This is demonstrably untrue based on previous posts in this thread. Several people here think that alienating people turns them towards the views of the alt right, and that is the context within which other posts have been made.
You are quite simply wrong.
Only if you read our posts in serious bad faith.
To use an old forum favourite: Nobody Is Saying that alienating on the left created the alt right as your inflammatory post suggested. We're strongly suggesting that the more the left castigates people over very minor shit (i.e. bikeshedding, for example getting angry at using "guys" as a gender-neutral plural), the more you push people away. And much like how the hypothesis of stochastic terrorism suggests that using hateful rhetoric will cause someone, somewhere to do something horrific, pushing people out over minor shit will push some contingent away from more reasonable voices and make them take right-wing voices more seriously.
We've been over the proposed mechanism for this every time, and the two responses seem to be "you're asking us to be nice to monsters" (which is either asserting all 'moderates' who might even consider a non-left wing view were secretly monsters the entire time... or it's the misreading you performed just now where you believe we're talking about posters on r/the_donald... who are not the moderates we are talking about, and are clearly already alt-right - "Too seasoned" as I said earlier). The second is "why should we have to put effort in, that's not fair." Which is true, you shouldn't, and it'd be great if people naturally sided with a lot of humanist ideals. But if that were the case, we probably wouldn't be in this situation, so the choice is really just either cede the middle because you felt "it's not fair", or regain it with more effort and a struggle.
(as an aside, I think the assertion people naturally fall to the right is probably wrong. I'm pretty sure the alt-right and the right in general is very invested in putting effort into recruiting people, and it's that effort that requires equal if not greater effort on the left's part to counteract)
If someone goes around school telling a lie about you, yes, it's not fair that you then have to spend effort to contradict and disprove that lie, but unless you like being known as "the fat guy who shat himself in class and it came out his trouser leg" it's work you have to do. And that does include having to talk to people who were willing to believe the lie, and convince them it wasn't the case.
...and of course, as always, Kill Hitler.
+7
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I'm trying to understand why I should expend energy on coddling folk that aren't listening to me
being overtly hostile towards marginalized groups isn't a requirement for supporting attitudes and legislation that hurts those same groups
you don't need to be a member of the alt right to collaborate with them
so it makes no functional difference to me if one of those collaborators is 'alienated' by my attitude
There was an earlier post that me thinking, "Who gives a shit about the comfort level of the privileged, particularly when it comes to informing them of how terrible they are to the marginalized?"
Also yeah there's a pretty big damning action people take when they tell the targets of the alt-right to "not be mad" and such. Emotional control is abusive.
If you alienate people, it means someone else has to deal with them unless they are comfortable being alone. Finding out whether your action turns people toward the alt right is as easy as finding whether that butterfly really did cause that hurricaine in China. If you think that what you do here helps people you interact with radicalize into the monsters they've become, yeah, probably, since they did. So did everything else that's happened to them. The violent video game they played, their grade on a math test, the amount of abuse they had as a kid, what they ate for breakfast, all contributory. The strength of that contribution is what's pragmatic to relate, but darned if we're going to find that out.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It is spectacularly telling that the same people claiming the left alienates people are the same ones saying they don't care if they upset people.
The alt right doesn't exist because people on the political left alienated them. It exists because when asked to treat others with respect they refused.
The nuimber of times we've refuted this claim only to see it pop up again
The next times it happens will be the first. Try getting alienated by things that actually happen?
what the fuuuuuuuck
try not being a silly goose.
The claim was never that alienating people turns them alt-right. It's always been that alienating people fucking alienates them!
Good grief.
This is demonstrably untrue based on previous posts in this thread. Several people here think that alienating people turns them towards the views of the alt right, and that is the context within which other posts have been made.
You are quite simply wrong.
You can also believe that alienating people makes them ripe for recruitment by the alt-right.
If you believe that while simultaneously believing alienating people on the left has no effect then you are being grossly inconsistent.
I think this might be part of it. It's not that you won't alienate the left, but what's the practical effect of alienating someone already on the left?
This is demonstrably untrue based on previous posts in this thread. Several people here think that alienating people turns them towards the views of the alt right, and that is the context within which other posts have been made.
You are quite simply wrong.
Only if you read our posts in serious bad faith.
To use an old forum favourite: Nobody Is Saying that alienating on the left created the alt right as your inflammatory post suggested. We're strongly suggesting that the more the left castigates people over very minor shit (i.e. bikeshedding, for example getting angry at using "guys" as a gender-neutral plural), the more you push people away. And much like how the hypothesis of stochastic terrorism suggests that using hateful rhetoric will cause someone, somewhere to do something horrific, pushing people out over minor shit will push some contingent away from more reasonable voices and make them take right-wing voices more seriously.
We've been over the proposed mechanism for this every time, and the two responses seem to be "you're asking us to be nice to monsters" (which is either asserting all 'moderates' who might even consider a non-left wing view were secretly monsters the entire time... or it's the misreading you performed just now where you believe we're talking about posters on r/the_donald... who are not the moderates we are talking about, and are clearly already alt-right - "Too seasoned" as I said earlier). The second is "why should we have to put effort in, that's not fair." Which is true, you shouldn't, and it'd be great if people naturally sided with a lot of humanist ideals. But if that were the case, we probably wouldn't be in this situation, so the choice is really just either cede the middle because you felt "it's not fair", or regain it with more effort and a struggle.
(as an aside, I think the assertion people naturally fall to the right is probably wrong. I'm pretty sure the alt-right and the right in general is very invested in putting effort into recruiting people, and it's that effort that requires equal if not greater effort on the left's part to counteract)
If someone goes around school telling a lie about you, yes, it's not fair that you then have to spend effort to contradict and disprove that lie, but unless you like being known as "the fat guy who shat himself in class and it came out his trouser leg" it's work you have to do. And that does include having to talk to people who were willing to believe the lie, and convince them it wasn't the case.
The people going around school telling the lie are the ones you and others defend as "moderates".
You and others are insisting that while they're totally moderate and we just need to be civil, anything they say that's horrifically terrible just needs to be shrugged off in the interest of "common ground".
Several times now people's concerns about statements from posters like you have been dismissed. Several times now posters like you have expressed concern over dismissing the feelings of those sympathetic of the alt right. It is not at all reasonable that you care as much as you do about the latter but not in the slightest about the former.
If you remove a person's support system, crazy things can happen. Or not.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It is spectacularly telling that the same people claiming the left alienates people are the same ones saying they don't care if they upset people.
The alt right doesn't exist because people on the political left alienated them. It exists because when asked to treat others with respect they refused.
The nuimber of times we've refuted this claim only to see it pop up again
The next times it happens will be the first. Try getting alienated by things that actually happen?
what the fuuuuuuuck
try not being a silly goose.
The claim was never that alienating people turns them alt-right. It's always been that alienating people fucking alienates them!
Good grief.
This is demonstrably untrue based on previous posts in this thread. Several people here think that alienating people turns them towards the views of the alt right, and that is the context within which other posts have been made.
You are quite simply wrong.
You can also believe that alienating people makes them ripe for recruitment by the alt-right.
If you believe that while simultaneously believing alienating people on the left has no effect then you are being grossly inconsistent.
I think this might be part of it. It's not that you won't alienate the left, but what's the practical effect of alienating someone already on the left?
What's the practical effect of alienating someone already on the right?
Why does it only matter to consider these hypothetical people but not the moderates drive to the left by the alt right?
It is spectacularly telling that the same people claiming the left alienates people are the same ones saying they don't care if they upset people.
The alt right doesn't exist because people on the political left alienated them. It exists because when asked to treat others with respect they refused.
The nuimber of times we've refuted this claim only to see it pop up again
The next times it happens will be the first. Try getting alienated by things that actually happen?
what the fuuuuuuuck
try not being a silly goose.
The claim was never that alienating people turns them alt-right. It's always been that alienating people fucking alienates them!
Good grief.
This is demonstrably untrue based on previous posts in this thread. Several people here think that alienating people turns them towards the views of the alt right, and that is the context within which other posts have been made.
You are quite simply wrong.
You can also believe that alienating people makes them ripe for recruitment by the alt-right.
If you believe that while simultaneously believing alienating people on the left has no effect then you are being grossly inconsistent.
I think this might be part of it. It's not that you won't alienate the left, but what's the practical effect of alienating someone already on the left?
What's the practical effect of alienating someone already on the right?
Why does it only matter to consider these hypothetical people but not the moderates drive to the left by the alt right?
Moderates being driven left by the alt-right is good, why would we need to worry about that? Keep that happening. The number that matter is how many is the left driving away vs how many is it attracting.
+6
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
I mean, I've been members of guilds like that, too. Where the dudes used slurs like tr**y constantly, and I was too embarrassed and uncomfortable to say anything. The one time I spoke up it was because a dude was saying PSTD was a fake illness and I argued with him about it. So it makes me wonder, how many of those ladies in your guild are uncomfortable with certain things, but say nothing in order to be "welcoming"? In order to be one of the guys? That's what I mean by not seeing women as people, that you have a space - like many spaces I have been a part of and must continue to be a part of as long as I am a working woman and a games enthusiast, and take part in any scene other than this one - and as long as it conforms to what makes men comfortable, that's the same as it being open to everyone. Because women's thoughts don't count for anything.
I have a friend on facebook who describes himself as "an SJW", who constantly makes posts about being irritated when a TV series or film gets a female lead, and describes the 80s as having better representation than modern film and TV. He believes we've already reached male/female equality. He's not a terrible guy. But like with you, nothing I say to him means anything, nothing I say could possibly be true, even of my own experience. That's what I mean by not accepting me as a fellow human. That my words can only be "real" to certain people if I'm a man.
Seems more than a little harsh to say "like with you, nothing I say to him means anything, nothing I say could possibly be true, even of my own experience". I haven't categorically rejected you or your experience. But everyone has an experience. You have yours, I have mine. When you disagree with me I don't think you're rejecting me and my entire experience. Disagreements are possible, in fact they are impossible to avoid. That's something you gotta live with in a world of individuals, that your experience can be considered, evaluated and found wanting.
Have women in my guild been uncomfortable in the past? Certainly. Some have left because of it. Some enjoy the environment and don't want it to turn into what they term "a PC guild". Women are not a monolith what can ya do.
Your link there is almost exactly what Im talking about though! Look at those magnificent fuckers! They're so good at this shit they're bringing in POC to white nationalist groups, while we're over here wringing our hands about pepe memes and the like. THAT is what we should be doing. Find an issue you share common ground in! Find ways to bring people in! It is utterly mindboggling to me how we can see what's happening, see the tactics our foes use, and still return to doubling down on "the executions will continue until morale improves".
Like, I get it. Our doctrine is our doctrine for a good reason. We don't want to compromise on shit because we don't want to tell anyone "you're going under the bus today so some entitled dudes can feel more welcome". And that is more than reasonable. But it's also not a winning strategy. At a certain point I think we have to realize that the majority of folks are never going to be quite "on the level", but we still want them broadly on our side. Warts and memes and all.
There is no compromising on whether or not someone is human and deserving of mutual dignity. Allies are utterly useless if they readily abandon you and actively campaign against the very core values you hold.
Again, no one has suggested grabbing the pitchforks over an insensitive joke. But I know I have zero interest in trying to court someone that thinks my wife being in a position of leadership is a societal failure.
So what does zero tolerance mean? What is the line that you think Reddit, etc all should be using to delineate acceptable content from unacceptable content?
The forum you're presently visiting is a good model.
You can't even talk about anime here, making PA forums precisely 3 points of evil worse than Nazi Germany.
So at the minimum, in addition to a worldwide PA forum we will require a Weeb Containment Zone.
I don't normally do this, but this is very goosey of you here.
EDIT: Like, I don't disagree with absolutely everything you say, but posts like that will definitely make people write you and the things you say off forever.
And I regret that, but it’s my family that died in concentration camps and I reserve the right to make light of it as I see fit. People can be adults about it or not, I can’t control them.
I am honestly surprised, then, at how cavalier you are towards the alt-right, considering their stated goals, and what they've done in the past. It definitely changes my understanding of what you've said, though I'm probably more confused now than ever. Your family suffered by the manifestation of the ideals and objectives that you're asking us to be more permissive towards.
I'm at a loss.
Naturally, because I see my efforts as pushing in the opposite direction of another holocaust. Good guys won’t win by alienating all their potential allies and purity testing themselves into tiny internet bubbles.
As I’ve said before, I know people here mean well. We disagree on messaging and some finer points of ideology but we’re on the same team.
I want to unpack this because I'm sincerely curious in what you feel like is the next step in this process.
I think a lot of this thread has been, "Is it possible for the left to do less to encourage the radicalization of gamers into the alt-right, specifically by being nicer to them or by being critical in a nicer way?" I'm not sure I agree with the idea that this can work, but if you assume it does, the way it sounds like it works is, 1) the left is nicer to those who disagree with them on issues of PC and inclusivity in games, 2) because the left is nicer, the at-risk gamers don't leave the group to go listen to the alt-right who will fill their heads with lies and hate, 3) over time the at-risk gamers gradually come to agree with the left when it comes to PC and inclusivity.
You might call these forums an example of that (you might not, but bear with me)--it's a place where we're not allowed to insult one another, where mods generally enforce a comparatively light tone (for the internet), and it's also a place where a number of conservatives credit many years of interaction here with changing their viewpoints in a more liberal direction.
But you, Frankie, seem to come at this from a different direction, because I don't think you would agree with step 3, with the part where people change their views over time to favor PC/inclusiveness. You're not trying to catch flies with honey (slow conversion through community and discussion as opposed to yelling and excommunication). It sounds like you're suggesting that if you don't alienate people from your community, that's enough on its own--and that not alienating them includes tolerating their viewpoints even when we disagree with them. Or maybe even sharing some of those viewpoints.
It seems to me that the strongest risk factor among gamers to be radicalized is having these anti-inclusivity ideas to begin with, and so if the goal isn't (long term or short term) to get them to give up those ideas, then you're not actually pushing them in the opposite direction of anything.
Am I wrong? What's the mechanism by which you feel you're helping to prevent radicalization here?
I think that anyone we shut out is someone the enemy welcomes (or tries to welcome or is now in a position to welcome) in, and I think that we give them that in far too easily. We are very quick to label and very quick to extrapolate intention/belief from relatively benign material. I think we make perfect the enemy of the good in that regard. We are more concerned about calling out, putting down and BTFO people than we are finding common ground and bringing them in. I would think the purpose of this to plain. You want people in your sphere of influence. You want people to be in a mindspace where you are not the enemy.\
For too many people we are already the enemy. We're no-fun, super cereal sex-negative ultra-sensitive joykills. An unearned reputation? Some of it isn't deserved. Some we certainly brought on ourselves. Either way, the well is poisoned and who poisoned it isn't exactly relevant. What's relevant is the solution. What's relevant is the way forward.
I want to bring as many people into the liberal mindspace as possible. I want it to be a friendlier place for people who aren't fully woke or with it. Hell, I'm probably one of those people. I don't think there's ever going to be this nirvana moment where we're all on the same page and everyone is of one mind. There's always gonna be a spectrum and I think that yes, you are going to have to tolerate viewpoints you disagree with. Because honestly some shit is small-fry if you're talking about Nazis, right? And the upside is, if they're in your mindspace you can work on them if you feel the need. They may even one day grow up to be only a smalltime shitlord and malcontent like myself!
Here's a glimpse into my mind on this: I grew up in a deeply religious environment that was dedicated to missionary work/proselytization. By definition the people engaged in that were dealing with people who agreed with almost nothing they themselves believed in. They eased people in. They attracted them with summer afternoon BBQs and shit. They took people where they were at. Some people ended up getting pulled in all the way (I hope they got out eventually!) and some people never did. But the people who didn't get in all the way? They stayed chill with them, kept in contact, kept inviting them to the appropriate events. And some of them just lingered in that space forever, happy to drop the occasional donation or introduce other.... er… prospects. SUFFICE IT TO SAY I'm glad that whole thing is in my past but I still admire their method, and I think they had a good idea going with taking people where they were at. They accepted that they had to work their way in from the outside, and that's something I am 100% convinced the left has forgotten. We talk like we're inside Noah's ark and it's a privilege to come aboard and those who don't want to can get fucked. \
EDIT: I hope that doesn't come off as "please copy this random ultra religious group", i'm just giving that as an example of what I'm thinking. I think that if people are in our mindspace that's a genuine good thing, and I want to get more of them in, and I think when they're on the outside that's categorically a bad thing, because they don't hear a word we're saying and it's all filtered through the enemy lens.
Okay, I think this is happening where it can. Like, again, assholes are everywhere, there's nothing anyone can do about that, some people with progressive beliefs are going to be dicks, but there's not much that can be done. I don't think most people are doing what you say the 'left' is doing. What is happening, though, is that people are getting more and more aware of the actual individuals that are affected by this. Like, the #metoo movement is a great example. It's being broadcast in stark relief just how common sexual assault really is, and that the victims are actual real people who are trying to have a voice. And a lot of alt-right antifeminism is saying that the #metoo movement is about false accusations, and that it's dangerous even to look at a woman these days, and you're better off refusing to even speak to a female.
That sort of propaganda is exactly the sort of self-isolating rhetoric that will help the alt-right recruit more people! Make sure that people mistrust anyone with a progressive viewpoint! Make women the enemy! And right now I'm trying to reconcile how to combat that without using language that says the alt-right is wrong! That says that the alt-right is lying to them without actually saying that. How do we convince vulnerable people that the #metoo movement is worth preserving, is not about shaming men, is not about making false accusations without saying that those that claim that it is are liars?
How does one combat misinformation without calling it such?
It is spectacularly telling that the same people claiming the left alienates people are the same ones saying they don't care if they upset people.
The alt right doesn't exist because people on the political left alienated them. It exists because when asked to treat others with respect they refused.
The nuimber of times we've refuted this claim only to see it pop up again
The next times it happens will be the first. Try getting alienated by things that actually happen?
what the fuuuuuuuck
try not being a silly goose.
The claim was never that alienating people turns them alt-right. It's always been that alienating people fucking alienates them!
Good grief.
This is demonstrably untrue based on previous posts in this thread. Several people here think that alienating people turns them towards the views of the alt right, and that is the context within which other posts have been made.
You are quite simply wrong.
You can also believe that alienating people makes them ripe for recruitment by the alt-right.
If you believe that while simultaneously believing alienating people on the left has no effect then you are being grossly inconsistent.
I think this might be part of it. It's not that you won't alienate the left, but what's the practical effect of alienating someone already on the left?
What's the practical effect of alienating someone already on the right?
Why does it only matter to consider these hypothetical people but not the moderates drive to the left by the alt right?
Moderates being driven left by the alt-right is good, why would we need to worry about that? Keep that happening. The number that matter is how many is the left driving away vs how many is it attracting.
Several people here are contending it's a unidirectional reaction that only harms the left.
This is demonstrably untrue based on previous posts in this thread. Several people here think that alienating people turns them towards the views of the alt right, and that is the context within which other posts have been made.
You are quite simply wrong.
Only if you read our posts in serious bad faith.
To use an old forum favourite: Nobody Is Saying that alienating on the left created the alt right as your inflammatory post suggested. We're strongly suggesting that the more the left castigates people over very minor shit (i.e. bikeshedding, for example getting angry at using "guys" as a gender-neutral plural), the more you push people away. And much like how the hypothesis of stochastic terrorism suggests that using hateful rhetoric will cause someone, somewhere to do something horrific, pushing people out over minor shit will push some contingent away from more reasonable voices and make them take right-wing voices more seriously.
We've been over the proposed mechanism for this every time, and the two responses seem to be "you're asking us to be nice to monsters" (which is either asserting all 'moderates' who might even consider a non-left wing view were secretly monsters the entire time... or it's the misreading you performed just now where you believe we're talking about posters on r/the_donald... who are not the moderates we are talking about, and are clearly already alt-right - "Too seasoned" as I said earlier). The second is "why should we have to put effort in, that's not fair." Which is true, you shouldn't, and it'd be great if people naturally sided with a lot of humanist ideals. But if that were the case, we probably wouldn't be in this situation, so the choice is really just either cede the middle because you felt "it's not fair", or regain it with more effort and a struggle.
(as an aside, I think the assertion people naturally fall to the right is probably wrong. I'm pretty sure the alt-right and the right in general is very invested in putting effort into recruiting people, and it's that effort that requires equal if not greater effort on the left's part to counteract)
If someone goes around school telling a lie about you, yes, it's not fair that you then have to spend effort to contradict and disprove that lie, but unless you like being known as "the fat guy who shat himself in class and it came out his trouser leg" it's work you have to do. And that does include having to talk to people who were willing to believe the lie, and convince them it wasn't the case.
The people going around school telling the lie are the ones you and others defend as "moderates".
You and others are insisting that while they're totally moderate and we just need to be civil, anything they say that's horrifically terrible just needs to be shrugged off in the interest of "common ground".
Several times now people's concerns about statements from posters like you have been dismissed. Several times now posters like you have expressed concern over dismissing the feelings of those sympathetic of the alt right. It is not at all reasonable that you care as much as you do about the latter but not in the slightest about the former.
Where has Bethryn said we need to ignore "horrifically terrible" statements?
It is spectacularly telling that the same people claiming the left alienates people are the same ones saying they don't care if they upset people.
The alt right doesn't exist because people on the political left alienated them. It exists because when asked to treat others with respect they refused.
The nuimber of times we've refuted this claim only to see it pop up again
The next times it happens will be the first. Try getting alienated by things that actually happen?
what the fuuuuuuuck
try not being a silly goose.
The claim was never that alienating people turns them alt-right. It's always been that alienating people fucking alienates them!
Good grief.
This is demonstrably untrue based on previous posts in this thread. Several people here think that alienating people turns them towards the views of the alt right, and that is the context within which other posts have been made.
You are quite simply wrong.
You can also believe that alienating people makes them ripe for recruitment by the alt-right.
If you believe that while simultaneously believing alienating people on the left has no effect then you are being grossly inconsistent.
I think this might be part of it. It's not that you won't alienate the left, but what's the practical effect of alienating someone already on the left?
What's the practical effect of alienating someone already on the right?
Why does it only matter to consider these hypothetical people but not the moderates drive to the left by the alt right?
Moderates being driven left by the alt-right is good, why would we need to worry about that? Keep that happening. The number that matter is how many is the left driving away vs how many is it attracting.
Several people here are contending it's a unidirectional reaction that only harms the left.
Nothing is ever unidirectional
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
+1
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
This is demonstrably untrue based on previous posts in this thread. Several people here think that alienating people turns them towards the views of the alt right, and that is the context within which other posts have been made.
You are quite simply wrong.
We've been over the proposed mechanism for this every time, and the two responses seem to be "you're asking us to be nice to monsters" (which is either asserting all 'moderates' who might even consider a non-left wing view were secretly monsters the entire time... or it's the misreading you performed just now where you believe we're talking about posters on r/the_donald... who are not the moderates we are talking about, and are clearly already alt-right - "Too seasoned" as I said earlier). The second is "why should we have to put effort in, that's not fair." Which is true, you shouldn't, and it'd be great if people naturally sided with a lot of humanist ideals. But if that were the case, we probably wouldn't be in this situation, so the choice is really just either cede the middle because you felt "it's not fair", or regain it with more effort and a struggle.
I haven’t heard a convincing answer in this thread as to which people are the moderates and how the left is supposed to behave towards those moderates such that the moderates are not alienated.
We know that leftist criticisms are magnified and simplified on social media; we know that they’re propagandized by the right.
We know that letting people say hurtful things makes spaces unsafe for minority groups.
Are there true centrist moderates who can exist in leftist spaces without taking umbrage at leftist criticisms and without saying hurtful things?
It seems to me that the Overton window is such that even if you’re directly in the middle, you’re 50% of the way to actual Nazis, and that’s way too far past the line of decency for you to hang peaceably in leftist spaces.
+1
Options
KalnaurI See Rain . . .Centralia, WARegistered Userregular
How much of it is "the left" driving folks away, and how much of it is an isolated incident with a person who, (for just one example) hates men and that incident gets multiplied and retold until it's now, like, most of the left hates men, you know?
That's what the alt-right does, takes a single happening that annoyed a single person, and turns it into a movement by the left to castrate and imprison all men for life (hyperbole, folks, I'm using hyperbole) in order to gain more ground with the folks that don't actually want to talk to the "left". They just want to be told that all the left and especially women hate them already.
In other words, I think it's less what the left says and more what becomes misrepresented as fact by those seeking the end of forward progress.
I make art things! deviantART:Kalnaur ::: Origin: Kalnaur ::: UPlay: Kalnaur
It is spectacularly telling that the same people claiming the left alienates people are the same ones saying they don't care if they upset people.
The alt right doesn't exist because people on the political left alienated them. It exists because when asked to treat others with respect they refused.
The nuimber of times we've refuted this claim only to see it pop up again
The next times it happens will be the first. Try getting alienated by things that actually happen?
what the fuuuuuuuck
try not being a silly goose.
The claim was never that alienating people turns them alt-right. It's always been that alienating people fucking alienates them!
Good grief.
This is demonstrably untrue based on previous posts in this thread. Several people here think that alienating people turns them towards the views of the alt right, and that is the context within which other posts have been made.
You are quite simply wrong.
You can also believe that alienating people makes them ripe for recruitment by the alt-right.
If you believe that while simultaneously believing alienating people on the left has no effect then you are being grossly inconsistent.
I think this might be part of it. It's not that you won't alienate the left, but what's the practical effect of alienating someone already on the left?
What's the practical effect of alienating someone already on the right?
Why does it only matter to consider these hypothetical people but not the moderates drive to the left by the alt right?
Does that happen?
Like, we don't agree on a lot of stuff but there's no number of times I can be chastised for a Nazi joke that will drive me to the alt-right. I'm not young as I used to be. I've developed a more solid ideology and it'll take a lot to push me off it. I have experience and context to reinforce the things I believe, all the things a younger man or woman does not. At this point I'm somewhat resigned to the idea that broadly the left is right, even though they're often tremendous aholes about it. I suppose that could change but I doubt it.
On the other hand, someone who doesn't have that familiarity and experience and context could more easily fixate on that "tremendous ahole" thing.
I guess I also expect more of people who already know. The Educated, if you will. I expect you not to go altright or whatever on me because I expect you know better. Your experience has granted you a certain responsibility, in my mind. I don't extend that to the uninitiated. The people who never really interacted with the left in a serious way, who mostly just exchanged heated words over shit they didn't get and didn't understand what all the fuss was about? We owed them a certain introduction they didn't get.
Frankiedarling on
+1
Options
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
The people going around school telling the lie are the ones you and others defend as "moderates".
You and others are insisting that while they're totally moderate and we just need to be civil, anything they say that's horrifically terrible just needs to be shrugged off in the interest of "common ground".
No, the people telling the lie are the alt right. The people believing it, and maybe even sharing it without knowing it's a lie, because it's scandalous and shocking, are the moderates/undecideds/disaffected. People are willing to believe shitty things without the same ill intent as the people spreading shitty things.
Several people here are contending it's a unidirectional reaction that only harms the left.
Where?
For someone who is complaining about people not responding to direct quotations from inside the thread, you have several times over the past few pages conjured complete poppycock from thin air. I can only assume this is some sort of performative method of debate where you try to behave in way you view us as behaving to "give us a taste of our own medicine."
...and of course, as always, Kill Hitler.
+3
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
It is spectacularly telling that the same people claiming the left alienates people are the same ones saying they don't care if they upset people.
The alt right doesn't exist because people on the political left alienated them. It exists because when asked to treat others with respect they refused.
The nuimber of times we've refuted this claim only to see it pop up again and fucking again is beginning to alienate me!
Also idk what it's "telling" you, but I do know that the expression is shorthand for "I want to cast aspersions so that people know to nod the right way, but I don't want to make an argument" in pretty much the same way that "the x is increasing" just means you don't know how big x was or how much bigger it got, or "x comes at a time when y" is just a sloppy way to drag y into your argument without having to relate it to x.
Come on now! Don't be lazy.
What is telling to me is that person concerned with courting the alt right doesn’t care if they upset people with their posts. Pretty straightforward.
Meanwhile no one has actually posted any refuting evidence.
Feel free to actually cite things instead of making lazy claims, as much trouble as you have with that.
Do you care about upsetting people with your posts? I find your posts, and the posts of many other posters racking up 10+ agrees, to be pretty upsetting. Does that make you alt right?
I have not been convinced by you, or others, does that mean that my existence is "frustrating" or "telling" or a testament to anything in particular? Of course, I am also frustrated at not convincing other people.
I find refereeing here extremely unfair. Not to mention that parting shot. I mean, yikes.
No, racism, sexism, and a host of other horrible views make people alt right. Which I’m sure you know yet you’ve opted to associate with merely upsetting other people.
The posts above were made in response to people lamenting the idea that not coddling the alt right is a losing strategy while simultaneously disregarding any concerns about posts made here. If you think this makes sense feel free to make the case for it. Otherwise I am very tired of being told that things I find offensive are immaterial but what some guy on r/the_donald cares about is of the upmost importance to respect.
Okay, that's what you're "tired of." What am I "tired of?" Let's try out a different "concern about the posts made here."
I am not the most oppressed homo but I did have my struggles with my sexuality when I was coming of age in the late 90s and early 2000s, which we may recall was not the best time for it. Correspondingly, I can say that the suggestion that the ~only~ way someone could possibly make posts like mine or other posts that I've found to be worth engaging with is because the poster doesn't care about minorities right to exist (italics always original) or because they are elevating symbols and abstractions over real lives or because they are objectively furthering alt right paradigms and etc. is personally offensive and gross. I am offended to have my group membership rhetorically used in that way, (largely by straight people might I add!), and I am also offended at what it suggests about what my own attitudes must be when read literally. I do not, in fact, hate myself.
So, that pisses me off. So what? I'm okay with the answer "who cares, you're being unreasonable." But that would make it clear who gets to use emotional language and whose feelings get to count.
(Spoiler: I'm not going to become alt right regardless of what you answer.)
Correct the feeling of bigots does not matter. And given they contend no one else's feelings count, we're back at where we are where you claim it's a losing strategy to ignore how they feel but irrelevant how anyone on the left feels.
You can say you're not going to become alt right but you sure keep going to bat to protect their feelings. Whether or not you self identify with them doesn't change what your actions support.
But I spoke about my own feelings, not what anyone on the alt right feels (unless you do think--as you suggest in a couple different ways--that I am a bigoted member of the alt right?)
But ok. I think you are being a silly goose here and you think whatever you think of me and I guess that's that. I register for the record that I think "weird abusive tones" are not a one-way street in this thread, and, if anything, majority sentiment feels emboldened by the weight of a crowd to really style on the heterodox (owning the "anti-libs," I guess, not that that's a label I'd ever apply to myself). So I think this thread is in many cases a great example of How Not to Have a Worthwhile Conversation.
+4
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
"The things you do and say hurt me and people like me."
"Okay?"
"You have to stop doing those things."
"That's unreasonable to ask, I'm gonna hang out with these hostile toxic people now."
I have a hard time believing this is a reasonable reaction.
This is demonstrably untrue based on previous posts in this thread. Several people here think that alienating people turns them towards the views of the alt right, and that is the context within which other posts have been made.
You are quite simply wrong.
Only if you read our posts in serious bad faith.
To use an old forum favourite: Nobody Is Saying that alienating on the left created the alt right as your inflammatory post suggested. We're strongly suggesting that the more the left castigates people over very minor shit (i.e. bikeshedding, for example getting angry at using "guys" as a gender-neutral plural), the more you push people away. And much like how the hypothesis of stochastic terrorism suggests that using hateful rhetoric will cause someone, somewhere to do something horrific, pushing people out over minor shit will push some contingent away from more reasonable voices and make them take right-wing voices more seriously.
We've been over the proposed mechanism for this every time, and the two responses seem to be "you're asking us to be nice to monsters" (which is either asserting all 'moderates' who might even consider a non-left wing view were secretly monsters the entire time... or it's the misreading you performed just now where you believe we're talking about posters on r/the_donald... who are not the moderates we are talking about, and are clearly already alt-right - "Too seasoned" as I said earlier). The second is "why should we have to put effort in, that's not fair." Which is true, you shouldn't, and it'd be great if people naturally sided with a lot of humanist ideals. But if that were the case, we probably wouldn't be in this situation, so the choice is really just either cede the middle because you felt "it's not fair", or regain it with more effort and a struggle.
(as an aside, I think the assertion people naturally fall to the right is probably wrong. I'm pretty sure the alt-right and the right in general is very invested in putting effort into recruiting people, and it's that effort that requires equal if not greater effort on the left's part to counteract)
If someone goes around school telling a lie about you, yes, it's not fair that you then have to spend effort to contradict and disprove that lie, but unless you like being known as "the fat guy who shat himself in class and it came out his trouser leg" it's work you have to do. And that does include having to talk to people who were willing to believe the lie, and convince them it wasn't the case.
The people going around school telling the lie are the ones you and others defend as "moderates".
You and others are insisting that while they're totally moderate and we just need to be civil, anything they say that's horrifically terrible just needs to be shrugged off in the interest of "common ground".
Several times now people's concerns about statements from posters like you have been dismissed. Several times now posters like you have expressed concern over dismissing the feelings of those sympathetic of the alt right. It is not at all reasonable that you care as much as you do about the latter but not in the slightest about the former.
Where has Bethryn said we need to turn a blind eye to "horrifically terrible" statements?
Let's take a moment to appreciate the full context of the quote tree.
Spool contends that no one posting now believes the left is to blame for the creation of the alt right. I disagree based on posts made by others blaming the left for driving people on the left towards the alt right. To which Spool concedes he skipped past the last 200 hundred posts.
If you want to defend that particular claim, which is what the original statement centers on, go ahead. Otherwise once again it's getting incredibly tiresome for people to quote a person but respond to a completely different scenario.
0
Options
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
It seems to me that the Overton window is such that even if you’re directly in the middle, you’re 50% of the way to actual Nazis, and that’s way too far past the line of decency for you to hang peaceably in leftist spaces.
You do realise this comes across as "you're practically already a Nazi" and is a stunningly great example of how not to make friends and influence people?
I will say that I ultimately think arguing that leftists in general should be nicer here on Penny-Arcade is pointless, because no matter what happens here Twitter and Tumblr and whatever will still be full of toxicity.
Personally, if I were the king of social media, I'd ban everyone who can't be civil, left or right. With that done, the remaining leftists wouldn't have alt-right trolls harassing them anymore and could advocate their position with less stress if they so choose. I'd imagine the resulting environment would be similar to these forums.
This is demonstrably untrue based on previous posts in this thread. Several people here think that alienating people turns them towards the views of the alt right, and that is the context within which other posts have been made.
You are quite simply wrong.
Only if you read our posts in serious bad faith.
To use an old forum favourite: Nobody Is Saying that alienating on the left created the alt right as your inflammatory post suggested. We're strongly suggesting that the more the left castigates people over very minor shit (i.e. bikeshedding, for example getting angry at using "guys" as a gender-neutral plural), the more you push people away. And much like how the hypothesis of stochastic terrorism suggests that using hateful rhetoric will cause someone, somewhere to do something horrific, pushing people out over minor shit will push some contingent away from more reasonable voices and make them take right-wing voices more seriously.
We've been over the proposed mechanism for this every time, and the two responses seem to be "you're asking us to be nice to monsters" (which is either asserting all 'moderates' who might even consider a non-left wing view were secretly monsters the entire time... or it's the misreading you performed just now where you believe we're talking about posters on r/the_donald... who are not the moderates we are talking about, and are clearly already alt-right - "Too seasoned" as I said earlier). The second is "why should we have to put effort in, that's not fair." Which is true, you shouldn't, and it'd be great if people naturally sided with a lot of humanist ideals. But if that were the case, we probably wouldn't be in this situation, so the choice is really just either cede the middle because you felt "it's not fair", or regain it with more effort and a struggle.
(as an aside, I think the assertion people naturally fall to the right is probably wrong. I'm pretty sure the alt-right and the right in general is very invested in putting effort into recruiting people, and it's that effort that requires equal if not greater effort on the left's part to counteract)
If someone goes around school telling a lie about you, yes, it's not fair that you then have to spend effort to contradict and disprove that lie, but unless you like being known as "the fat guy who shat himself in class and it came out his trouser leg" it's work you have to do. And that does include having to talk to people who were willing to believe the lie, and convince them it wasn't the case.
The people going around school telling the lie are the ones you and others defend as "moderates".
You and others are insisting that while they're totally moderate and we just need to be civil, anything they say that's horrifically terrible just needs to be shrugged off in the interest of "common ground".
Several times now people's concerns about statements from posters like you have been dismissed. Several times now posters like you have expressed concern over dismissing the feelings of those sympathetic of the alt right. It is not at all reasonable that you care as much as you do about the latter but not in the slightest about the former.
Where has Bethryn said we need to turn a blind eye to "horrifically terrible" statements?
Let's take a moment to appreciate the full context of the quote tree.
Spool contends that no one posting now believes the left is to blame for the creation of the alt right. I disagree based on posts made by others blaming the left for driving people on the left towards the alt right. To which Spool concedes he skipped past the last 200 hundred posts.
If you want to defend that particular claim, which is what the original statement centers on, go ahead. Otherwise once again it's getting incredibly tiresome for people to quote a person but respond to a completely different scenario.
Does anyone posting now believe the left is to blame for the creation of the alt right?
I mean, I do, but only in a semantic, comprehensive way that you probably don't care about (everyone shares the blame for everything in different quantities; nothing is completely unconnected).
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
+1
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
It is spectacularly telling that the same people claiming the left alienates people are the same ones saying they don't care if they upset people.
The alt right doesn't exist because people on the political left alienated them. It exists because when asked to treat others with respect they refused.
The nuimber of times we've refuted this claim only to see it pop up again
The next times it happens will be the first. Try getting alienated by things that actually happen?
what the fuuuuuuuck
try not being a silly goose.
The claim was never that alienating people turns them alt-right. It's always been that alienating people fucking alienates them!
Good grief.
This is demonstrably untrue based on previous posts in this thread. Several people here think that alienating people turns them towards the views of the alt right, and that is the context within which other posts have been made.
You are quite simply wrong.
You can also believe that alienating people makes them ripe for recruitment by the alt-right.
If you believe that while simultaneously believing alienating people on the left has no effect then you are being grossly inconsistent.
I think this might be part of it. It's not that you won't alienate the left, but what's the practical effect of alienating someone already on the left?
What's the practical effect of alienating someone already on the right?
Why does it only matter to consider these hypothetical people but not the moderates drive to the left by the alt right?
Does that happen?
Like, we don't agree on a lot of stuff but there's no number of times I can be chastised for a Nazi joke that will drive me to the alt-right. I'm not young as I used to be. I've developed a more solid ideology and it'll take a lot to push me off it. I have experience and context to reinforce the things I believe, all the things a younger man or woman does not. At this point I'm somewhat resigned to the idea that broadly the left is right, even though they're often tremendous aholes about it. I suppose that could change but I doubt it.
On the other hand, someone who doesn't have that familiarity and experience and context could more easily fixate on that "tremendous ahole" thing.
I guess I also expect more of people who already know. The Educated, if you will. I expect you not to go altright or whatever on me because I expect you know better. Your experience has granted you a certain responsibility, in my mind. I don't extend that to the uninitiated. The people who never really interacted with the left in a serious way, who mostly just exchanged heated words over shit they didn't get and didn't understand what all the fuss was about? We owed them a certain introduction they didn't get.
Well, let me delve deeper into your idea of the "non-asshole", the people in your guild. You mentioned they make SJW jokes, which are tiresome enough, but can you tell me further? Do they call each other "tr**y" and "f****t?" Do they laugh about how hi-lar-ious butsex is? Do they call each other "pussy" when one of them messes up, or compare each other to women or gays when they don't DPS well? Cause see to you all that might be "fun, light times with the bros!" and to me that's not a fun time!
You know what a fun, relaxed time with people who "have no filter" and "say what everyone's thinking" would look like in my dream world that doesn't exist? It'd look like this:
But you say anything like that in front of the kind of guild bros you're talking about, and suddenly things aren't so light and fun! Suddenly they want you to have a filter! Suddenly being irreverent and saying exactly what you think is deeply frowned on! Somehow these light, fun times only go in one direction!
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
The key question here is whether a person who has been ostracized for saying/doing something shitty is statistically more likely to reform, or to be further radicalized. There are absolutely cases of both happening, but it's unlikely we'll ever have definitive statistics on the subject because there are too many other factors at play. If you call someone a nazi for expressing white nationalist opinions, they will no doubt react negatively and certainly not agree with you in the moment, but will they reconsider the things they said for next time so they don't have to face more criticism? I really don't know. It depends on their personality, which means the person confronting them has no way to know that. So it really is up to the individual's own judgment honestly. I think what's most important, which we hopefully can all agree on, is that you don't do nothing. If you want to be polite that's fine, but you do still have to confront them.
+6
Options
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
"The things you do and say hurt me and people like me."
"Okay?"
"You have to stop doing those things."
"That's unreasonable to ask, I'm gonna hang out with these hostile toxic people now."
I have a hard time believing this is a reasonable reaction.
Yes, so do we all. Of course, since the people making the point you've mangled have repeatedly talked about, for example "how to boil a frog" or the fact that radicalisation is a process that happens bit by bit rather than all at once, one wonders to whom you are responding?
...and of course, as always, Kill Hitler.
+2
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
It seems to me that the Overton window is such that even if you’re directly in the middle, you’re 50% of the way to actual Nazis, and that’s way too far past the line of decency for you to hang peaceably in leftist spaces.
You do realise this comes across as "you're practically already a Nazi" and is a stunningly great example of how not to make friends and influence people?
I’m talking about a hypothetical middle
I’m asking what a moderate looks like in this discussion, and positing that my answer is “not actually a moderate”
I mean you might be right that it’s not the nicest thing to say to hypothetical moderates, but I also think it might simply be true that, according to leftist thinking, you really can’t go very far away from the far left before you start being somebody either whom the left won’t want around or who won’t want to be around the left
I don't think you are discussing the same thing as Frankiedarling. There is a question of how we want the world to be, and a question of how to get closer to that ideal world. These are both important questions. But to argue that the way forward is not to immediately demand all of the conditions of our ideal world are met now, no equivocations, is not the same as arguing that we don't want the same ideal world.
I find it frustrating to have it thrown in my face that I don't care about minorities, LGBTQ, females, or what have you, simply because I don't think smiting down anyone who isn't sufficiently woke is the right way to build a more inclusive world. To act like my view of how to build that ideal means that what I really care about is supporting the status quo rather than the real issues. Which isn't to say my pain is the same as your pain. It isn't. But I don't need additional turmoil because I disagree on how best to achieve the things we both want. Disagree with me on how to do that all you want. But don't tell me I am a bigot because I don't think your approach works as well as mine.
If these were easy problems to solve then we wouldn't be having this conversation and racism/sexism/bigotry wouldn't be issues. But they are, and we are having it, which to me suggests that maybe we shouldn't act like it's so simple.
I am arguing against the persistent attempts to transform this into a sanitised political ideology argument between left and right - it was literally my opening sentence.
I'd also ask you not to put words in my mouth - at no point in my post did I talk about, to use your words, smiting down anyone who isn't sufficiently woke. I wish I could be sorry that you find it frustrating to be made to feel the way you do because of that, but actually I'm more disappointed that you apparently felt the need to categorise my description of my own personal experiences in the gaming sphere (of, you know, asking for just a basic level of human decency in not using blatantly homophobic, or racist, or transphobic, or sexist slurs) being categorised as anything but an appeal to basic human decency.
And, honestly? If you read the description of the experiences I've been through (and they're pretty tame compared to those of many other marginalised folks - I'm still here able to post this message for one thing) and take from that anything at all different from 'actually, yes, it's not unreasonable to ask people not to use those kinds of terms, or take exception to folks displaying that kind of negative attitude towards others and challenging them' then you are at best absolutely supporting the status quo.
And folks may not like being called out as, or thought of as bigoted, for their own refusal to stand up to this kind of 'othering' behaviour. To which I would have to say it is at best naïve, at its worst disingenuous and downright complicit, to believe that silence/refusal to challenge this behaviour is not demonstrative of tacit approval for such bigotry.
It's all saltwater these days:
Ocean, tears and heartbreak soup
Half alive in a whitecap foam
Half in love with a white half moon
"The things you do and say hurt me and people like me."
"Okay?"
"You have to stop doing those things."
"That's unreasonable to ask, I'm gonna hang out with these hostile toxic people now."
I have a hard time believing this is a reasonable reaction.
That's literally the reaction folks are having here to being told they shouldn't just open season shit on folks that aren't progressives.
"The things you do and say hurt me and people like me."
"Okay?"
"You have to stop doing those things."
"That's unreasonable to ask, I'm gonna hang out with these hostile toxic people now."
I have a hard time believing this is a reasonable reaction.
That's literally the reaction folks are having here to being told they shouldn't just open season shit on folks that aren't progressives.
Citation please.
Perhaps you could serve it up with your proof that people around here are totally literally going to cannibalize the wealthy.
Quid on
+2
Options
KalnaurI See Rain . . .Centralia, WARegistered Userregular
I'm trying to figure out what we're still talking about, because at this point it feels like:
Quid is yelling at everyone about something spool already said they might have skipped over, missing 200 posts?
Frankie and some of the others seem to think that we should welcome, say, someone who is willingly saying nasty things about {minority group} in order to try and slowly get them to instead respect {minority group}
Everyone else seems to be in some way trying to determine what fault, if any, the left has in the creation of the alt-right (which, I mean, if we just recognize they're neo-Nazis, the answer is "no not really").
And I'm trying to figure out how this helps to identify what we should do about Gamers & the Alt-Right.
I make art things! deviantART:Kalnaur ::: Origin: Kalnaur ::: UPlay: Kalnaur
I'm trying to figure out what we're still talking about, because at this point it feels like:
Quid is yelling at everyone about something spool already said they might have skipped over, missing 200 posts?
Frankie and some of the others seem to think that we should welcome, say, someone who is willingly saying nasty things about {minority group} in order to try and slowly get them to instead respect {minority group}
Everyone else seems to be in some way trying to determine what fault, if any, the left has in the creation of the alt-right (which, I mean, if we just recognize they're neo-Nazis, the answer is "no not really").
And I'm trying to figure out how this helps to identify what we should do about Gamers & the Alt-Right.
I think partly is trying to answer 'What drives gamers to the alt-right'. One hypothesis was some (many?) don't start off with alt-right ideology, but that feeling alienated they become prey to the alt-right propaganda which pretends to defend them against what's alienating them. It then went on into what can or should the left do to prevent this, which I think was met with resistance that it's not the left's fault but the alt-right's that these people end up radicalized.
I'm trying to figure out what we're still talking about, because at this point it feels like:
Quid is yelling at everyone about something spool already said they might have skipped over, missing 200 posts?
Frankie and some of the others seem to think that we should welcome, say, someone who is willingly saying nasty things about {minority group} in order to try and slowly get them to instead respect {minority group}
Everyone else seems to be in some way trying to determine what fault, if any, the left has in the creation of the alt-right (which, I mean, if we just recognize they're neo-Nazis, the answer is "no not really").
And I'm trying to figure out how this helps to identify what we should do about Gamers & the Alt-Right.
When you're in the thick of it and very emotionally involved, it's sometimes hard to see a solution, because you have to defend the ramparts against a current attack, so the trading ports are temporarily closed. Right now, we're doing a lot of output with not much input, I feel.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It seems to me that the Overton window is such that even if you’re directly in the middle, you’re 50% of the way to actual Nazis, and that’s way too far past the line of decency for you to hang peaceably in leftist spaces.
You do realise this comes across as "you're practically already a Nazi" and is a stunningly great example of how not to make friends and influence people?
The problem at the core of this is that America *is* a pretty Nazi-fied society. We were the ones that gave the Nazis their inspiration. Any approach that doesn't address that may be more palatable to the "center," (imo, these are just people who want all the benefits of America's white supremacy without feeling morally responsible for it, so they just sort of drag their feet) but it's fundamentally dishonest and won't solve any of the problems in a meaningful way.
0
Options
KalnaurI See Rain . . .Centralia, WARegistered Userregular
"The things you do and say hurt me and people like me."
"Okay?"
"You have to stop doing those things."
"That's unreasonable to ask, I'm gonna hang out with these hostile toxic people now."
I have a hard time believing this is a reasonable reaction.
That's literally the reaction folks are having here to being told they shouldn't just open season shit on folks that aren't progressives.
Citation please.
Perhaps you could serve it up with your proof that people around here are totally literally going to cannibalize the wealthy.
Okay, so then I go right off-topic with this joke, but:
No kidding, eat the rich is just silly. How would you even feed 150 homeless folks with just 2,208 people?
Seriously, though, I have seen exactly one person I interact with online calling for rich folks to literally be executed in the street and their belongings sold, then the money to be split evenly among the citizenry. I think the dude's crazy and I'm glad it's just one. Everyone else that I see saying "eat the rich" or some version of it means it less as a direct action and more as a call to divest the billionaires from their billions. Not that any of that has to do with the original topic of the thread.
I do wonder, in line with the thread's intent, we are only talking about the alt-right, correct? I mean, for the purposes of moving forward is there a show of hands of people who just simply see the alt-right and the right as the same thing? I don't. The more reasonable among conservatives I still disagree with deeply, and I'm fine with fighting their ideals, but we're talking about how to kick out the actual Nazis, right?
I make art things! deviantART:Kalnaur ::: Origin: Kalnaur ::: UPlay: Kalnaur
+3
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
It seems to me that the Overton window is such that even if you’re directly in the middle, you’re 50% of the way to actual Nazis, and that’s way too far past the line of decency for you to hang peaceably in leftist spaces.
You do realise this comes across as "you're practically already a Nazi" and is a stunningly great example of how not to make friends and influence people?
I’m talking about a hypothetical middle
I’m asking what a moderate looks like in this discussion, and positing that my answer is “not actually a moderate”
I mean you might be right that it’s not the nicest thing to say to hypothetical moderates, but I also think it might simply be true that, according to leftist thinking, you really can’t go very far away from the far left before you start being somebody either whom the left won’t want around or who won’t want to be around the left
Given that we're talking about gamers, generally the hypothetical moderates, and in particular those who are in the prime recruiting range for the alt-right among that demographic currently is some mid-teen to mid-20's white guy who doesn't really have strong opinions on politics and doesn't really think too hard about the media they consume. Some variations on this theme of course, but that's the general picture I'd imagine.
Lord_Asmodeus on
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
I'm trying to figure out what we're still talking about, because at this point it feels like:
Quid is yelling at everyone about something spool already said they might have skipped over, missing 200 posts?
Frankie and some of the others seem to think that we should welcome, say, someone who is willingly saying nasty things about {minority group} in order to try and slowly get them to instead respect {minority group}
Everyone else seems to be in some way trying to determine what fault, if any, the left has in the creation of the alt-right (which, I mean, if we just recognize they're neo-Nazis, the answer is "no not really").
And I'm trying to figure out how this helps to identify what we should do about Gamers & the Alt-Right.
I guess there are degrees to how mainstream or radical Leftist criticism is.
"Don't use slurs" is the absolute bare minimum, and if someone finds that controversial that's a bad sign. I won't tolerate that.
What I have in mind as "too far" are things like that Monster Hunter World article. I don't want anybody to harass or threaten the author, but I also don't want all fictional entertainment incessantly problematized when the possible harm that could result is very little.
I can agree that sexualized depictions of women in media are problematic because it can shape how men think of women and how women think of themselves. I can agree that Scarface is problematic because it glorifies criminality. However, I'm not too concerned that Monster Hunter World will encourage its players to become real life big game hunting colonialists or whatever.
I took those criticisms of that aforementioned Danganropa game (did I spell that right?) way more seriously because it gets into gender issues that will effect more people, but that Monster Hunter World article felt more like something that someone not already on the far left would see and react to with "what the fuck are they talking about?"
Hexmage-PA on
0
Options
KalnaurI See Rain . . .Centralia, WARegistered Userregular
It seems to me that the Overton window is such that even if you’re directly in the middle, you’re 50% of the way to actual Nazis, and that’s way too far past the line of decency for you to hang peaceably in leftist spaces.
You do realise this comes across as "you're practically already a Nazi" and is a stunningly great example of how not to make friends and influence people?
I’m talking about a hypothetical middle
I’m asking what a moderate looks like in this discussion, and positing that my answer is “not actually a moderate”
I mean you might be right that it’s not the nicest thing to say to hypothetical moderates, but I also think it might simply be true that, according to leftist thinking, you really can’t go very far away from the far left before you start being somebody either whom the left won’t want around or who won’t want to be around the left
Given that we're talking about gamers, generally the hypothetical moderates, and in particular those who are in the prime recruiting range for the alt-right among that demographic currently is some mid-teen to mid-20's white guy who doesn't really have strong opinions on politics and doesn't really think too hard about the media they consume. Some variations on this theme of course, but that's the general picture I'd imagine.
Okay, so how do we pry him out of the shell that society has given him that allows him to not need to be as aware of politics and his media as, say, a woman might be? How do we get him out of his comfort zone and into the bigger playground, instead of burrowing further in? What are steps that you or anyone else would take to get this guy as a lefty ally?
I make art things! deviantART:Kalnaur ::: Origin: Kalnaur ::: UPlay: Kalnaur
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I've discussed and mentioned several solutions throughout the thread, but I'll recap if it helps.
- Conversion through individual dialog. I think this has limited effect but I still attempt it everywhere that I'm able. I also think people like Contrapoints are doing far better in that area than I ever could (and I again recommend that everyone watch her videos because she's amazing at selling her points, especially to edge lords. If anyone thinks liberals have no sense of humor, give her a few watches and see if she changes your mind)
- Keeping propaganda materials away from impressionable youths. This involves work by each individual platform and will almost certainly require government regulation before it actually happens, on account of there being too much profit in propaganda. I mentioned Youtube and Twitter, but it's even more important that games communities come up with better moderation.
- Deplatforming major alt-right stars. This 100% works, but is only generally used on the worst of the worst. So we can get rid of Alex Jones for blatant hate speech and libel, but we probably can't get rid of Jordan Peterson as long as he only uses dog whistles.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
+16
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I'm trying to figure out what we're still talking about, because at this point it feels like:
Quid is yelling at everyone about something spool already said they might have skipped over, missing 200 posts?
Frankie and some of the others seem to think that we should welcome, say, someone who is willingly saying nasty things about {minority group} in order to try and slowly get them to instead respect {minority group}
Everyone else seems to be in some way trying to determine what fault, if any, the left has in the creation of the alt-right (which, I mean, if we just recognize they're neo-Nazis, the answer is "no not really").
And I'm trying to figure out how this helps to identify what we should do about Gamers & the Alt-Right.
I guess there are degrees to how mainstream or radical Leftist criticism is.
"Don't use slurs" is the absolute bare minimum, and if someone finds that controversial that's a bad sign. I won't tolerate that.
What I have in mind as "too far" are things like that Monster Hunter World article. I don't want anybody to harass or threaten the author, but I also don't want all fictional entertainment incessantly problematized. I can agree that sexualized depictions of women in media are problematic because it can shape how men think of women and how women think of themselves, but I'm not too concerned that Monster Hunter World will encourage its players to become real life big game hunting colonialists or whatever. I took those criticisms of that aforementioned Danganropa game (did I spell that right?) way more seriously because it gets into gender issues that will effect more people, but that Monster Hunter World article felt more like something that someone not already on the far left would see and react to with "wtf are they talking about?"
Doesn't that author have a right to free speech the same as anyone else? The only positive reaction I saw to that article even in this thread was that "people in general should probably have an understanding of colonialism" which while true, is not something you're going to understand without looking in to it.
On the other hand, I would disagree - if this is a statement you're making - that there's no way to discuss colonialism in popular media. Look at how well Black Panther did.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
"The things you do and say hurt me and people like me."
"Okay?"
"You have to stop doing those things."
"That's unreasonable to ask, I'm gonna hang out with these hostile toxic people now."
I have a hard time believing this is a reasonable reaction.
That's literally the reaction folks are having here to being told they shouldn't just open season shit on folks that aren't progressives.
Citation please.
Perhaps you could serve it up with your proof that people around here are totally literally going to cannibalize the wealthy.
Okay, so then I go right off-topic with this joke, but:
No kidding, eat the rich is just silly. How would you even feed 150 homeless folks with just 2,208 people?
Seriously, though, I have seen exactly one person I interact with online calling for rich folks to literally be executed in the street and their belongings sold, then the money to be split evenly among the citizenry. I think the dude's crazy and I'm glad it's just one. Everyone else that I see saying "eat the rich" or some version of it means it less as a direct action and more as a call to divest the billionaires from their billions. Not that any of that has to do with the original topic of the thread.
I do wonder, in line with the thread's intent, we are only talking about the alt-right, correct? I mean, for the purposes of moving forward is there a show of hands of people who just simply see the alt-right and the right as the same thing? I don't. The more reasonable among conservatives I still disagree with deeply, and I'm fine with fighting their ideals, but we're talking about how to kick out the actual Nazis, right?
I think of it in a little more nuanced way, but I should probably raise my hand.
American conservatism is irrevocably poisoned by white supremacist fascism, which we often refer to as Nazi-ism. I look at American history, and I don't see a whole lot different from what the Nazis did, with two major exceptions: 1) our genocidal maniacs came before the invention of the assembly line so they didn't quite cram it all into a few short years like the Third Reich did and 2) we won and lived long enough for our descendants to write the history books.
The alt-right and the American right have the same goals. The only difference is that the alt-right revels in them, while the mainstream right is uncomfortable with that so they merely act as a buffer to block any action that would reverse some of the effects of the evil. "Look, sure, all that stuff was bad, but reparations? That's just unreasonable." The alt-right revels in white supremacist fascism. The mainstream right wants you to know that it's not their fault that they inherited a white supremacist society but they also really hate change so I guess we're just stuck with whatever we have, oh look that's white supremacy and I'm white, what a coincidence,.
This has become *especially* more true in the last 30 or 40 years, as economic conservatism fell more and more out of fashion and turning to the Southern Strategy became the only hope. I look at the Republican official platforms from the 1950s or 1960s it would be renounced as rank socialism by today's right.
Posts
To use an old forum favourite: Nobody Is Saying that alienating on the left created the alt right as your inflammatory post suggested. We're strongly suggesting that the more the left castigates people over very minor shit (i.e. bikeshedding, for example getting angry at using "guys" as a gender-neutral plural), the more you push people away. And much like how the hypothesis of stochastic terrorism suggests that using hateful rhetoric will cause someone, somewhere to do something horrific, pushing people out over minor shit will push some contingent away from more reasonable voices and make them take right-wing voices more seriously.
We've been over the proposed mechanism for this every time, and the two responses seem to be "you're asking us to be nice to monsters" (which is either asserting all 'moderates' who might even consider a non-left wing view were secretly monsters the entire time... or it's the misreading you performed just now where you believe we're talking about posters on r/the_donald... who are not the moderates we are talking about, and are clearly already alt-right - "Too seasoned" as I said earlier). The second is "why should we have to put effort in, that's not fair." Which is true, you shouldn't, and it'd be great if people naturally sided with a lot of humanist ideals. But if that were the case, we probably wouldn't be in this situation, so the choice is really just either cede the middle because you felt "it's not fair", or regain it with more effort and a struggle.
(as an aside, I think the assertion people naturally fall to the right is probably wrong. I'm pretty sure the alt-right and the right in general is very invested in putting effort into recruiting people, and it's that effort that requires equal if not greater effort on the left's part to counteract)
If someone goes around school telling a lie about you, yes, it's not fair that you then have to spend effort to contradict and disprove that lie, but unless you like being known as "the fat guy who shat himself in class and it came out his trouser leg" it's work you have to do. And that does include having to talk to people who were willing to believe the lie, and convince them it wasn't the case.
Also yeah there's a pretty big damning action people take when they tell the targets of the alt-right to "not be mad" and such. Emotional control is abusive.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I think this might be part of it. It's not that you won't alienate the left, but what's the practical effect of alienating someone already on the left?
The people going around school telling the lie are the ones you and others defend as "moderates".
You and others are insisting that while they're totally moderate and we just need to be civil, anything they say that's horrifically terrible just needs to be shrugged off in the interest of "common ground".
Several times now people's concerns about statements from posters like you have been dismissed. Several times now posters like you have expressed concern over dismissing the feelings of those sympathetic of the alt right. It is not at all reasonable that you care as much as you do about the latter but not in the slightest about the former.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
What's the practical effect of alienating someone already on the right?
Why does it only matter to consider these hypothetical people but not the moderates drive to the left by the alt right?
Moderates being driven left by the alt-right is good, why would we need to worry about that? Keep that happening. The number that matter is how many is the left driving away vs how many is it attracting.
Okay, I think this is happening where it can. Like, again, assholes are everywhere, there's nothing anyone can do about that, some people with progressive beliefs are going to be dicks, but there's not much that can be done. I don't think most people are doing what you say the 'left' is doing. What is happening, though, is that people are getting more and more aware of the actual individuals that are affected by this. Like, the #metoo movement is a great example. It's being broadcast in stark relief just how common sexual assault really is, and that the victims are actual real people who are trying to have a voice. And a lot of alt-right antifeminism is saying that the #metoo movement is about false accusations, and that it's dangerous even to look at a woman these days, and you're better off refusing to even speak to a female.
That sort of propaganda is exactly the sort of self-isolating rhetoric that will help the alt-right recruit more people! Make sure that people mistrust anyone with a progressive viewpoint! Make women the enemy! And right now I'm trying to reconcile how to combat that without using language that says the alt-right is wrong! That says that the alt-right is lying to them without actually saying that. How do we convince vulnerable people that the #metoo movement is worth preserving, is not about shaming men, is not about making false accusations without saying that those that claim that it is are liars?
How does one combat misinformation without calling it such?
Several people here are contending it's a unidirectional reaction that only harms the left.
Where has Bethryn said we need to ignore "horrifically terrible" statements?
Nothing is ever unidirectional
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I haven’t heard a convincing answer in this thread as to which people are the moderates and how the left is supposed to behave towards those moderates such that the moderates are not alienated.
We know that leftist criticisms are magnified and simplified on social media; we know that they’re propagandized by the right.
We know that letting people say hurtful things makes spaces unsafe for minority groups.
Are there true centrist moderates who can exist in leftist spaces without taking umbrage at leftist criticisms and without saying hurtful things?
It seems to me that the Overton window is such that even if you’re directly in the middle, you’re 50% of the way to actual Nazis, and that’s way too far past the line of decency for you to hang peaceably in leftist spaces.
That's what the alt-right does, takes a single happening that annoyed a single person, and turns it into a movement by the left to castrate and imprison all men for life (hyperbole, folks, I'm using hyperbole) in order to gain more ground with the folks that don't actually want to talk to the "left". They just want to be told that all the left and especially women hate them already.
In other words, I think it's less what the left says and more what becomes misrepresented as fact by those seeking the end of forward progress.
Does that happen?
Like, we don't agree on a lot of stuff but there's no number of times I can be chastised for a Nazi joke that will drive me to the alt-right. I'm not young as I used to be. I've developed a more solid ideology and it'll take a lot to push me off it. I have experience and context to reinforce the things I believe, all the things a younger man or woman does not. At this point I'm somewhat resigned to the idea that broadly the left is right, even though they're often tremendous aholes about it. I suppose that could change but I doubt it.
On the other hand, someone who doesn't have that familiarity and experience and context could more easily fixate on that "tremendous ahole" thing.
I guess I also expect more of people who already know. The Educated, if you will. I expect you not to go altright or whatever on me because I expect you know better. Your experience has granted you a certain responsibility, in my mind. I don't extend that to the uninitiated. The people who never really interacted with the left in a serious way, who mostly just exchanged heated words over shit they didn't get and didn't understand what all the fuss was about? We owed them a certain introduction they didn't get.
Where?
For someone who is complaining about people not responding to direct quotations from inside the thread, you have several times over the past few pages conjured complete poppycock from thin air. I can only assume this is some sort of performative method of debate where you try to behave in way you view us as behaving to "give us a taste of our own medicine."
But I spoke about my own feelings, not what anyone on the alt right feels (unless you do think--as you suggest in a couple different ways--that I am a bigoted member of the alt right?)
But ok. I think you are being a silly goose here and you think whatever you think of me and I guess that's that. I register for the record that I think "weird abusive tones" are not a one-way street in this thread, and, if anything, majority sentiment feels emboldened by the weight of a crowd to really style on the heterodox (owning the "anti-libs," I guess, not that that's a label I'd ever apply to myself). So I think this thread is in many cases a great example of How Not to Have a Worthwhile Conversation.
"Okay?"
"You have to stop doing those things."
"That's unreasonable to ask, I'm gonna hang out with these hostile toxic people now."
I have a hard time believing this is a reasonable reaction.
Let's take a moment to appreciate the full context of the quote tree.
https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/41026788#Comment_41026788
Spool contends that no one posting now believes the left is to blame for the creation of the alt right. I disagree based on posts made by others blaming the left for driving people on the left towards the alt right. To which Spool concedes he skipped past the last 200 hundred posts.
If you want to defend that particular claim, which is what the original statement centers on, go ahead. Otherwise once again it's getting incredibly tiresome for people to quote a person but respond to a completely different scenario.
Personally, if I were the king of social media, I'd ban everyone who can't be civil, left or right. With that done, the remaining leftists wouldn't have alt-right trolls harassing them anymore and could advocate their position with less stress if they so choose. I'd imagine the resulting environment would be similar to these forums.
Does anyone posting now believe the left is to blame for the creation of the alt right?
I mean, I do, but only in a semantic, comprehensive way that you probably don't care about (everyone shares the blame for everything in different quantities; nothing is completely unconnected).
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Well, let me delve deeper into your idea of the "non-asshole", the people in your guild. You mentioned they make SJW jokes, which are tiresome enough, but can you tell me further? Do they call each other "tr**y" and "f****t?" Do they laugh about how hi-lar-ious butsex is? Do they call each other "pussy" when one of them messes up, or compare each other to women or gays when they don't DPS well? Cause see to you all that might be "fun, light times with the bros!" and to me that's not a fun time!
You know what a fun, relaxed time with people who "have no filter" and "say what everyone's thinking" would look like in my dream world that doesn't exist? It'd look like this:
But you say anything like that in front of the kind of guild bros you're talking about, and suddenly things aren't so light and fun! Suddenly they want you to have a filter! Suddenly being irreverent and saying exactly what you think is deeply frowned on! Somehow these light, fun times only go in one direction!
I’m talking about a hypothetical middle
I’m asking what a moderate looks like in this discussion, and positing that my answer is “not actually a moderate”
I mean you might be right that it’s not the nicest thing to say to hypothetical moderates, but I also think it might simply be true that, according to leftist thinking, you really can’t go very far away from the far left before you start being somebody either whom the left won’t want around or who won’t want to be around the left
I am arguing against the persistent attempts to transform this into a sanitised political ideology argument between left and right - it was literally my opening sentence.
I'd also ask you not to put words in my mouth - at no point in my post did I talk about, to use your words, smiting down anyone who isn't sufficiently woke. I wish I could be sorry that you find it frustrating to be made to feel the way you do because of that, but actually I'm more disappointed that you apparently felt the need to categorise my description of my own personal experiences in the gaming sphere (of, you know, asking for just a basic level of human decency in not using blatantly homophobic, or racist, or transphobic, or sexist slurs) being categorised as anything but an appeal to basic human decency.
And, honestly? If you read the description of the experiences I've been through (and they're pretty tame compared to those of many other marginalised folks - I'm still here able to post this message for one thing) and take from that anything at all different from 'actually, yes, it's not unreasonable to ask people not to use those kinds of terms, or take exception to folks displaying that kind of negative attitude towards others and challenging them' then you are at best absolutely supporting the status quo.
And folks may not like being called out as, or thought of as bigoted, for their own refusal to stand up to this kind of 'othering' behaviour. To which I would have to say it is at best naïve, at its worst disingenuous and downright complicit, to believe that silence/refusal to challenge this behaviour is not demonstrative of tacit approval for such bigotry.
Ocean, tears and heartbreak soup
Half alive in a whitecap foam
Half in love with a white half moon
That's literally the reaction folks are having here to being told they shouldn't just open season shit on folks that aren't progressives.
Citation please.
Perhaps you could serve it up with your proof that people around here are totally literally going to cannibalize the wealthy.
And I'm trying to figure out how this helps to identify what we should do about Gamers & the Alt-Right.
I think partly is trying to answer 'What drives gamers to the alt-right'. One hypothesis was some (many?) don't start off with alt-right ideology, but that feeling alienated they become prey to the alt-right propaganda which pretends to defend them against what's alienating them. It then went on into what can or should the left do to prevent this, which I think was met with resistance that it's not the left's fault but the alt-right's that these people end up radicalized.
When you're in the thick of it and very emotionally involved, it's sometimes hard to see a solution, because you have to defend the ramparts against a current attack, so the trading ports are temporarily closed. Right now, we're doing a lot of output with not much input, I feel.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The problem at the core of this is that America *is* a pretty Nazi-fied society. We were the ones that gave the Nazis their inspiration. Any approach that doesn't address that may be more palatable to the "center," (imo, these are just people who want all the benefits of America's white supremacy without feeling morally responsible for it, so they just sort of drag their feet) but it's fundamentally dishonest and won't solve any of the problems in a meaningful way.
Okay, so then I go right off-topic with this joke, but:
No kidding, eat the rich is just silly. How would you even feed 150 homeless folks with just 2,208 people?
Seriously, though, I have seen exactly one person I interact with online calling for rich folks to literally be executed in the street and their belongings sold, then the money to be split evenly among the citizenry. I think the dude's crazy and I'm glad it's just one. Everyone else that I see saying "eat the rich" or some version of it means it less as a direct action and more as a call to divest the billionaires from their billions. Not that any of that has to do with the original topic of the thread.
I do wonder, in line with the thread's intent, we are only talking about the alt-right, correct? I mean, for the purposes of moving forward is there a show of hands of people who just simply see the alt-right and the right as the same thing? I don't. The more reasonable among conservatives I still disagree with deeply, and I'm fine with fighting their ideals, but we're talking about how to kick out the actual Nazis, right?
Given that we're talking about gamers, generally the hypothetical moderates, and in particular those who are in the prime recruiting range for the alt-right among that demographic currently is some mid-teen to mid-20's white guy who doesn't really have strong opinions on politics and doesn't really think too hard about the media they consume. Some variations on this theme of course, but that's the general picture I'd imagine.
I guess there are degrees to how mainstream or radical Leftist criticism is.
"Don't use slurs" is the absolute bare minimum, and if someone finds that controversial that's a bad sign. I won't tolerate that.
What I have in mind as "too far" are things like that Monster Hunter World article. I don't want anybody to harass or threaten the author, but I also don't want all fictional entertainment incessantly problematized when the possible harm that could result is very little.
I can agree that sexualized depictions of women in media are problematic because it can shape how men think of women and how women think of themselves. I can agree that Scarface is problematic because it glorifies criminality. However, I'm not too concerned that Monster Hunter World will encourage its players to become real life big game hunting colonialists or whatever.
I took those criticisms of that aforementioned Danganropa game (did I spell that right?) way more seriously because it gets into gender issues that will effect more people, but that Monster Hunter World article felt more like something that someone not already on the far left would see and react to with "what the fuck are they talking about?"
Okay, so how do we pry him out of the shell that society has given him that allows him to not need to be as aware of politics and his media as, say, a woman might be? How do we get him out of his comfort zone and into the bigger playground, instead of burrowing further in? What are steps that you or anyone else would take to get this guy as a lefty ally?
- Conversion through individual dialog. I think this has limited effect but I still attempt it everywhere that I'm able. I also think people like Contrapoints are doing far better in that area than I ever could (and I again recommend that everyone watch her videos because she's amazing at selling her points, especially to edge lords. If anyone thinks liberals have no sense of humor, give her a few watches and see if she changes your mind)
- Keeping propaganda materials away from impressionable youths. This involves work by each individual platform and will almost certainly require government regulation before it actually happens, on account of there being too much profit in propaganda. I mentioned Youtube and Twitter, but it's even more important that games communities come up with better moderation.
- Deplatforming major alt-right stars. This 100% works, but is only generally used on the worst of the worst. So we can get rid of Alex Jones for blatant hate speech and libel, but we probably can't get rid of Jordan Peterson as long as he only uses dog whistles.
Doesn't that author have a right to free speech the same as anyone else? The only positive reaction I saw to that article even in this thread was that "people in general should probably have an understanding of colonialism" which while true, is not something you're going to understand without looking in to it.
On the other hand, I would disagree - if this is a statement you're making - that there's no way to discuss colonialism in popular media. Look at how well Black Panther did.
I think of it in a little more nuanced way, but I should probably raise my hand.
American conservatism is irrevocably poisoned by white supremacist fascism, which we often refer to as Nazi-ism. I look at American history, and I don't see a whole lot different from what the Nazis did, with two major exceptions: 1) our genocidal maniacs came before the invention of the assembly line so they didn't quite cram it all into a few short years like the Third Reich did and 2) we won and lived long enough for our descendants to write the history books.
The alt-right and the American right have the same goals. The only difference is that the alt-right revels in them, while the mainstream right is uncomfortable with that so they merely act as a buffer to block any action that would reverse some of the effects of the evil. "Look, sure, all that stuff was bad, but reparations? That's just unreasonable." The alt-right revels in white supremacist fascism. The mainstream right wants you to know that it's not their fault that they inherited a white supremacist society but they also really hate change so I guess we're just stuck with whatever we have, oh look that's white supremacy and I'm white, what a coincidence,.
This has become *especially* more true in the last 30 or 40 years, as economic conservatism fell more and more out of fashion and turning to the Southern Strategy became the only hope. I look at the Republican official platforms from the 1950s or 1960s it would be renounced as rank socialism by today's right.