Hacker News Reader

Comment by nostromo | Hacker News Reader

I don't see "alt-right" as being so similar to "far-right" based on my limited exposure.

I've watched some debates with Milo as well as Gavin Mcinnes. They are definitely not what most Americans would call "far-right" -- in that they aren't anti-gay, aren't anti-drugs, aren't socially conservative, and aren't particularly hawkish. They seem to dislike Republicans like Paul Ryan almost as much as Nancy Pelosi.

Milo recently did a profanity-laden pro-Trump rally dressed in drag. That's the "alt" -- it's quite different than what a person would typically call Republican.

View on HN

I can hardly call myself an expert on the "alt right" either, but the difference is in use of term.

When leftists think "Right wing" in the US think of the Christian theocracy. However, conservatism is only one sect of the right. The right is also reactionary, and the alt-right is definitely reactionary. I'd argue the alt-right fits nicely into Wikipedia's definition of far-right politics [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics

Edited because my sarcastic use of tone didn't really have a place in the discussion.

That's why it's "alt-right" - because the politics of the alt-right stem from a different source than the far-right theocratic conservatism.

The alt-right are younger neo-reactionaries who are tired of political correctness, tired of the media narrative.

> When leftists think "Right wing" in the US think of the Christian theocracy

Because the republicans have been using that as a very loud base for a long time now.

They have played Christians for a long time, but I suspect they have also over-played their hand, and are losing that support base, mostly via war, corruption, and generally taking the Christians for granted while completely disregarding their core issues, justice, mercy, compassion, &c.

They're all crap labels. They contain no knowledge. What confused people call "liberals" aren't so about firearms and markets. "Liberal" is from the latin word for "freedom".

SJWs are not liberal. They don't want free speech. CA is not a liberal state by looking at its taxes and firearms laws. These are authoritarian ideas.

Rectification of names... Labels and Knowledge are totally independent things.

Freedom can include the freedom from harasment, which is a curtailing of speech. That's a liberal idea. The other alternative is 'let people say anything they want and they can just learn to deal with it', which doesn't work with e.g. death threats, harassment, etc. That's why one freedom might be more important than another.

People who claim it's a negative are usually upset that they can't attack, belittle, or harass other people for their own amusement, I've found.

The ACLU disagrees with you. You can't have freedom of speech and then decide to put an asterisk on it. That's the paradox of tolerance.

We have laws on harassment and threats. You don't get to suppress people's speech even if they are idiots.

That's a real liberal position.

Believing that people that respect that idea are bullies is both unfounded and unfair.

> People who claim it's a negative are usually upset that they can't attack, belittle, or harass other people for their own amusement, I've found.

You say, as you attack and belittle people you disagree with...

(...not only people who behave that way, but everyone who thinks censorship is a negative.)

>> Freedom can include the freedom from harasment

yeah, War is Peace

or, as they taught is in Scientific Communism classes, "Freedom is a conscientious necessity"

> Freedom can include the freedom from harasment

I would argue that it can't. Freedom is the freedom to do things. "Freedom from x" is just another way of saying "you're not allowed to do x".

Problems arise because the world is inhabited by many humans.

One man's freedom may be another man's prison.

There are other socially liberal issues outside of gay rights and drugs. On some of those counts Gavin is very very conservative (for example he is very very sexist).

Let me correct you. I am strongly alt-right. Milo and Gavin are definitely NOT ideological compatriots.

"alt-right" is mostly just a term used by the Clinton campaign to label their political opponents as weirdos. I don't think I heard anyone using it before Clinton did. I suppose Richard Spencer used it.

Before the 2016 election, the term was "classical liberal". I don't know about Milo, but at least Alex Jones has described himself as a liberal.

This is the "alt-right" and it didn't come from Clinton.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/16/translator-migran...

frontpage of breitbart today.

This article is racist af, and the comments are even worse.

This article basically has no source, and is a bunch of anecdotal race war bullshit. The only "facts" are so lacking in context that they are meaningless. Like number of total attacks for example....

I'm not a Breitbart reader but, after reading your comment, clicked through your link to see what was what.

To claim that it has "basically no source" is not true. The Breitbart piece links to the German-language article on which it is based. I'll link it here again for you:

http://kath.net/news/57457

The translator whose statements are featured in both the Brietbart piece and the original German article is allegedly a Christian Eritrean woman who has requested anonymity because she fears reprisals from the Islamic asylum claimants with whom her work requires that she interact.

Other people quoted in the German article are indeed identified by name.

Disclaimer: I am not vouching for the veracity of their statements, the integrity of the original German-language publication, or of Brietbart.

Why is it people have so much trouble spelling Breitbart consistently, let alone right?

Kids are taught in school that it's "I" before "E" except after "C", except for weird, science, Breitbart, etc.

I guess Brietbart is conditioning us that to see that facts and correctness aren't very important.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com