• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Attention: "alt right" is no longer politically correct

We had to stop calling them white nationalists, white supremacists, fascists, Nazis, etc and start calling them "alt right."

Well now alt right isn't they politically correct term for them anymore.

Henceforth, they now want you to use three term "identitarianism." No, seriously, that's the word you need to use now in order to avoid triggering the kind of people who use phrases like "social justice warrior" or "political correctness."

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch...ants-ditch-alt-right-identitarianism—-another

Is anyone else getting sick of dancing on eggshells around these fragile little flowers?

I suspect that they will sully any label that applies to them, even one that they apply themselves. They could call themselves "daisies" and in no time that label would be considered to be profane.

"Indentitrian" does make some sense, racism is the original and most vile form of identity politics. Not to mention that nationalism and xenophobia are second and third on that list. The alternative right never fit, it implies that the right doesn't already incorporate large amounts of racism, nationalism and xenophobia in their philosophy and weapons.
 
From this article:

I've had people ask me if Identity Evropa is going to officially break away from the ‘alt-right’ now. I don't exactly know what that would entail given that the ‘alt-right’ isn't you know an official membership organization and so forth. We do like the term ‘identitarian,’ we feel like that is the most specific and defining term for our organization and what we're doing so we'll probably continue to identify as ‘identitarian.’

I'll make it even simpler for you. You're all a pack of cunts. And if this hurts your feelings I apologise. I'm fresh out of fucks to give and I forgot to ask for any for Christmas.
 
Alt-right started as an internet troll term...
No it did not. I remember the expression being introduced the same way the Wikipedia tells it:

White supremacist Richard Spencer initially promoted the term in 2010 in reference to a movement centered on white nationalism and did so, according to the Associated Press, to disguise overt racism, white supremacism, neo-fascism and neo-Nazism.
Link


Does anyone think for a moment that Richard Spencer intended it to be a troll term?

Even most of the ordinary loons and bigots decided to abandon the term when they saw Spencer's "Seig Heil" speech and said "Well, no, even I'm not going that far." Thus the term "Alt-Lite", populated by intellectuals like...Mike Cernovich.

Wanna know one term that's termed into a troll term to lump ordinary progressive folk in with apologists for extreme islamism?

"Regressive Leftist".
 
Wanna know one term that's termed into a troll term to lump ordinary progressive folk in with apologists for extreme islamism?

"Regressive Leftist".
Who the fuck came up with that one? Can't have been anyone from the alt-right. Way too many syllables.

And the term would not have to turn much to become a troll term. "Regressive" is not exactly a word of praise.
 
Wanna know one term that's termed into a troll term to lump ordinary progressive folk in with apologists for extreme islamism?

"Regressive Leftist".
Who the fuck came up with that one? Can't have been anyone from the alt-right. Way too many syllables.

And the term would not have to turn much to become a troll term. "Regressive" is not exactly a word of praise.

It was originally created by a Islamist extremist-turned anti-extremist activist. It originally referred to atheists who refused to criticize Islam, as well as progressives who refuse to criticize any form of Islam, regardless of it's extremism. Nowadays it sits alongside "SJW" and "virtue signaling" as pointless insults.

Much like "trigger" used to mean "set off a person's PTSD", but is a right-wing substitute for "U Mad?"
 
No it did not. I remember the expression being introduced the same way the Wikipedia tells it:

Link


Does anyone think for a moment that Richard Spencer intended it to be a troll term?

Even most of the ordinary loons and bigots decided to abandon the term when they saw Spencer's "Seig Heil" speech and said "Well, no, even I'm not going that far." Thus the term "Alt-Lite", populated by intellectuals like...Mike Cernovich.

Wanna know one term that's termed into a troll term to lump ordinary progressive folk in with apologists for extreme islamism?

"Regressive Leftist".

"Regressive left" is just the racist term for someone who is not a racist. It's no different from "race traitor" or "cuck."
 
Wanna know one term that's termed into a troll term to lump ordinary progressive folk in with apologists for extreme islamism?

"Regressive Leftist".

I see what you are saying, but you introduce a bigger problem by marking this as a red flag. There really is a regressive left, that goes against progressive liberalism, and we do need a name to identify it and distinguish it from the progressive left. If the regressives and progressives can be lumped together, it becomes easier for those on the right to dismiss the left and draw centrists rightward.
 
Wanna know one term that's termed into a troll term to lump ordinary progressive folk in with apologists for extreme islamism?

"Regressive Leftist".
I see what you are saying, but you introduce a bigger problem by marking this as a red flag. There really is a regressive left, that goes against progressive liberalism, and we do need a name to identify it and distinguish it from the progressive left. If the regressives and progressives can be lumped together, it becomes easier for those on the right to dismiss the left and draw centrists rightward.

Good point, but the manner right wingers use the term "regressive leftist" makes it tautologous. To them all leftists are regressive because they are leftists. Mumbles's post recognises that there are progressive and regressive (for want of a better adjective) leftists. "...to lump ordinary progressive folk in with..." makes that abundantly clear.
 
Hermit said:
Good point, but the manner right wingers use the term "regressive leftist" makes it tautologous. To them all leftists are regressive because they are leftists.

So what to do? Abandon the word and replace it with another that they will try to do the same to or own it and clarify it? The right makes "librul' into a curse word, and we own that one and take it back.
 
What I don't understand is that we are all supposed to be liberals in terms of being the great grandchildren of the Enlightenment, the age of reason?

And aren't we all supposed to be social justice warriors, just disagreeing on how to best accomplish the goal of spreading the wealth, one side relying on the fantasy of a truly free, self-regulating market for labor and the other side believing that the government has to help the market achieve social justice because the overwhelming evidence of two millennia is capitalism has a natural bias for over rewarding capitalists and the rentiers and under rewarding labor and creativity?

And aren't we all agreed that we need progress to move the human condition forward, we just disagree, once again, on how to accomplish that, with one side believing that we have to move backwards to simpler, less chaotic times and to rely on and to enable the individual to take us forward and the other side believing that the progress of the last two hundred years has been made by the collective actions of people working together and that in the future progress depends on a continuation of collective actions to progress to an ever more complex world?

In short, aren't we all liberals, social justice warriors and progressives, just disagreeing on the basic question of how?
 
Wanna know one term that's termed into a troll term to lump ordinary progressive folk in with apologists for extreme islamism?

"Regressive Leftist".
I see what you are saying, but you introduce a bigger problem by marking this as a red flag. There really is a regressive left, that goes against progressive liberalism, and we do need a name to identify it and distinguish it from the progressive left. If the regressives and progressives can be lumped together, it becomes easier for those on the right to dismiss the left and draw centrists rightward.

Good point, but the manner right wingers use the term "regressive leftist" makes it tautologous. To them all leftists are regressive because they are leftists. Mumbles's post recognises that there are progressive and regressive (for want of a better adjective) leftists. "...to lump ordinary progressive folk in with..." makes that abundantly clear.

To be clear - I recognize that there *are* people on the left that refuse to criticize Islam in particular, mostly because they feel that it will lump them in with the wild-eyed clowns on the right ranting about how "sharia law" has taken over some American state or European country. The use of "regressive left" in the David Rubin "Lefties are obsessed with Identity Politics an we need to move away from that, now here's Stefan Molyneaux to discuss Race and IQ, and how Star Wars is about white genocide." sense is ridiculous on it's face - the hypocrisy isn't even thinly veiled, and it only serves to clearly show that "identity politics" means "concerned with people who aren't white men."

- - - Updated - - -

What I don't understand is that we are all supposed to be liberals in terms of being the great grandchildren of the Enlightenment, the age of reason?

And aren't we all supposed to be social justice warriors, just disagreeing on how to best accomplish the goal of spreading the wealth, one side relying on the fantasy of a truly free, self-regulating market for labor and the other side believing that the government has to help the market achieve social justice because the overwhelming evidence of two millennia is capitalism has a natural bias for over rewarding capitalists and the rentiers and under rewarding labor and creativity?

And aren't we all agreed that we need progress to move the human condition forward, we just disagree, once again, on how to accomplish that, with one side believing that we have to move backwards to simpler, less chaotic times and to rely on and to enable the individual to take us forward and the other side believing that the progress of the last two hundred years has been made by the collective actions of people working together and that in the future progress depends on a continuation of collective actions to progress to an ever more complex world?

In short, aren't we all liberals, social justice warriors and progressives, just disagreeing on the basic question of how?

*glances at Dolt45's administration*

No, we don't all agree on that.
 
"identity politics" means "concerned with people who aren't white men."

I like the word "Identity Politics" because it seems descriptive, but I would say it applies just as much to anybody who obsesses over group identities over merit or individualism, which happens frequently on both the left and the right. What word would you find more apt for describing this? I suppose we could just say "prejudice". Does that work any better? Can we say racism when Black Lives Matter people say they don't want white people at an event? Or are we going to be stuck with the "black people can't be racist" trope?

And what do we call it if you are not excluding or being mean to somebody but merely regarding them by the group identity you assigned them to, like if you tell me I'm asian so I must like rice and be good at math? Or give extra attention to women entering the STEM fields, not because you care about them individually or like or dislike women, but because you want the numbers up for your school's image?

And what do you call it when people confuse criticism of Israel with anti-semitism, or criticism of Islam with islamophobia? That also seems to fall into "identity politics" doesn't it? You can completely abhor everything about the religion of Islam without hating Muslims. Its another category error, only this time between groups rather then a confusion of an individual for a representative of a grouping.
 
"identity politics" means "concerned with people who aren't white men."

I like the word "Identity Politics" because it seems descriptive, but I would say it applies just as much to anybody who obsesses over group identities over merit or individualism, which happens frequently on both the left and the right. What word would you find more apt for describing this? I suppose we could just say "prejudice". Does that work any better? Can we say racism when Black Lives Matter people say they don't want white people at an event? Or are we going to be stuck with the "black people can't be racist" trope?

And what do we call it if you are not excluding or being mean to somebody but merely regarding them by the group identity you assigned them to, like if you tell me I'm asian so I must like rice and be good at math? Or give extra attention to women entering the STEM fields, not because you care about them individually or like or dislike women, but because you want the numbers up for your school's image?

And what do you call it when people confuse criticism of Israel with anti-semitism, or criticism of Islam with islamophobia? That also seems to fall into "identity politics" doesn't it? You can completely abhor everything about the religion of Islam without hating Muslims. Its another category error, only this time between groups rather then a confusion of an individual for a representative of a grouping.

Putting aside the false assertions and strawmen, none of this describes how the phrase is commonly used. BLM isn't "Identity politics" because they ban white people from events (which they very rarely do), but because they're concerned with how society perceives black people in particular. People who want equal opportunity practice "Identity politics", white supremacists do not, according to the common use.
 
"identity politics" means "concerned with people who aren't white men."

I like the word "Identity Politics" because it seems descriptive, but I would say it applies just as much to anybody who obsesses over group identities over merit or individualism, which happens frequently on both the left and the right. What word would you find more apt for describing this? I suppose we could just say "prejudice". Does that work any better? Can we say racism when Black Lives Matter people say they don't want white people at an event? Or are we going to be stuck with the "black people can't be racist" trope?

And what do we call it if you are not excluding or being mean to somebody but merely regarding them by the group identity you assigned them to, like if you tell me I'm asian so I must like rice and be good at math? Or give extra attention to women entering the STEM fields, not because you care about them individually or like or dislike women, but because you want the numbers up for your school's image?

And what do you call it when people confuse criticism of Israel with anti-semitism, or criticism of Islam with islamophobia? That also seems to fall into "identity politics" doesn't it? You can completely abhor everything about the religion of Islam without hating Muslims. Its another category error, only this time between groups rather then a confusion of an individual for a representative of a grouping.

Identity politics is sometimes necessary since we must acknowledge that the the whites has practicized an extreme ”identity politic” for centuties and thus fucked everything up. Until that and the results of it is corrected for we have to live with some politics that are not identity agnostic.
 
People who want equal opportunity practice "Identity politics", white supremacists do not, according to the common use.

I don't think that makes sense. I think identity politics is politics of group identity, and that definitely includes white supremacists. Take the word back.

Or if you deem the word damaged beyond repair, then what word do you use instead? Category errors of this type are happening a lot and we need a neutral word for them that applies regardless of the group involved.

Let's drop the identity politics in defining identity politics..... Politics of identity happens in and to all groups. Hmm should I say politics of identity? Group politics? Or just plain prejudice?

Oh and I didn't mean BLM routinely excludes white supporters (though it has happened), I was just looking for an example of black on white racism and had just seen a video reporting on such an instance with BLM. Can we call it racism? Or has the word racism become racist (only applying to white people)? And if we can't use racism or identity politics, then what should we call it?
 
People who want equal opportunity practice "Identity politics", white supremacists do not, according to the common use.

I don't think that makes sense. I think identity politics is politics of group identity, and that definitely includes white supremacists. Take the word back.

Or if you deem the word damaged beyond repair, then what word do you use instead? Category errors of this type are happening a lot and we need a neutral word for them that applies regardless of the group involved.

Let's drop the identity politics in defining identity politics..... Politics of identity happens in and to all groups. Hmm should I say politics of identity? Group politics? Or just plain prejudice?

Oh and I didn't mean BLM routinely excludes white supporters (though it has happened), I was just looking for an example of black on white racism and had just seen a video reporting on such an instance with BLM. Can we call it racism? Or has the word racism become racist (only applying to white people)? And if we can't use racism or identity politics, then what should we call it?

You were looking for an example of black on white racism and the example you chose were people who are begging for their lives?

Huh.

So an African-American begging to not be murdered is exactly as bad as a white person demanding that minorites be treated as less than white people?

Thanks for being so honest about what you are. It's refreshing after seeing so many racists deny their obvious racism as if no one else would notice.

But for the record, there are no examples of black on white racism because there is no history of systemic racism by African-Americans against white people. You aren't going to be re-traumatized by anything an African-American says or does. Nothing an African-American can ever do to you will reinforce the unspoken assumption by society that you are inherently less than African-Americans.
 
These are black racists, but it is bundled up in a weird religious sect:

 
People who want equal opportunity practice "Identity politics", white supremacists do not, according to the common use.

I don't think that makes sense. I think identity politics is politics of group identity, and that definitely includes white supremacists. Take the word back.

Or if you deem the word damaged beyond repair, then what word do you use instead? Category errors of this type are happening a lot and we need a neutral word for them that applies regardless of the group involved.

Let's drop the identity politics in defining identity politics..... Politics of identity happens in and to all groups. Hmm should I say politics of identity? Group politics? Or just plain prejudice?

Oh and I didn't mean BLM routinely excludes white supporters (though it has happened), I was just looking for an example of black on white racism and had just seen a video reporting on such an instance with BLM. Can we call it racism? Or has the word racism become racist (only applying to white people)? And if we can't use racism or identity politics, then what should we call it?

You were looking for an example of black on white racism and the example you chose were people who are begging for their lives?

Huh.

So an African-American begging to not be murdered is exactly as bad as a white person demanding that minorites be treated as less than white people?

Thanks for being so honest about what you are. It's refreshing after seeing so many racists deny their obvious racism as if no one else would notice.

But for the record, there are no examples of black on white racism because there is no history of systemic racism by African-Americans against white people. You aren't going to be re-traumatized by anything an African-American says or does. Nothing an African-American can ever do to you will reinforce the unspoken assumption by society that you are inherently less than African-Americans.

Ah, yes, that Orwellian practice of changing the commonly understood definition of words to advance a political agenda. In any case, is this what you're looking for?

Metro derailed by culture of complacence, incompetence, lack of diversity

Ninety-seven percent of the bus and train operators at the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority are black, with only six white women out of more than 3,000 drivers, according to Metro documents — a lack of diversity at one of the region’s largest employers that has led to an acknowledgment of failure in affirmative-action documents and spawned a series of lawsuits.

It is a culture in which a white male engineer near completion of a Ph.D. was passed over for a management position in favor of a black man who was barely literate, multiple staffers said.

Even in entry-level occupations typically dominated by Hispanics, there are virtually none at Metro. Only one laborer out of 67 is Hispanic; of 540 landscapers, carpenters and cleaners, only 22 are Hispanic. In the national capital region, Hispanics make up 13 percent of adults and blacks comprise 25 percent; white women constitute 29 percent.

“The odds of such a disparity occurring by chance are statistically infinitesimal,” Ronald A. Schmidt, a lawyer representing 12 white women exploring a class-action lawsuit, wrote in a 2003 letter. “There appears to be an entrenched network of African-American employees at WMATA that is able to steer jobs, promotion, training and other career enhancing benefit to persons of their own racial or ethnic group.”

Of a dozen senior supervisors overseeing the rail division in 2007, 10 were black and two were white, and five black supervisors, all with less than a year of tenure in the position, were paid more than both whites, who had more seniority — one with 20 years — personnel records obtained by The Times show.

So there's history of systematic racism by Blacks against Whites (and Hispanics). Please drop the identity politics bullshit.
 
You were looking for an example of black on white racism and the example you chose were people who are begging for their lives?

No. I chose a video I had just seen about BLM not begging for their lives, but asking white people not to come support them, because white people are white.

So an African-American begging to not be murdered is exactly as bad as a white person demanding that minorites be treated as less than white people?

Nobody said anything about being "exactly as bad".

Is there anything I could say that you won't read racism into and apply your prejudice and racism in calling me a racist?

But for the record, there are no examples of black on white racism because there is no history of systemic racism by African-Americans against white people.

So that answers my question. You do want to be racist about racism. So as I asked above, what should we call it when black people are prejudiced against white people and mistreat them because they are white people?

Perhaps you missed that question the first time in your rush to judgment of my character. For the record, I don't care what you think of my character. It isn't relevant. Even were i what you want to believe I am, that doesn't make anything I write any less valid.
 
Back
Top Bottom