Alt right divided

[mr friendly guy]

Over Milo

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-39045458

How Milo divided the alt-right
by Will Yates
BBC Trending
2 hours ago


Leading figures and activists on the alt-right have split over controversial comments made by one of the movement's champions.
Milo Yiannopoulos is a passionate supporter of Donald Trump and rose to fame as an editor at the right-wing website Breitbart. His extreme views on feminism and Islam made him a darling of the American alt-right - a loose collection of anti-immigration, anti-political correctness conservatives including many white nationalists. Although Yiannopoulos has consistently said he is not a member of the movement, in March 2016 co-wrote a much-cited defence of the alt-right.
But now he appears to have crossed a line with his views after videos surfaced in which he appeared to condone paedophilia, and some of his former allies have turned against him.
The footage showed him discussing the merits of gay relationships between adults and boys as young as 13. Yiannopoulos will no longer speak at a US conservative conference and a book deal, reportedly worth $250,000, has been cancelled.
On Tuesday he resigned from Breitbart. In a statement he said his "poor choice of words" was detracting from the work of his colleagues.

While many grass-root supporters are standing by him, a number of high profile right-wing figures seem to have decided his latest comments are a step too far.
Tim Treadstone tweets under the name Baked Alaska and ranked number eight on Time Magazine's most influential Twitter feeds of 2017. He was one of the first alt-right activists to openly criticise Milo.
Tweet: I have defended Milo for standing up for free speech on many occasions. Today, I cannot defend Milo anymore.Image copyright@BAKEDALASKA/TWITTER
Gavin McInnes, a co-founder of Vice Media and now a leading anti-feminist campaigner, was also quick to distance himself from Milo's comments, but at the same time claimed that the Breitbart editor was being targeted by establishment forces.
"Advocating sex w 13-yr-olds under ANY conditions is indefensible but this is ultimately about the old right's disdain for the new right," he tweeted.
Read more
Who is Milo Yiannopoulos?
Yiannopoulos quits Breitbart News
Trump’s shock troops: Who are the ‘alt-right’?
Visit the Trending Facebook page
The white nationalist Richard B Spencer, one of the leaders of the movement and someone who had previously described Yiannopoulos as "alt light" was dismissive.
Tweet: Just finished a video on Milo, uploading now. The guy is totally done. No sane person will defend him.Image copyright@RICHARDBSPENCER/TWITTER

Yiannopoulos did though get support from some parts of the far right. Alex Jones, who runs the far right Infowars, uploaded a video defending Yiannopoulos, blaming the mainstream media for taking his words out of context.

Debate has also been raging on the social media site Gab, which as BBC Trending has previously reported, is a favourite hangout of the alt-right. Users seem divided over whether Yiannopoulos deserves sympathy or condemnation.
"Yes, Milo is a flamboyant provocateur, but this coordinated attack on him by the #FakeNews is disgusting," wrote one user who signed off with the hashtag "Stand with Milo."
Another wrote: "Please let's not lose this guy. Nothing is worse than serving a cause, and getting chewed up and spit out."
While most of the messages on Gab defended Yiannopoulos, many users were critical: "Regardless if recent events are justified or not, I haven't liked that many were hitching the movement to Milo. He's always been a bit of an attention whore."
"Milo has always insisted he isn't #altright, he recently disavowed white identity and on Maher said he wasn't even conservative," wrote another. "He basically disavowed the entire right so what are we defending here exactly?"
Blog by Will Yates

Strictly speaking, his speech indicates he is a hebephile rather than a paedophile, but he is condoning a sex crime, ie an adult having sex with a 13 year old. What is with these free speech advocates supporting sex crimes? First that attention whore Amos Yee and now Milo. Its like they know free speech in general is good, but can't reason further into the ethics of why its good.

However knowing the right is falling over into a civil war amuses me, like the time white nationalists found out their founder married a Jewish woman. Or the time a pro Nazi lite party in Germany found out their latest recruit was a porn star which ahem, performed with a black actor. You can not make this shit up.

[Gandalf]

I don't think it'll be a civil war, if only because there's no real organisation. If one falls out of favour, another will rise up to read from the same script.

[The Romulan Republic]

So this is the "freedom" the Right talks about so much? The freedom to rape children?

Well, no wonder they look up to the Donald.

Though given all the other heinous things the far Right has said and shrugged off the consequences for, part of me wonders if this is the first step towards child molestation becoming a semi-mainstream position the way raging xenophobia has under Trump.

Edits: Though really, it always seems like the Right's version of "freedom" is, in large part, about their "freedom" to victimize and oppress others. Weather its this, or the Confederacy valiantly fighting for the "right" to own black people back in the day, or a more socially acceptable form of oppression such as refusing to do business with a gay person.

[TheFeniX]

You're talking about a country that not only tracks child molesters for pretty much life and does everything it can to ostracize them, but said molesters are considered garbage by even the most hardened criminals.

So no, some hold outs clinging to the notion of lies or rationalizations, does not mean you're going to see child molestation as a platform for the alt-right. If they tried that, the results would be hilarious.

And if you think xenophobia has only just now become a mainstream american issue.... Wow. Spend 5 minutes outside whatever hugbox you live in. Man, xenophobia in this state transcends all races and creeds. And that's just in Houston. Pick a direction and drive and it get progressively worse.

[The Romulan Republic]

You're talking about a country that not only tracks child molesters for pretty much life and does everything it can to ostracize them, but said molesters are considered garbage by even the most hardened criminals.

So no, some hold outs clinging to the notion of lies or rationalizations, does not mean you're going to see child molestation as a platform for the alt-right. If they tried that, the results would be hilarious.

Yeah, that was partly snark, I think. But you can't deny that views that were previously considered out their have been legitimized to some extent by the rise of Trump, and others like him.

And if you think xenophobia has only just now become a mainstream american issue.... Wow. Spend 5 minutes outside whatever hugbox you live in. Man, xenophobia in this state transcends all races and creeds. And that's just in Houston. Pick a direction and drive and it get progressively worse.

Well, I did grow up in a Democrat-leaning family in a heavily Democratic town, which is probably a rather different experience than Houston. But of course I'm well aware that xenophobia is nothing new in American politics.

Being embraced to this degree as a respectable political position, though, is new in recent times. Don't pretend their's not something different than the norm when the sitting President is endorsed by the KKK (an endorsement he was not exactly quick to repudiate) and holds that a judge is unfit to do their job if they have Mexican parents, to take just two examples.

It may not be as out their as pedophilia becoming socially acceptable, but its not just business as usual either, and acting like it is is only further normalizing and legitimizing it.

[mr friendly guy]

So this is the "freedom" the Right talks about so much? The freedom to rape children?
.

Now, now. Milo did say it was the 13 year old consenting, because 13 year olds clearly can consent. Duh.

But watch some fanboys explain this one away, like he was taken out of context (without explaining how), or its a witch hunt (witch hunts only occur against people accused of rape, like Bill Cosby) or its alternative facts (even though we have a goddamn video of Milo saying the same thing and Milo apologising for not making himself clear).

On another note, I thought giving these guys attention empower them. Protesting strengthens them. Maybe in some cases, and in some cases not feeding the troll weakens them. However it seems paedophilia apologism is Milo's kryptonite and in this case, giving him the attention does not strengthen him one bit. Unless being disinvited to speak, losing a book deal, and falling on your sword and quitting your job is counted as strengthening.

[Dragon Angel]

Nah, I really don't buy the whole "protesting strengthens them" bit. It's much like the whole idea of "just ignore the bullies and they'll go away", useless and dangerous. Milo was big and infamous long before protests against him took the national spotlight, and I wish that idea would just disappear.

If people were supposed to realize just what kind of a person he was from merely what he wrote, then they failed at it, utterly. Somehow there is an expectation that everyone will see reason and know he is a greasy troll, but somehow he managed to convince centrists, liberals, and even some leftists (???) that he was just being a satirical crusader for Free Speech™. I guess they didn't notice the incitement of harassment against women, writing hit pieces including painting a trans activist as a pedophile (HOW IRONIC HUH), and even outing a trans student in a university to his fanbase.

Oh wait my bad that's all just protected free speech, how silly of me to think otherwise.

Anyone who thinks this guy was ever a mild case had a serious case of the stupid and should have shut the fuck up long ago, but that never happened. It's only now after all the shit he pulled that people are finally disavowing him. It stings, since apparently people protesting him speaking at universities was CENSORSHIP and universities disinviting him was CENSORSHIP but now that he supports pederasty it's totally okay to disinvite him!!! It's like these people have no sense of irony whatsoever!!

I have absolutely no respect for Free Speech™ Crusaders because of events like these. Such spineless cowards.

Yeah, it's good that his true colors are finally being shown, but it took what, three fucking years for it to happen and whomever fills his spot in the Yellow Shit Journalism ladder will have the same crusaders for Free Speech™ defending their god given rights to harass marginalized groups in the name of Free Speech™, totally burying history and conveniently forgetting Milo's existence.

[The Romulan Republic]

Its rather unfortunate that being an advocate for free speech has been so co-opted by self-serving hypocrites on the far Right that being a free speech advocate automatically makes people on the Left think you're a white nationalist and/or pedophile.

I mean, its not as if the Nazi-Right, by and large, are genuine believers in the right to freedom of expression. They want the freedom to spew their bullshit, and to censor anyone else's opinions.

[Starglider]

The so-called 'alt right' is a churning mess of thousands of groups with widely varied goals, philosophy and demographics. They aren't suddenly going to become 'divided' about something, because the concept covers a loose collection of fracticous groups that have always been 'divided'. They have however become quite effective at presenting a unified front where that helps their goals. One of many things that the left tried to do first ('intersectionality', post-modernist relativity, viral online propaganda) which the right then adopted, refined and weaponised.

[TheFeniX]

Yeah, that was partly snark, I think. But you can't deny that views that were previously considered out their have been legitimized to some extent by the rise of Trump, and others like him.

No. Because they've always been here and other politicians have made bank betting on them. Just because you had 8 years of one guy (the president) who was pretty lenient on immigration and didn't beat the "us vs them" mentality does not mean xenophobia is not a mainstream position.

IIRC, McCain was talking about a "path to citizenship" in the early-to-mid 2000s and got torpedoed by Dems and Reps. So... "fuck immigrants" is pretty standard play because Americans don't like foreigners. I think support for harsher illegal-immigration laws and crackdowns is in the 75% support range. You don't understand how Trump's stance on this, after 8 years of Obama's stance on immigration, was welcomed by many Americans on both sides of the political spectrum.

Being embraced to this degree as a respectable political position, though, is new in recent times. Don't pretend their's not something different than the norm when the sitting President is endorsed by the KKK (an endorsement he was not exactly quick to repudiate) and holds that a judge is unfit to do their job if they have Mexican parents, to take just two examples.

I was there for Clinton (Bill) and GW. Sure, yea, it wasn't like "fuck the Mexicans and Muslims" (though under Bush, the later could apply), but guys like Joe Arpiao are not some kind of outlier, at least not in their political stance of "fuck foreigners." And politicians beating the "fuck foreigners" drum have ALWAYS done well in politics. I mean, the Chinese? Japanese? Irish? And this isn't just a U.S. phenomena.

I don't know if this is specifically your problem, but I'm going to put it out there: Look past Obama. The U.S. did not magically change after his election. 2008-2016 was not some kind of massive shift in U.S. identity or something. All the old grudges, racism, and other bullshit has. always.been.here. But "hugboxes" let those assholes breed a lot of their hate and bide their time and on the flip side, liberals were so far in their own hugboxes, ignoring major fucking issues and/or treating them as a joke they thought there wouldn't be any pushback.

That said, The U.S. IS getting "better." The fact that Democrats, who were not actual liberals when I was growing up can run AND WIN on a much more liberal platform. That we were in a position to elect a black man to office and even a woman (who got enough votes to win a popularity contest against a shitbag, but was also saddled with all the everything). We're in a cycle of pushback but Trump isn't exactly swimming in popularity right now, even if he's riled up the malcontents.

It may not be as out their as pedophilia becoming socially acceptable, but its not just business as usual either, and acting like it is is only further normalizing and legitimizing it.

I see more a group of morons rationalizing their support, much like many people did for Trump. They like him "in spite" of X not "because" of X. That and they're leaning on "context" and "lies" rather than flat-out condoning pedophilia (actually, as mentioned, hebephillia).

Because a man saying "there's nothing wrong with banging underage boys" is like... if there WAS a stance even a guy like Trump couldn't normalize, that would be it. You're talking about a class of person convicted murderer's only argument on how to handle them is if it's ok for them to pass racial boundaries when they are brutalizing them. Like, black convicts will negotiate with fucking skinheads to make sure a white child molester "gets what's coming to him." And vice versa.

[The Romulan Republic]

No. Because they've always been here and other politicians have made bank betting on them. Just because you had 8 years of one guy (the president) who was pretty lenient on immigration and didn't beat the "us vs them" mentality does not mean xenophobia is not a mainstream position.

This has nothing to do with Obama. I do not subscribe to the belief that all those problems went away because a black man became President, and would appreciate not having it ascribed to me.

But while you are correct that xenophobia is nothing new, it being embraced to this extent by the President is, in my life time. Before, it had to operate within certain parameters, and with a degree of restraint, that have been badly eroded by recent events. Do you deny this?

IIRC, McCain was talking about a "path to citizenship" in the early-to-mid 2000s and got torpedoed by Dems and Reps. So... "fuck immigrants" is pretty standard play because Americans don't like foreigners. I think support for harsher illegal-immigration laws and crackdowns is in the 75% support range. You don't understand how Trump's stance on this, after 8 years of Obama's stance on immigration, was welcomed by many Americans on both sides of the political spectrum.

As I said, its a question of degree.

I was there for Clinton (Bill) and GW. Sure, yea, it wasn't like "fuck the Mexicans and Muslims" (though under Bush, the later could apply), but guys like Joe Arpiao are not some kind of outlier, at least not in their political stance of "fuck foreigners." And politicians beating the "fuck foreigners" drum have ALWAYS done well in politics. I mean, the Chinese? Japanese? Irish? And this isn't just a U.S. phenomena.

I don't know if this is specifically your problem, but I'm going to put it out there: Look past Obama. The U.S. did not magically change after his election. 2008-2016 was not some kind of massive shift in U.S. identity or something. All the old grudges, racism, and other bullshit has. always.been.here. But "hugboxes" let those assholes breed a lot of their hate and bide their time and on the flip side, liberals were so far in their own hugboxes, ignoring major fucking issues and/or treating them as a joke they thought there wouldn't be any pushback.

None of this is, or has ever been, my position.

As I said: Always their, but able to operate more openly and to greater extremes than in prior (recent) history.

And I'm not sure where the Left, collectively, ignored the existence of bigotry. Refused to pander to it, yes. Underestimated in some cases. But ignored it- no.

That said, The U.S. IS getting "better." The fact that Democrats, who were not actual liberals when I was growing up can run AND WIN on a much more liberal platform. That we were in a position to elect a black man to office and even a woman (who got enough votes to win a popularity contest against a shitbag, but was also saddled with all the everything). We're in a cycle of pushback but Trump isn't exactly swimming in popularity right now, even if he's riled up the malcontents.

I do think we'll probably win out in the end, yes, if only after a period of great suffering and division.

I see more a group of morons rationalizing their support, much like many people did for Trump. They like him "in spite" of X not "because" of X. That and they're leaning on "context" and "lies" rather than flat-out condoning pedophilia (actually, as mentioned, hebephillia).

Because a man saying "there's nothing wrong with banging underage boys" is like... if there WAS a stance even a guy like Trump couldn't normalize, that would be it. You're talking about a class of person convicted murderer's only argument on how to handle them is if it's ok for them to pass racial boundaries when they are brutalizing them. Like, black convicts will negotiate with fucking skinheads to make sure a white child molester "gets what's coming to him." And vice versa.

Yes.

But on the other hand, I will remind you that Trump has a history of sexually objectifying underage girls publicly, including his own daughter. And apparently his voters gave not a fuck.

Perhaps this poison is not as insignificant a problem as you think.

[TheFeniX]

This has nothing to do with Obama. I do not subscribe to the belief that all those problems went away because a black man became President, and would appreciate not having it ascribed to me.

Fair enough. But it's sometimes hard to peg down why you think a wave-pool that's existed forever has turned into a tsunami because one cycle picked up a bit of speed.

But while you are correct that xenophobia is nothing new, it being embraced to this extent by the President is, in my life time. Before, it had to operate within certain parameters, and with a degree of restraint, that have been badly eroded by recent events. Do you deny this?

Oh man. How old were you after 9/11? "Muslim" was synonymous with "terrorist." I remember multiple debates under the blanket of of "torture." "Well, we aren't torturing American citizens and foreigners have no rights." The later being a completely untrue statement, but whatever.

I remember specifically the demonization of Afganies and Iraqies and "either with us or against us." Other countries didn't support us! FREEDOM FRIES! Sure, yea, there was 9/11. But even Trump tries to justify his actions, relying much less on actual racism, and shit like "bad dudes" and "Americans FEEL crime is getting worse and it's all because of illegals and Muslims."

I will admit, Republican presidential candidates have in the recent past paid lip service to Latinos WRT immigration, while systematically stabbing them in the back at the first, second, fifth, and eleventh opportunity. And Democrats were more than willing to help them by doing next to nothing in response. At least Trump is upfront about his xenophobia, but I don't feel his actual stance is all that different. He just doesn't care enough to lie about that particular stance.

As I said: Always their, but able to operate more openly and to greater extremes than in prior (recent) history.

I remember the "superpredators" comments from Clinton. The entire nation pretty much came together to throw young poor blacks under the bus, without actually saying "black." I remember being told it was America vs the world after 9/11. How the UN had failed. How X had failed and only good-ol American (Christianity) was going to save us.

I do think we'll probably win out in the end, yes, if only after a period of great suffering and division.

Repeat this to anyone who will listen: "You never win. You always keep fighting." If Democrats had this mantra in 2016, we wouldn't be in this mess.

But on the other hand, I will remind you that Trump has a history of sexually objectifying underage girls publicly, including his own daughter. And apparently his voters gave not a fuck.

Two words: "Olsen Twins." Americans have this weird obsession with chasing jail-bait. However, the general consensus is "look, don't touch" as the "Olsons turn 18" countdown was... hella creepy. Then there was Britanny Spears. And I also recall a developer for Dead or Alive taking a hilarious jab at Americans for being pissed that women were dressed in bikinis when the same rag had not a few days earlier posted bikini pics of (underage) Selena Gomez. The tagline was something like "Americans rant about sexualizing fictional women while simultaneously sexualizing actual children."

There's also the idea that a woman seducing a young boy is "awesome" and not "totally fucked up."

We could go at this for a while, there is a matter of degrees here, and the topic of America's (and not just us) fascination with oggling BUT NOT TOUCHING hot young post-pubsecent girls merits it's own discussion/thread. But a platform of "men having sex with under-age boys is doubleplusgood" is not going to happen without a significant shift in American ideology. And considering the backlash already leveled at Mr. "I wannt diddle little kids," we're no where near there, even if there are hold-outs on the Internet. Americans are uptight enough about sex as it is.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yes, their's more cultural acceptance of being into underage girls than underage boys. That's more a sign of latent sexism/misogyny and homophobia* though than a positive sign of society's absolute rejection of child molesters.

You're right, of course, that the vast majority of Americans condemn child molesters, as they should. But their is that ugly undercurrent their, and while I don't really expect child molestation to become an accepted part of our society, I do think that latent ugliness and depravity in our culture can become more openly embraced if a demagogue gives it voice, as we have seen with Trump and bigotry. That's basically all I'm saying. Donald fucking Trump being President should have taught us to be wary that the unthinkable sometimes... isn't.

As to the post-911 culture: I do remember some fairly unpleasant things, like watching a Fox News anchor talk about bombing Mecca (I forget his name), and, yes, the torture and spying and secret prisons.

However, to give the Devil his due, as they say, George Bush made a point of the fact that we were not at war with Islam. I manifestly would not trust Trump to do the same in his place.

Moreover, all that was immediately following a surprise attack that was the worst in American history in terms of death toll, one where the dead were overwhelmingly civilians. It doesn't excuse jack shit, but it is somewhat understandable how a lot of people lost it for a while.

What's far more disturbing is to see those attitudes taking root long-term, even when their has been no event on the same scale in many years. Overreactions during a time of war are one thing- we've had them in every major war the country ever fought, and recovered from them.

Those overreactions becoming the new norm, even in a time of no major war or existential threat, is far more dangerous.

I do agree with you that we will never completely win. That was a poor choice of words on my part. As long as human nature as we know it exists, their will be a push towards primitive, bigoted, and despotic ideas. But I do think things will swing back the other way, for a time.

*Just to be absolutely clear, I am, of course, not saying that it is homophobic to be against men screwing underage boys. Rather that people should be equally repulsed by a woman screwing an underage boy, but often aren't, and I think that's in part because a lot of people see it as inherently more vile if its two males.

[TheFeniX]

You're right, of course, that the vast majority of Americans condemn child molesters, as they should. But their is that ugly undercurrent their, and while I don't really expect child molestation to become an accepted part of our society, I do think that latent ugliness and depravity in our culture can become more openly embraced if a demagogue gives it voice, as we have seen with Trump and bigotry. That's basically all I'm saying. Donald fucking Trump being President should have taught us to be wary that the unthinkable sometimes... isn't.

Trump's has used Child molester as an insult more than once IIRC. But that's besides the point: they think they have a powerful voice, but a president came into office with record low approval ratings and those ratings are continuing to drop. Just because Republicans are currently backing him (though a few have already turned on at least one issue) doesn't go to show that the American populace is ready to think.... drop kicking puppies is A-ok because kickapuppydotcom says it is and backed Trump.

For just one example: Obama was extremely friendly towards illegal immigrants (considering) and Americans are just as opposed to immigration as ever.

However, to give the Devil his due, as they say, George Bush made a point of the fact that we were not at war with Islam. I manifestly would not trust Trump to do the same in his place.

GW had advisors who knew what they were doing and also knew we needed allies in the middle east. That said, I don't think GW is any more anti-muslim than the next Christian, but he also played the "us vs them" card a whole lot. "They hate our FREEDOMS!" I mean, is that REALLY any better? "I don't hate Muslims, but THOSE GUYS will murder you, your wife, your dog, EVERYTHING if given the chance. ENLIST NOW! Would you like to know more?"

What's far more disturbing is to see those attitudes taking root long-term, even when their has been no event on the same scale in many years. Overreactions during a time of war are one thing- we've had them in every major war the country ever fought, and recovered from them.

Those overreactions becoming the new norm, even in a time of no major war or existential threat, is far more dangerous.

What overreaction? Maybe from Liberal Land or something. I live in Texas. In Fort Bend (right near Harris, which both went for HRC). This "overreaction" is white noise. It's always been here and like I said, a lot of it is independent of race or creed. Trump says what a lot of people (including the RNC) declared as "off-limits" except there's still not only enough people alive to vote for "vile shit" but more than enough who also wouldn't vote for HRC to save their lives. Even still, I still think anyone other than "she'll take ur gunz" Clinton could have been within spitting distance of ousting Trump in Texas.

The 2016 election was like a really sad version of the Deadpool fiasco: "There's no room in theatres for an over-the-top gore-fest with a scene of Ryan Reynolds getting pegged with a strap-on." Sony understanding it's consumers! People just THOUGHT they lived in liberaltopia and they got this idea from their hugboxes (and the news media, 4% chance to win, oh man, still funny in a "not funny" way). They were wrong, because as much as the U.S. has progressed, you (not you specifically) stopped fighting for progress and it kicked you in the ass.

But that's neither here nor there. Trump won because it's (D) or (R) and there were more (R) to vote "in spite of" than (D). Actually, there were 3 million LESS. But hey, "it's Murrica."

To sum up my stupid rant, I have two points:
1. In general, there's no real "overreaction" here. These ideas are not new and other politicians have lived and died by catering to this bullshit.
2. "Banging kids is OK" WOULD be an overreaction, but I think you're making mountains out of a shit mole-hill. "The Internet" defends all kinds of vile shit.

Now, if Trump or his cabinet comes out and says "that guy has the right idea" or we see an actual movement outside some guys private server that's likely crawling with FBI smurfs, then I will definitely reevaluate my position.

[mr friendly guy]

Jimmy Dore has a field day making fun of Milo.

[jwl]

The so-called 'alt right' is a churning mess of thousands of groups with widely varied goals, philosophy and demographics. They aren't suddenly going to become 'divided' about something, because the concept covers a loose collection of fracticous groups that have always been 'divided'. They have however become quite effective at presenting a unified front where that helps their goals. One of many things that the left tried to do first ('intersectionality', post-modernist relativity, viral online propaganda) which the right then adopted, refined and weaponised.

This. The "alt-right" were never a cohesive group to start with, it's just a useful catch-all term for a whole hodgepodge of different viewpoints.

[The Romulan Republic]

In my experience, "Alt-Right" is a catch-all for people who think the ordinary Right isn't horrible enough.

Or, to borrow another phrase, "a basket of deplorables".

[mr friendly guy]

The arguments defending him are funny. He is not a paedophile but a hebephile.

No shit he is a hebephile. The point isn't the attraction, its that they act on it. He not only thinks its ok to act on it, he also mentions he has witnessed adults having sex with minors and will not name names.

Or, there is a conspiracy against him. Yep the conspiracy managed to make him defend child rape on a podcast.

[K. A. Pital]

In my experience, "Alt-Right" is a catch-all for people who think the ordinary Right isn't horrible enough.

Or, to borrow another phrase, "a basket of deplorables".

Alt-Right is the smarter part of the ordinary right. They do their épatage because they understand that shock is needed to rouse the electorate. They have perfected these methods and assembled a cast of sufficiently decadent and freaky individuals.

There's nothing new about it. You throw various parasites into a den and the strongest survive. It is something that has already been done by the business elites, and will be done again. Losers who step too far and their epatage starts making them useless, will just dissappear, but the movement itself will keep rebranding and creating new structures.

It is like a hydra. Or maybe it is Hydra.

[Flagg]

The alt-right is the politically correct term for American Neo-Nazis.

[Elfdart]

The arguments defending him are funny. He is not a paedophile but a hebephile.

I'm of the opinion that someone who practices that kind of pettifoggery should also be barred from being near schoolyards, along with the molesters themselves. It reminds me of the story about the farmer on trial for fucking sheep who insisted he wasn't a pervert on the grounds that he only fucked ewes, not rams.

No shit he is a hebephile. The point isn't the attraction, its that they act on it. He not only thinks its ok to act on it, he also mentions he has witnessed adults having sex with minors and will not name names.

Or, there is a conspiracy against him. Yep the conspiracy managed to make him defend child rape on a podcast.

If democrats had functioning brains or balls, they would point out early and often that when Agent Orange and other right-wingers started threatening to cut government funding of schools that won't give creeps like Milo NAMBLAyapolis a platform, they are using the power of the state to foist an advocate for kiddie-fiddling on students.

[K. A. Pital]

The alt-right is the politically correct term for American Neo-Nazis.

I know - for the most part they're just rebranded neonazis, I've just referenced it in Testing. But there's also all sorts of monarchist and other reactionary scum, "Dark Enlightement" and the rest, who jump on the bandwagon. So far the wagon rolls on, seems like no shitstain is left behind.

[mr friendly guy]

There have been some nice debunking of Milo, but Creationist Cat reveals somethings which might do more damage to his fanbase more than the fact that he thinks its ok to fiddle kiddies.

It turns out Milo ....wait for it..... used to be an SJW. Jesus. He then found it more profitable to switch to being an anti SJW.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyuC_l8dDLI

That's right. Milo said "hate speech laws are inadequate for the social media era," and "It's as if we've all forgotten that there's a real person on the other end, reading and being hurt by our vitriol", plus
he liken tweets to drive by shootings. Truth is stranger than fiction. This guy is an opportunist. And he thinks its ok to rape kids as well. I wonder if Dave Rubin is embarrassed that he gave interview time to Milo and Amos Yee as part of defending free speech, and then both of them turned out to think raping kids is ok.

[The Romulan Republic]

So not an ideologue, just a sociopath?

Edit: A lot like the Donald, really.

[Flagg]

It's not a "bad touch" it's "freedom fondling!" They aren't being "molested" they're being trained to resist enemy tickle -torture!