I find it disturbing that somebody would even consider switching to the alt-right over this. Do people not have deeply-held beliefs anymore? Personally, that is a line that I would never, under any circumstance, cross, even if I was the one who got fired and blacklisted. It is a non-negotiable position.
You are right to find it disturbing. It is disturbing. Once it becomes dangerous to express your ideas, then people with contrary ideas will either be crushed or rebellious.
There is a stupendously thin line between a sane person and an insane one. It is possible to break minds, and the vitriol that can be poured out from the depths of the internet is quite sufficient to break the typical human being. Some people start off closer to the edge than others.
I'm glad I do not know the true extent of the outrage that this subject has unleashed, but I'll wager it includes credible death threats considering the size of the audience that it has reached.
If you pour hate over something long enough, it will bear fruit.
It’s not that someone would switch to the alt-right, it’s that the definition of belief is moving the line so others are defining you as alt-right. As an example, Ben Shapiro is by statements and beliefs not alt-right. He was attacked by them quite a bit. Yet, people have started calling him alt-right in media and forums.
I too would never cross that line, but I believe others will be happy to redraw that line regardless of my actual beliefs. This is what happens when others can slap labels on you and there is no real debate.
I feel like this happened because it seems he accidentally presented himself to the outside world as alt-right. You'd only know he was a right libertarian (my impression at least) if you regularly listened to him.
For example, Look at his Wikipedia article vs his /r/politics AMA. His Wikipedia article paints him as alt-right, because all of his major accomplishments that reach outside the audience are hyper-focused on culture wars and academia influence on politics. His support of Israel was mentioned, but he did flip to an alt-right acceptable view. The only thing suggesting on the wiki page he's not alt right is not supporting Trump, but it doesn't help that its implied they mostly attacked him for being Jewish.
From that alone I would think it was a Milo situation, where they are alt-right that are unaccepted by the "alt-reich" because of a specific character trait.
The AMA however gave me the idea he's right libertarian. A lot of his answers seem to circle back to the free market. His pro-life opinion is even a slight extension of that, where he believes life needs to be guaranteed to at least participate in the market. This, however, required direct drilling of the guy to actually get.
So TLDR, He talks libertarian, but his noticeable acts are alt-right. I think this is a bit his fault, considering he didn't think to advertise his libertarian ideas at all in books or speeches even though he started his career before he even graduated college.
> I feel like this happened because it seems he accidentally presented himself to the outside world as alt-right.
I would love for you to find one place Ben Shapiro presents as alt-right.
> His Wikipedia article paints him as alt-right
of course it does, Conservatives of all stripes have been complaining about the bias of Wikipedia for some time. It paints anyone who is sorta conservative as alt-right.
If you believe he acts "alt-right" then pretty much every libertarian is alt-right, and that's just wrong.
You can complain about Wikipedia, but you missed the point of me mentioning it. Here's a question I want answered because otherwise he might as well present as such:
Do you think the Wikipedia page is missing anything important he's done? Specifically anything of note that has to do with the free market.
Otherwise, its basically a "just one goat" situation, except he done like 7 goats. the day to day things are just not gonna stick out as much as the big things so what he says on his podcast isn't enough to change that perception.
I am trying to figure out what exactly he has done to make him alt-right since they attack him constantly.
From the Wikipedia page:
> n May 2016 New York Magazine reported: "Shapiro...has increasingly found himself targeted by the so-called alt-right movement, a loose conglomeration of online personalities—many if not most of them anonymous—currently devoted to tweeting and posting their support for Donald Trump and attacking those who disagree, often in racist and anti-Semitic ways. They have been denigrating Shapiro as a 'pussy', a 'cuck', a 'Jew' and a 'kike'."[54]
He supports Israel which actually isn't an alt-right thing.
I'm trying to find what in that article makes him alt-right.
Welp, I made a mistake. He's had multiple opinions on Israel, and he's currently pro-Israel at the moment, this was the offending quote:
"A decade later, however, Shapiro reversed his position. In an article published on March 13, 2013, Shapiro wrote, "Some on the right have proposed population transfer from the Gaza Strip or West Bank as a solution. This is both inhumane and impractical. Moving millions of Palestinians out of areas they have known for their entire lives will certainly not pave the way to peace" and while "both right and left agree that a population separation is necessary," he proposes that Israel "has no choice but to weather [the anti-Israeli propaganda]" until a realistic solution comes to light.[37]"
This however was followed by the UCLA section which I misunderstood. Either way, I don't think there's much point on focusing on Israel. The Don himself is probably more pro-Israel than he is. Opinions like that are less identifying of alt right and more as weapons to be used when the alt reich feel betrayed.
That mistake is also why I'm forgiving you on the whole being attacked by the alt right. I've already said why that doesn't matter, it was also in the paragraph right after that one: "I've experienced more pure, unadulterated anti-Semitism since coming out against Trump's candidacy than at any other time in my political career". If he was alt-right he wouldn't be the first to be turned on like with Milo and the Daily Stormer.
I think there's something I need to clarify here. Another poster here posted how alt right means Nazi now. I DONT believe that, and if you may notice I prefer to say Reich for the Nazi side. I see the alt right as someone who has taken to the right socially, possibly being opposites with libertarians with left economics, but are not evangelicals because they're a revolt on social justice (not against it, but specifically a "what about us?") and, most important here, the reaction to such opinions by colleges, news, and businesses. Also, please remember my second comment before you bring up Wikipedia's own article on the alt right.
Which makes the whole discussion a bit funny but confusing. The guy is definitely alt right, despite what everyone's saying here. A bunch of people here are alt right too but, again, don't want to say so. What happened is history has repeated itself as alt right is to alt reich/Nazi as liberal was to socialism/communism.
It doesn't actually matter in the end how I separate them in the end. Much like the mere mention of redistribution was likened to communism, The fact that alt right can be fiscally left has been taken advantage of to frame everything they believe as Nazi under a simplistic understanding of it. The end result is people seeing a thing as alt right, even if they define it differently somehow.
I'd recommend not replying to this comment as quickly as the last, it had to be long to clarify myself and I won't read the reply till tomorrow anyway.
I'm not bringing up Wikipedia or anything else. I am going to one of the main alt-right people to define their beliefs and membership[0].
Vox Day is alt-right. That probably is not a controversial statement to anyone. I would assume that he knows who is alt-right and who is not. Given that he wrote an article[2] that declares Ben Shapiro and enemy of the alt-right and later tries to classify Mr. Shapiro[3], I am given to believe being someones enemy is a pretty good sign that you are not that same someone.
I think you desperately want to classify Ben Shapiro as alt-right for some weird reason. I would assume so you can ignore any argument he puts forward with a cheap label.
0) having to read some of this stuff to actually reply is truly painful and frankly its bad enough I have to read far left stuff, reading alt-right stuff is just as painful.
I think you completely misunderstand me. A bit my fault cause I usually plan out how I argue and I honestly did not expect this type of questioning. I'll reiterate my first comment in that I know the guy's libertarian (I think, definitely not alt right)?
I mean shit, this whole argument has nothing to do with whether I want to listen to his arguments. It was an explanation of how silly things like this happen in the first place where a libertarian gets confused for an alt right person.
Maybe the goat metaphor wasn't the best thing to go for, since the goat lover is an actual goat lover regardless of the other things he does. Maybe framed 7 times with a goat makes more sense? Maybe plain words are better: He's advertised the things people consider alt right, but not the things about him that prove he isn't. The actual alt right notice these discrepancies regardless and correctly identify him.
> I feel like this happened because it seems he accidentally presented himself to the outside world as alt-right.
Through all this, I still don't understand what you think he did to "present" himself as alt-right? I really hate when people put labels on others just to be able to dismiss them and calling someone alt-right should be backed up with a little bit of evidence.
The books except the one about presidents (which seems to be just history) and the Iraq war piece (which was in the tail end of being career-ending if you criticized), the organization he co-founded, and the speeches he's done that aren't about Israel.
"Alt-right" means "Nazi" now. It didn't always. Somebody dragged Richard Spencer out from whatever rock he lives under and into the public eye, specifically for the purpose of changing that meaning - or, as you have it, moving that line.
"Spencer and others have said that he created the term 'alt-right', which he considers a movement about white identity. Breitbart News described Spencer's website AlternativeRight.com as 'a center of alt-right thought.'"
This matches with what I know. White supremacy was also featured prominently in the sidebar of /r/altright before it was banned.
I mean, Spencer says a lot of things. Do you believe all of them, or only the ones you find convenient? And the same Breitbart article [1] quoted there also devotes an entire section to disposing of the three dozen or so legit would-be Nazis on the fringe.
Of course, that Breitbart article also dates from March 2016. Spencer didn't hit the big time for quite a few months after that - not, in fact, until just after the election [2], whereas "alt-right" in general had never really left the zeitgeist after its first big splash in August. But that changed when the media made Spencer its darling, because of course it did - the man is eminently hateable, which is precisely why he was made so notorious so fast.
I am someone that don't like feminism (but I won't discuss that now).
My political position is kinda anti-authoritarian, and I don't trust corporations, early on my life it was considered left, people would call me anarquist or socialist.
After a while people started to call me liberal, libertarian and minarquist, and call me "right"
And now with the popularity of the term alt-right, I get called alt-right too.
-----
That was one way to 'become' alt-right, I know another one, sadly a really bad way...
I visit sometimes some anti-feminist forums and whatnot, and I see there LOTS of seething rage, people that have a deep raging hatred against feminism and women. (and if you visit 8chan for example, or voat, you see open racism, anti-religion, etc...)
One day someone made the brilliant decision to create in one such forum a thread where people ended discussing their personal lives... Every single "raging" person were deeply screwed in the past, for example one guy that hated all women were raped when he was a teenager, and when he sought help, people refused, when he sought help from a women shelter, he got raped again. Another guy was being forced to pay for child support for a child that wasn't his, another one had the opposite problem: his ex-wife was a drug addict that cheated on him with a lawyer, the couple took custody of his kids, and made a motion prohibiting both visits and child support, all that he wanted was pay for child support and for his kids to know he cares about them, so that they don't believe he was the one that fled the marriage. Another guy there was in prison for several years due to a false rape accusation, when people found out the accusation was false, he was released, but he still can't find any jobs, and the accuser wasn't punished. And the list goes and goes and goes on... lots of extremely sad stories, it became clear why you can't reason with those people, they had traumas that in a way 'prove' that moderate points of view were wrong, and that only their extremist views (for example raped guy defended that all women should be literally enslaved and used by the state only for breeding and nothing else), can protect them and others from the same fate.
I believe there are two important reasons two to listen to people with opposing or extreme positions.
1 - Those oppinions _may_ have a single grain of truth. And, as reasonable beings, we cannot allow that truth to be buried or silenced.
2 - Regardless os the validity or truthfullness of that opinion, we should try to understand _why_ that person holds those opinions. This helps us understand why and how some ideas and opinions still persist to this day.
I notice that there appears to be a competing definition of "alt-right". One is the age-old white supremacist groups that pre-existed Trump et al. The other is Milo and right-leaning you-tubers etc. I think there might be some confusion over this.
