Area for all other political discussion
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
 
By Bones McCoy
Membership Days Posts
#570010
Don't know whether this really justifies a thread of its own, let's give it a couple of days.

The Alt-right have developed a series of passwords and identifiers to recognise each other.
This allows them to (in their words) "Hide their power level" and recognise fellow travelers while fishing on more mainstream forums.

We've probably all seen the Emojis: frog or milk glass, or the numbers like 14/88 or hand gestures like thuumbs up and the OK sign that are public.
Like any secretive movement they change these passwords regularly.

So an opportunity to share any new ones - without going all Alex Jones.


Today I learned that triple parentheses are used to identify jews, people of jewish heritage or assumed to work for the jewish globalist conspiracy.
For example:
Speaker (((Bercow)) is advancing the globalist agenda with his blocking tactics.
By Andy McDandy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#570013
Other ones are poor grammar, random capitalisation and bad poetry.

Seriously thought, I learned today that the "OK sign" is, fittingly, the ASL sign for asshole.
 
By spoonman
Membership Days Posts
#570021
There's a pretty good glossary concerning the so-called "alt-right" on RationalWiki...

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alt-right_glossary
Boiler, Catkins liked this
#570032
Also be aware of the bothsiders. I've encountered a few in my time, there always quick to defend the alt-right/neo-nazis under the guise of freedom of speech, always going on about the extreme left et cetera.
 
By cycloon
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#570035
The Weeping Angel wrote:
Thu Mar 21, 2019 7:29 pm
Also be aware of the bothsiders. I've encountered a few in my time, there always quick to defend the alt-right/neo-nazis under the guise of freedom of speech, always going on about the extreme left et cetera.
Yup. There's a really awful act at the heart of much of this that tarnishes values that I think are worth defending. It's why 'centrists' get such a bad name from some.

It's complicated. Here's my take, since you all asked for it.

On the one hand there's a, for want of a better word, 'liberal' idea that free speech and debate will, all things being equal, produce an outcome of conensus, or at least non-violent disagreement. Free speech and debate are significant, valuable things. A lot of people who don't think much about this stuff will thus appeal to a sense of fair play and discursive justice to try and mediate, to resolve, to ameliorate - to avoid violence, to avoid injustice etc. A noble aim (no matter what people think, I think it's noble): when violence comes out, the innocent get punished more than those considered guilty, and who were used as the cue to get violent. The issue is the OTHER hand.

The other hand is people who know this about 'debate' and 'free speech', and use these terms as cover. The most obvious example I can think of (other than the Nazis using Weimar democracy as a leg up) is the cry for 'debate'. The issue is some people don't want debate: the alt-right don't, the Mailites bleating about immigration don't, the communists didn't, etc. They want to shout their ideas and not be contradicted. The opposite of a debate. But 'debate' is a good word, it's what we should want, right? Often, yes. But not always. We have to have sincere actors in a debate (ideally...). Often people talk about 'the marketplace of ideas', as if marketplaces are places of honesty, sincerity and open-dealing.

How that plays out 'tactically' (e.g. in a debate about no-platforming) is how it plays out, contingent on the specifics. But that's why 'centrists' get a bad name, and I genuinely think it's down to some people's ignorance more than malice: the goal of debate is a noble one, but often pursued poorly. It's also down to privilege, in part: if I don't feel under threat, how can I truly understand those who do?

I think this then spins people further out from 'the centre': anyone not committed enough to the narratives demanding radical change are seen as weak. Don't get me wrong, the alt-right and their fascisti chums are scum, and defence of rights is far more desireable than their denigration of them, but the discourse at the moment about this is so... aggressive. It's easier to be angry than it is to be compassionate, after all. Who wins when we're all angry? Not good people. Not good things. Not good.
 
By spoonman
Membership Days Posts
#570038
cycloon wrote:
Thu Mar 21, 2019 7:47 pm
The Weeping Angel wrote:
Thu Mar 21, 2019 7:29 pm
Also be aware of the bothsiders. I've encountered a few in my time, there always quick to defend the alt-right/neo-nazis under the guise of freedom of speech, always going on about the extreme left et cetera.
Yup. There's a really awful act at the heart of much of this that tarnishes values that I think are worth defending. It's why 'centrists' get such a bad name from some.

It's complicated. Here's my take, since you all asked for it.

On the one hand there's a, for want of a better word, 'liberal' idea that free speech and debate will, all things being equal, produce an outcome of conensus, or at least non-violent disagreement. Free speech and debate are significant, valuable things. A lot of people who don't think much about this stuff will thus appeal to a sense of fair play and discursive justice to try and mediate, to resolve, to ameliorate - to avoid violence, to avoid injustice etc. A noble aim (no matter what people think, I think it's noble): when violence comes out, the innocent get punished more than those considered guilty, and who were used as the cue to get violent. The issue is the OTHER hand.

The other hand is people who know this about 'debate' and 'free speech', and use these terms as cover. The most obvious example I can think of (other than the Nazis using Weimar democracy as a leg up) is the cry for 'debate'. The issue is some people don't want debate: the alt-right don't, the Mailites bleating about immigration don't, the communists didn't, etc. They want to shout their ideas and not be contradicted. The opposite of a debate. But 'debate' is a good word, it's what we should want, right? Often, yes. But not always. We have to have sincere actors in a debate (ideally...). Often people talk about 'the marketplace of ideas', as if marketplaces are places of honesty, sincerity and open-dealing.

How that plays out 'tactically' (e.g. in a debate about no-platforming) is how it plays out, contingent on the specifics. But that's why 'centrists' get a bad name, and I genuinely think it's down to stupidity/ignorance more than malice: the goal is a noble one, but pursued poorly. It's also down to privilege, in part: if I don't feel under threat, how can I truly understand those who do?

I think this then spins people further out from 'the centre': anyone not committed enough to the narratives demanding radical change are seen as weak. Don't get me wrong, the alt-right and their fascisti chums are scum, and defence of rights is far more desireable than their denigration of them, but the discourse at the moment about this is so... aggressive. It's easier to be angry than it is to be compassionate, after all. Who wins when we're all angry? Not good people. Not good things. Not good.
It comes down to a "balance fallacy" where in a mistaken belief that in order to be seen as impartial or unbiased, an opposing viewpoint no matter how close to the fringes edge it is against one which has an overwhelming popular consensus among those who work and study in that field must be given a right to be heard as far that it must be given equal time to it.

Then it comes to people muddying the waters between opinion and fact, which has became worse over the last decade. Not to long ago it was taken that something which had strong conclusive evidence was sacrosanct to fact and regarded as such, nowadays a worrying amount of people don't accept as fact if it conflicts with their political or philosophical outlooks. As Adam Savage from Mythbusters used to sarcastically say, "I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

So everyone can be entitled to their own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. And this brings along another balance fallacy in treating all opinions as equal. They are not. Most medical doctors have at least enough self awareness to know that their opinion on a matter is not sacred even though they may have spent years or decades studying and researching in a specialist field, hence a patients right to a second opinion. If I have bad toothache do I make an appointment to see the local dentist, or do I pop around next door to the local car mechanic to see what she can do with her vise grips? And on the other hand, if my car has trouble starting every morning to I approach the same mechanic or the same dentist?

It's too easy these days to bundle up bullshit in a package of slick presentation that can be cheaply done with less manpower than ever before that can rival that of organisations that historically been held by the public as trustworthy guardians of truth and facts. What's even more worrying about many of them is that these days they're willing to book such fringe theory guests for the bullitens, shows and editorials for the shock and argumentive value in a way to get ratings and sales figures for advertising revenues. And don't start me on clickbait headlines.

Finally, why do the likes of the BBC in the news programming invite people to email them with their views and comments on certain stories? If I want to watch news programming it's because I wish to be informed of the world around me, not to hear the presenter read out a load of bollocks that you can hear down most pubs. If I do want to hear someone, let it be their specialist correspondent or someone else with relevant knowledge in the field of the story. The same goes for vox pops on the street. On odd occasions they can be a useful guide to gauge public opinion on pressing matters, but there's just too much now used as filler or once again for shock value. Do I want to hear what a random 30 something woman thinks about new research from an internationally renowned university that the average adult human releases 0.9 litres of anal gas each day? No. Feck off!
Boiler, lord_kobel, Samanfur liked this
By Andy McDandy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#570041
Sartre had it right 60 years ago. You can't debate with a fascist, because they're not interested in debate. They're humouring you until they get bored or run out of arguments, and then they punch you in the face. They're not open to new ideas, just laughing at you for being soft.
spoonman, Boiler, lord_kobel and 2 others liked this
 
By cycloon
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#570044
Yeah, Sartre had it right.

I don't think this is particularly new (seeing as we're referring to Sartre), either. Regarding fact/opinion, I mean. There's never been a golden age of widespread rationalism-married-to-just-the-right-dose-of-irrationality etc.

We've always been apes.
 
By MisterMuncher
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#570047
Debate, as a discipline, isn't actually about being correct, but about being convincing and appealling. Facts are a sideshow. That's why alt-right intellectuals (and I use that word quite, quite wrongly) are so very fond of calling for public debates with liberal figures. Like creationists et al before them, they've recognised they can't win with the mind, so they're trying for the gut.
spoonman liked this
 
By spoonman
Membership Days Posts
#570076
cycloon wrote:
Thu Mar 21, 2019 8:55 pm
Yeah, Sartre had it right.

I don't think this is particularly new (seeing as we're referring to Sartre), either. Regarding fact/opinion, I mean. There's never been a golden age of widespread rationalism-married-to-just-the-right-dose-of-irrationality etc.

We've always been apes.
I concur that there has never been a golden age of near perfect rationalism at least in our lifetimes. But in my experience we seem to be going down the rabbit hole over the past several years or so towards being less objective people, less ability to agree to disagree with our peers (though it is a big challenge with those not open to their views being disagreed with in any way), and be more taken in by wanting our wishes to all be fulfilled regardless of how practical, its cost to society or its consequences forseen & unforseen. We all have on occasions let emotions get the better of us over rationality and evidence, but normally we sober up in the long term.

As Malcolm of these parts has said on many occasions over the years, it is an ongoing "retreat from reason". Thankfully I don't think the UK has reached a point of anti intellectualism that has poisoned discourse like it has done in the USA. Yet.
Labour Policies 2019/20

A thread to discuss the several policies which wil[…]

Brexit Fuckwit Thread

Well, I suggested taking the batteries out and l[…]

Labour, Generally.

The Sunday Times have a memo from Andrew Fisher. I[…]

The Today Programme

He already has a Mail column, doesn't he?