractious when Republican office holders are legitimately terrified of being called "RINOs" and being primaried from the right. "No guys, what we need to do is move closer to the center and disagree less. We fall in love, they fall in line." LOL The Dems hold their base in contempt because what are you gonna to do, vote republican?. On the other hand, Republicans are terrified of their base because they can and will primary them to death.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 08:07
|
|
|
All you have to do to understand a guy like Peter Thiel is read his wikipedia. It's not shocking that the anti-authority/angry young republican who created a major business and stumbled into investing in Facebook turned out the way he did. And he'd probably really resent you implying that his sexuality means that he has to support a certain group.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 08:37
|
|
|
his first point might sound "bad" but he's probably not wrong, and the rest of that is (fairly earned) billionaire i'm-smarter-than-everyone arrogance. also the thing about gay=democrat always makes me laugh, why is it such a shock that there exist gays/stoners who care about things other than the advancement of those agendas? none of his positions are unreasonable. also lol i dont think the republican party is anti legal immigration from germany.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:. also the thing about gay=democrat always makes me laugh, why is it such a shock that there exist gays/stoners who care about things other than the advancement of those agendas? Because the eventual result of the party they support getting their way is recriminilization of homosexuals? Granted people like Thiel wouldn't have been at risk even two hundred years ago. Oscar Wilde only got targeted because he pissed off another rich person, after all. There's a special level of disgust humans have for people who actively attempt to gently caress over their own kind for no other reason than they themselves won't have to suffer. A Nazi Jew-catcher is evil, but a Jew who sold other Jews to Nazi's is worse. Pretending this is some kind of bigotry in and of itself is stupid, and frankly probably not actually a position anyone who espouses it holds. They're just hoping that someone else buys it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 09:05
|
|
|
I think one big takeaway from 11/8 is that internet comment sections are not significantly divorced from reality. The idea that people will say things online that they wouldn't say in real life or that they don't actually believe them is an outdated myth. Facebook in particular has bridged the gap nicely between a person's "online opinions" and their real identity. The answer might be as simple as "there are a lot of far-right minded people in the US."
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 09:16
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:All you have to do to understand a guy like Peter Thiel is read his wikipedia. It's not shocking that the anti-authority/angry young republican who created a major business and stumbled into investing in Facebook turned out the way he did. And he'd probably really resent you implying that his sexuality means that he has to support a certain group. In what way is Peter Theil anti-authority? Also, should people who belong to a group by birth not oppose a political force overtly trying to destroy that group?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
I think we got a generation where being "edgy" was equated with being conservative. Just being bigoted was drilled into everyone's head as being "subversive" and counterculture until totally unsurprisingly people took the message, dropped the very thin level of "ironic" that shielded 'comedy" and just said "no, that is pretty much right". Like years and years of "blacks steal stuff! just kidding guys, the joke is that I'm not racist" just turned into the message of "black people steal stuff" mixed with "also THEY don't let you say that, so fight back". To a lot of people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Blind Pineapple posted:The idea that people will say things online that they wouldn't say in real life or that they don't actually believe them is an outdated myth. Facebook in particular has bridged the gap nicely between a person's "online opinions" and their real identity. The answer might be as simple as "there are a lot of far-right minded people in the US." They're also very attuned to the fact that anonymity means power and safety, which gives them several advantages in an Internet that's been shifting away from anonymity largely due to Facebook. OneEightHundred fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:This made me realize something else; the internet right is intolerant as all hell. They'll happily harass somebody offline and will not let up when they decide to hate somebody. If the alt right gets you in their crosshairs your best bet is to just disconnect and go offline. They are relentless. You are brutally stupid. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
lmao The "far right" doesn't dominate the internet OP. Stop reading the Huffington Post. A Deacon fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
SunAndSpring posted:Would I be right in saying that standard corporate apathy to anything that doesn't make them short-term profits is another factor in this? Google, Twitter, and Facebook are noted for being reluctant to do anything about making sure that fascists get removed from their site unless they have considerable monetary pressure to do so. poo poo, Google banning anyone on YouTube associated with the alt-right alone would be a good way to prevent these ideals from spreading. Yet, I've reported dozens of neo-Nazi channels and I don't think a single one has been removed despite them being pretty obviously National Socialists. Hell, one even had swastikas all over his drat background and he's still kicking, last I checked. Social media tech companies recently just banned a lot of "alt-right" accounts. Now Facebook is doing this thing where anyone can label something "fake news." Google, Facebook, and Twitter were pretty open about supporting Hillary Clinton as well. A Deacon fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Lumpy the Cook posted:You are brutally stupid.  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 19:18
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:I think you're a bit delusional if you honestly believe that OP. Do you think any mainstream discussion platform online that wasn't explicitly created for the purpose of discussing right wing politics had a population that preferred Trump over Hillary? (4chan is the only one I can think of and that's pushing the limits of mainstream, and the worst of it is in their dedicated right wing politics forum.) Can you tell me what sort of places you're talking about? What lead to this belief? Pretty much. Right-leaning platforms are a tiny minority. They just seem common because left-leaning outlets will breathlessly repeat anything they say. Take the KKK. They have about 5,000 members and 71,300,000 google results. Or "Sad Puppies" Hugo thing. The most recent Hugos had 3,130 votes. But there are 36,200 google pages talking about the conservative attempt to win.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
The far right disavows nothing as much as "identity politics," so any venue which provides anonymity and doesn't have an effective method of moderating content or banning bigoted speech is going to be dominated by the right. If somebody can call someone a slur word without losing access to the platform, then 10 people posting it often enough and repeatedly is enough to make a lot of the left walk away, disgusted. I don't really read Reddit but I understand they suffered some problems because of it, Twitter is only just starting to understand the issues around it and starting to ban some of the loudest offenders. I used to admin on the largest Facebook feminist group and for awhile, I was getting death threats once a week, because people registered accounts with names like "Uncle Sam" and "Smooth McGroove." Some of them openly said they registered under pseudonyms so that they could talk about how women didn't belong in the military without being disciplined. At the time, you actually couldn't ban people from large groups more quickly than they could register a new account, because there was a glitch with large member lists that caused a delay in them showing up as having "joined," so it took literally days before you could ban anyone. I have mixed feelings about the way Facebook cracks down on forcing people to use their real names, but once it started the trolls basically vanished, although I suddenly got a lot of angry messages accusing me of censoring free speech by people who wanted to post the feminism was a conspiracy started by the Rockefellers. Once anonymity is involved, the only method of avoiding a flood of "Show your boobs!" or a bunch of racist or transphobic bullshit is moderation that isn't afraid of banning people for using slurs or engaging in harassment, or else the left is inevitably going to leave. There are concrete examples of this on this very forum.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Forceholy posted:This is kind of true. 75% of Freshmen in High School finish in four years, if at all and only 30% of the US population above the age of 25 have a Bachelor's degree of any kind. However, that doesn't explain how educated elites like Richard Spencer and Peter Thiel can have extremist right-wing beliefs. Why not? Educated people can be racist or selfish too. There are plenty of Nobel Prize-winning scientists who fell into crackpot horseshit like UFOs or homeopathy afterward. People like to think that being intelligent and educated means they're too smart to trick, but in reality it often just means they're too self-assured to accept the possibility that they might have been swindled by an experienced fraudster.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
Related: I have to roll my eyes a little at all the thinkpieces which accuse society at large of isolating themselves in echo chambers (there have been a great many this election cycle), because there is just a natural difference in the way discussion works when "Racism and sexism are real and very prevalent" is a statement that somehow becomes political. People very justifiably want to extract themselves from rhetoric like "They're bringing crime, they're bringing rapists," entirely. It's not as if you need to read the writing of people who agree with those kinds of sentiments to understand them, and there is a point at which arguing or conversing with people who believe it isn't actually helpful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:Once anonymity is involved, the only method of avoiding a flood of "Show your boobs!" or a bunch of racist or transphobic bullshit is moderation that isn't afraid of banning people for using slurs or engaging in harassment, or else the left is inevitably going to leave. There are concrete examples of this on this very forum. This doesn't fit with the numbers I've seen. Something Awful is heavily moderated. It's more male than the internet average: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/somethingawful.com 4chan is anonymous. It's more female than the internet average: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/4chan.org It doesn't seem as simple as women are liberal, anonymity drives them away. Unless you're saying that liberals are driven away by hostile places, even if they're not the ones being attacked?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:Pretty much. Right-leaning platforms are a tiny minority. This is it right here. Just look at Richard Spencer. He did a nazi salute with a loving martini and it got wall-to-wall worldwide coverage for a week. His organization doesn't even have 100 members. Don't tell me these people aren't consciously using the idiocy of the leftist media to promote their own platforms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:It doesn't seem as simple as women are liberal, anonymity drives them away. Unless you're saying that liberals are driven away by hostile places, even if they're not the ones being attacked? I don't see where anyone was talking about gender makeup having anything to do with anything. What point are you trying to address? Anecdotally, liberals are certainly driven away from hostile places regardless of the group being attacked. As a person with empathy for other people, I don't want to hang around a community that allows or encourages racism, misogyny or homophobia, even though I'm a straight white guy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
A Deacon posted:This is it right here. Just look at Richard Spencer. He did a nazi salute with a loving martini and it got wall-to-wall worldwide coverage for a week. His organization doesn't even have 100 members. Don't tell me these people aren't consciously using the idiocy of the leftist media to promote their own platforms. Yes. And the key thing to understand is that ~HuffPo~ (and same for basically all other internet news sites) isn't a liberal outlet, it's an outlet that makes money off liberals and generating hype because some basically irrelevant dick said a racism is good business even though it unnecessarily magnifies the message. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:This doesn't fit with the numbers I've seen. I am saying that the left identifies more with "identity politics" than the right, and that anonymity and a lack of moderation increases the chances that identities (in respect to privilege metrics) are not respected. On Something Awful specifically, I would hesitate to call GBS "heavily moderated" anymore, since the direct attempt to decrease the level of moderation, which is why the culture has shifted significantly toward the right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:
Somethingawful is such a weird example to use though. It's toned down in the last few years but somethingawful was all about bigotry said 'ironically" for a long long time, Like it wasn't censored, it was encouraged to say that stuff, but you had to promise you didn't mean it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
At least on the social media that I have seen, it's because the right and alt-right are generally left alone. People imagine tumblr to be a safe space but there's plenty of nazis and other hate groups with their own insular community even there, and any figure with enough followers will regularly get anonymous hate mail. The "solution" would be to start demanding that websites get these people banned (at least the most hateful ones) but most websites run on ad views so there's not a lot of power that people have.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Ignoring for a second that Alexa rankings are as accurate as divining a pile of dogshit, 4chan skewing more female does not mean the entire site is more female - I've met more /a/ and /x/ browsing women in the wild than /b/ and /pol/, for perhaps obvious reasons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Yes. And the key thing to understand is that ~HuffPo~ (and same for basically all other internet news sites) isn't a liberal outlet, it's an outlet that makes money off liberals and generating hype because some basically irrelevant dick said a racism is good business even though it unnecessarily magnifies the message. I do also agree that Culture Wars nonsense ("See what got this virtually irrelevant Brady Bunch star banned from her unheard of talk show - wow, racist much?") magnifies the presence of some of the more outright bigoted ideologies, eschewing a more nuanced discussion, but I don't think this is exactly new, or even as new as the internet. It's not like The Daily Mirror didn't exist before then. It's possible the internet has contributed to the increased polarization of the Culture Wars, but I actually think television is a bigger contributor to that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:I used to admin on the largest Facebook feminist group and for awhile, I was getting death threats once a week, because people registered accounts with names like "Uncle Sam" and "Smooth McGroove." Some of them openly said they registered under pseudonyms so that they could talk about how women didn't belong in the military without being disciplined. At the time, you actually couldn't ban people from large groups more quickly than they could register a new account, because there was a glitch with large member lists that caused a delay in them showing up as having "joined," so it took literally days before you could ban anyone. I have mixed feelings about the way Facebook cracks down on forcing people to use their real names, but once it started the trolls basically vanished, although I suddenly got a lot of angry messages accusing me of censoring free speech by people who wanted to post the feminism was a conspiracy started by the Rockefellers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Death Bot posted:At least on the social media that I have seen, it's because the right and alt-right are generally left alone. People imagine tumblr to be a safe space but there's plenty of nazis and other hate groups with their own insular community even there, and any figure with enough followers will regularly get anonymous hate mail. My most followed post on Tumblr by far (mine was always pretty low key and I stopped posting awhile ago) was one in which a Men's Rights Activist took offense and about a dozen more piled on, some of them literal self-identified Nazis. Tumblr is not some leftist utopia (or dystopia, depending on whose side you're on), and it's extremely weird to me that it has this weird reputation for that. It hink it's because the way you can control the content you see and the extensive tagging creates a lot of subcultures, and one of them is, quite naturally, the far left.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
When I was in college 13-14 years ago, someone started a Political Discussion listserv on the university's email. It started fairly innocuous but eventually the discussions got really ugly, especially since College Republicans (and college leftists) were poo poo bags then as now. And when it got ugly, it eventually turned into things like cars being keyed and threats being made. The university pulled the plug on the listserv after about a year and a half. This was a discussion forum where no one was anonymous and you could use anybody's email to look up their address in the campus directory. The internet is not the way it is because of anonymity. It's even worse without anonymity. People do not modify their behavior when their names are visible, that makes it even more personal. FuturePastNow fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:In a universe where the far right were actually dominant on the internet, this story would be about how it took facebook a few days to ban feminists from your group. You are not describing a dominant group. It's not that the group was dominant i terms of their numbers, to be clear. They were, and I really mean this, maybe 20 people in a group of thousands. It was that they posted literally 100s of times a day, in every thread we posted, such that you could no longer read the content we normally posted. At one point, somebody registered 3-4 accounts to just Longcat.jpg in every discussion until we agreed to engage with points he had pulled from angryharry.com. It was dominant in that it shut down all discussion for a couple of days until the technology for Facebook caught up and I could boot them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:
I respect your experience here, but the moment people had to post with their real names in the Feminist Group, things changed. There was one individual posting under a pseudonym who followed a rape victim around demanding that, if she were really raped, she would tell her whole story. This was back when Facebook required a .edu address, and he would not have posted what he did otherwise, as openly stated by him, for fear of retaliation from university administration. There's a discussion to be had about what's too far in terms of "outrage culture," maybe, which could be related to the left turning against itself, vendettas, doxxing, and the like, but having your identity tied to what your write does make a lot of people adjust what they say - at the very least, they aren't flat-out going to drop the N-word if they're students or if they work for a corporation which has a brand to maintain.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:In a universe where the far right were actually dominant on the internet, this story would be about how it took facebook a few days to ban feminists from your group. You are not describing a dominant group. A voice can be dominant without being the most numerically represented voice. In fact that is pretty much "white dudes: the summary"
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:I respect your experience here, but the moment people had to post with their real names in the Feminist Group, things changed. There was one individual posting under a pseudonym who followed a rape victim around demanding that, if she were really raped, she would tell her whole story. This was back when Facebook required a .edu address, and he would not have posted what he did otherwise, as openly stated by him, for fear of retaliation from university administration. There's a discussion to be had about what's too far in terms of "outrage culture," maybe, which could be related to the left turning against itself, vendettas, doxxing, and the like, but having your identity tied to what your write does make a lot of people adjust what they say - at the very least, they aren't flat-out going to drop the N-word if they're students or if they work for a corporation which has a brand to maintain. The real-name seems less important than an inability to re-register after a ban.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:It's not that the group was dominant i terms of their numbers, to be clear. They were, and I really mean this, maybe 20 people in a group of thousands. It was that they posted literally 100s of times a day, in every thread we posted, such that you could no longer read the content we normally posted. At one point, somebody registered 3-4 accounts to just Longcat.jpg in every discussion until we agreed to engage with points he had pulled from angryharry.com. It was dominant in that it shut down all discussion for a couple of days until the technology for Facebook caught up and I could boot them. That's because jobless basement dwellers with lovely opinions and a misplaced sense of priority are the only people with the time and inclination to literally stay up six nights in a row to call someone an idiot on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 13:08 |
|
|
falcon2424 posted:The real-name seems less important than an inability to re-register after a ban. I think they're both important and related. "Smooth McGroove" re-registered constantly under fake names. He registered as dead dictators from the Congo, as a fake Islamic terrorist, as a woman who loved The Vagina Monologues and raping teenagers, and those are just the ones I can remember. If he'd had to constantly re-register under his real name: 1) it would have been easy enough to deny his registration and 2) even if he could have re-registered under his real name, he couldn't have constructed false identities specifically designed to sow discord by demanding respect for his "culture." I don't think anonymity is a bad thing, for reference, I just think that one of the costs of anonymity is that people who would otherwise keep more hateful sentiments to themselves feel vindicated in expressing it, and that it makes it very easy to be a concern troll. e: blowfish posted:That's because jobless basement dwellers with lovely opinions and a misplaced sense of priority are the only people with the time and inclination to literally stay up six nights in a row to call someone an idiot on the internet. Well, yes. But if "dominant" means "taking up the bulk of discussion," then, welp...
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 20:34
|
|