The reason the alt-right exists...

[Spark]

Aren't the media generally quite soft in these sorts of pieces?

I usually just think they're trying to not burn any bridges with the fairly obvious crazy bastards. Slamming all the kooks you interview is a good way of ensuring you don't get any interviews. It's a pretty fine line between not openly criticising something you should be criticising and actually painting it as a positive thing though.

It's partially that, and I think it's also that a lot of journalists are unwilling to really push the envelope on how people should view a group, they'd rather the story and people speak for themselves (at least, on a show like Foreign Correspondent).

 

[Spark]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/25/us/ohio-hovater-white-nationalist.html?_r=0

I remember there was a lot of anger in left-wing/liberal circles over this article. I do think it went over the top on the puff piece style stuff, but ultimately I think it's defensible to take a fairly hands-off approach to this sort of thing. What I don't like is media organisations sugar coating what these people want (neo-Nazi "every school should have a picture of Hitler" thugs as just "community activists" for e.g.)

Vice News actually does a lot of this sort of stuff, I find it pretty interesting actually.

 

[Ausage]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/25/us/ohio-hovater-white-nationalist.html?_r=0

I remember there was a lot of anger in left-wing/liberal circles over this article. I do think it went over the top on the puff piece style stuff, but ultimately I think it's defensible to take a fairly hands-off approach to this sort of thing. What I don't like is media organisations sugar coating what these people want (neo-Nazi "every school should have a picture of Hitler" thugs as just "community activists" for e.g.)

Vice News actually does a lot of this sort of stuff, I find it pretty interesting actually.

Yeah that was interesting.

For me personally part of the interest is that I see some of myself in him (I guess that's the point eh). Into heavy metal. Left leaning musician turned libertarian. He sees the same kind of societal problems in the same way I do but reached unbelievably different conclusions about their resolution. Our conspiracy circles are pretty different tbf.

I thought it highlighted a few strands of misguided thinking some libertarian leaning folks are vulnerable to (ie. I'd like a zero government meritocracy, but I'd settle for an ethnostate because then there'd be no identitarianism. Lol no.). I think it'd be much easier to fall into that line of thinking if I hadn't grown up with people of all sorts of backgrounds, so it does help to understand why a guy who grew up in a mono ethnic part of the world would come to the conclusions he did.

There's always a lot of carry on about how articles like that "legitimise" certain ideas. I don't think it legitimises his ideas, just humanizes him to the point that you'd think twice about punching him. Maybe that's why so many were angry with it.

 

[Spark]

I mean from a left wing point of view, to me it exposes some of the really insidious ways "merit" can be silently twisted into something deeply nasty, but also the weaknesses of a straightforward application of the word as well.

 

[Top_Cat]

The problem with humanising Nazis isn't that their views are repugnant, it's that the humanising doesn't come back the other way. There's common ground to be reached with writing about people even with strongly racist tendencies. Discrimination has many fathers and, especially with a lot of the alt-right guys, you can engage with many of them. That's what a lot of Shan's article UC posted a few months back is about. Nazis are different and even amongst the very strongly racist types I grew up with, those with white power views were considered beyond the pale. Humanising them and their grievances achieves little other than confirming that they want those not like them away from wherever they are.

I'll fully retract everything I said above should a writer on Daily Stormer write a detailed profile of some black dude working in the heartland.

 

[Spark]

The problem with humanising Nazis isn't that their views are repugnant, it's that the humanising doesn't come back the other way. There's common ground to be reached with writing about people even with strongly racist tendencies. Discrimination has many fathers and, especially with a lot of the alt-right guys, you can engage with many of them. That's what a lot of Shan's article UC posted a few months back is about. Nazis are different and even amongst the very strongly racist types I grew up with, those with white power views were considered beyond the pale. Humanising them and their grievances achieves little other than confirming that they want those not like them away from wherever they are.

I'll fully retract everything I said above should a writer on Daily Stormer write a detailed profile of some black dude working in the heartland.

Yeah when I say I don't mind the humanising stuff etc it's not "how can I find common ground with people who want me exterminated", it's more "know your enemy".

 

[Top_Cat]

Sure. Personally, this guy is more in the strong racist than Nazi camp. Yeah, he refs Hitler but the bit where he talks about his touring band and people hurting is telling.

 

[Uppercut]

The NYT's sympathetic neo-Nazi portrait wouldn't have been controversial somewhere like Vice. The problem arises from how it contrasts with, amongst other things, the editorial dictat stating that any article on a black victim of police violence must always include the worst thing they ever did. "Tyrell was no angel, several of his neighbours noting his concerning tendency to not wash his hands after using the toilet, but..."

 

[Uppercut]

The problem with humanising Nazis isn't that their views are repugnant, it's that the humanising doesn't come back the other way.

This is definitely a problem, but I don't know if it necessarily follows that Nazis shouldn't be humanised. There's an argument for taking the high road.

I think it's true in a more general sense that US liberals attempt to empathise with conservatives a lot more than the other way round. The whole "journey to the heart of Trump's America" thing is pretty one-sided. Also a lot of liberals are desperate to find a better intellectual justification for conservatism, which really shows up readership patterns:
https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/09/daily-chart-19. There's ~no reciprocation at all.

 

[Top_Cat]

This is definitely a problem, but I don't know if it necessarily follows that Nazis shouldn't be humanised. There's an argument for taking the high road.

Sure, they're still people. Like anyone, many just wanna be heard. And I'm sympathetic for those like the fella who came out as gay and a not-Nazi a few months back. However, for me if there's not a really quick and very obvious attempt to find some grounds for negotiation or not hurting people, **** them. Wanna be humanised? Act like you have some humanity.

That goes for any extremist group, for mine. I'm closer to Antifa than Hezbollah but I don't have a great deal of time for any of the ****s.

 

[Burgey]

Uppercut adopting the Neville Chamberlain approach here.

 

[Ausage]

This is definitely a problem, but I don't know if it necessarily follows that Nazis shouldn't be humanised. There's an argument for taking the high road.

I think it's true in a more general sense that US liberals attempt to empathise with conservatives a lot more than the other way round. The whole "journey to the heart of Trump's America" thing is pretty one-sided. Also a lot of liberals are desperate to find a better intellectual justification for conservatism, which really shows up readership patterns:
https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/09/daily-chart-19. There's ~no reciprocation at all.

I don't see how that's in any way true. At least not in recent times.

Liberals are far more likely to remove conservatives from their social circles. Perhaps liberals are more curious, but there's no way they're more tolerant/accepting.

http://www.prri.org/research/poll-post-election-holiday-war-christmas/
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/21/liberals-more-likely-conservatives-dump-friend-ove/ (one from before Trump)

 

[Uppercut]

I don't see how that's in any way true. At least not in recent times.

Liberals are far more likely to remove conservatives from their social circles. Perhaps liberals are more curious, but there's no way they're more tolerant/accepting.

http://www.prri.org/research/poll-post-election-holiday-war-christmas/
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/21/liberals-more-likely-conservatives-dump-friend-ove/ (one from before Trump)

I think you’re right about this tbh. At least it’s true in the U.K., the left often think conservatives are evil but conservatives mostly think the left are just wrong.

 

[Uppercut]

Uppercut adopting the Neville Chamberlain approach here.

Haha I didn’t actually offer an opinion. I hated the NYT article. But then I hate the NYT.

I just think mistaking a propaganda war for an actual war is just as big a tactical ****-up as the other way round.

 

[vcs]

I think you’re right about this tbh. At least it’s true in the U.K., the left often think conservatives are evil but conservatives mostly think the left are just wrong.

Isn't "Liberals" used pretty much as an insult in the US? It's caught on in India also.

 

[Spark]

Isn't "Liberals" used pretty much as an insult in the US? It's caught on in India also.

That's because India seems increasingly driven by utterly insane nationalists whose contempt for liberalism is quite genuine. In the US it seemed more that people were trying to stop left-of-centre politicians from being able to use any words for themselves which couldn't be described as somehow communist.

 

[vcs]

Actually, I think US is worse. We have the excuse of having a massive uneducated population living close to the poverty line. I think we won't be quite as bad as them when living and education standards improve. Probably wishful thinking, but yeah.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

The alt-right are very much like the 60s hippy left. Troublemakers attacking society’s established values.

In the 60s it was marriage, nuclear family, patriotism and basic obedience that the radicals sought to dump on.

Today its cosmopolitism, multiculturalism , feminism ... and so forth.

The secular articles of faith come under attack from radical wings in any generation. It’s merely those articles of faith that differ from time to time.

 

[Niall]

https://twitter.com/hugorifkind/status/953393848209854464

Hugo Rifkind had a long twitter debate with a white Supremist. Bit grim but interesting reading.

 

[Burgey]

Good on him for giving them a platform. Excellent.