Considering how close we are to /pol/ and how often we encounter them, let's have a thread where we analyse, deconstruct and debate the mechanisms of Alt-Right and fascist rhetorics and help each other counter their techniques.
I, myself, have began to notice something I'd like to call "the right wing riposte"
Essentially, whenever an argument is made against a right-winger, they say something that is meant to turn a defense into a counter attack. A right winger will never defend their positions with well-researched facts, they will only say what they think will make them win the argument. Therefore, a rightwinger can espouse contradictory views at different points without suffering from any kind of mental dissonance.
A good example would be their defence for whenever someone shuts someone down for being overtly or explicitly racist.
"So much for the tolerant left" or "I thought leftists cared about freedom of speech", is a counter we've all heard many times, I'd bet and the technique is sort of Genius; instead of the debate being about the overt bighotry of the one being shut down, the debate is instead being turned into a discussion where the intial accuser must defend themselves from seeming like hipocrites or intolerants themselves, not because right.wingers actually care about biggotry or even free speech, but simply because right-wingers understand that controling the conversation is what will make them win everytime.
Thus, many discussions with duch individuals are simply turned into shouting-matches where the merits of the original argument is never even adressed. The right wing shut down argument, because right-wing ideology is not fundementarily about any kind of ideological esence or any real standpoint, it is most about in-group mentality and aesthetics.
What are some other right-wing rhetorics that you guys have noticed online?
the best I tend to do is deadlock them with the "you have no facts or citations, and the ones you have posted (if any) are complete shit" and make that the hill to die on to frustrate them. The main thing I notice rhetoric wise is the baffling insistence on left = liberal, which makes no sense at all.
>The main thing I notice rhetoric wise is the baffling insistence on left = liberal, which makes no sense at all.
Indeed, I agree, but my postulate here is that it is not meant to make sense. They simply say what is rhetorically expedient for them to say. They don't care if the USSR under Stalin doesn't represent most communist branches or not, or that Kampuchea didn't live up to anything Marx ever wrote.
I think ironically Jordan Peterson gave a brilliant insight into the mentality of the alt-right then he posed that "truth, is that belief that is the most beneficial to a human being".
In this sense, /pol/-people don't care if any of these claims are "true" or not, they only care that it will make them win or stall the discussion.
and yet all it does is make them look like fucking idiots to anyone who hasn't chugged the koolaid. one other thing I see a lot in arguments with the right (which I get into shamefully often) is the obstinate refusal to use cited sources. they'll just make an assertion, give a weak/biased source and expect that shit to fly.
spot the op niggerjewsoros shill
Example one: incoherent race / religion baiting. Also left can't meme, Autism Level, whoomiin naychure is capitalism and there would only ever be peace love and unity in muh ethnostate. This shit is getting old.
Ahahahaha I . Q is filtered to Autism Level
post any criticism of the MUH JOOZ autism and watch the
>UR A SHILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>and yet all it does is make them look like fucking idiots to anyone who hasn't chugged the koolaid
I totally agree that it should, but I am not convinced that it does.
A weakness of the left is that we often assume that most people are familiar with the language of logic and reason, but sadly, we were not born into a forum; we were born into a circus.
So what most people are going to see is one person making all the accusations, never going on the defence, and one constantly trying to put out fires through long-winded expositions, that not everyone can follow.
So while it seems stupid and ought not be a winning strategy, it is, because it seems to be.
Yeah they’re so dumb. So do you think it’s the Russians or white people running the world?
time and time again they use this tactic of proclaiming you must be stupid not to believe: holocaust was fake, blacks are bad, protocols of zion, but none of those people tend to seem all that bright posting youtube videos as proof and random alt right blogs as sources
That reminds me; do you really think that they honestly believe that the holocaust never took place? There is little doubt that a lot of them believe that the holocaust, as a concept, is a great thing, but perhaps holocaust denial really stems from the fact that the holocaust comes with a lot of baggage for a political movement and thus, denying the holocaust is simply what will win the argument, regardless of whether or not it is true.
the loss of WW2 is something the right will always be bitter about, so they'll scramble for any rickety logic that could lessen the blow.
Stupid white people. Everyone knows the internet is African technology and the founding fathers created the US to breed their own people out of existence.
Like you said, they wish it was true but believe it was not. It seems they are using evidence as the basis for their beliefs. Abhorrent.
the only "evidence" they have amounts to MUH JOOZ and unsourced infographs
Ironically, this is also a great demonstration of right-wing rhetorics; If you can't argue, bait and try to derail the discussion itself. It doesn't matter if it's dishonest, any technique is allowed when combatting the Great Other.
The classic "Communism killed (insert number of the week)" or "Its against human nature/only works on paper" and "Venezuela"
'Allo lads, are the Strawmen feisty today?
Carry on soldier, you'll all meet live fire drills one day, and God help you.
>What are some other right-wing rhetorics that you guys have noticed online?
The best way to btfo the alt right is to make direct rebuttals or refutations of their precious infographics that they cling on to so dearly.
A lot of the alt right also supports Trump so if you point out that his cabinet has lots of Jews and his daughter is Jewish their mind goes in loops and mental gymnastics is very amusing. Like "Trump secretly hates jews."
Another thing is pointing out that according to their race realism theories Jews and Asians have higher Autism Levels than whites.
One of the most common responses I've seen to that is that it took the "Jewish West" and the "🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧Soviet Union🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧" to defeat a tiny country.
right wing = mental illness. this we know.
the route of all evil can always be traced back to JOOZ with them, and when you press them on it you realise how hollow the hatred is. just blind emotional stupidity with only the most thin veil of faux-intellectualism to coat it
yes yes however race realism is incontrovertible
>Debating with a right-winger.
Thats were you're wrong.
Its like playing chess with a pidgin, its going to crap on the table and stare at you like he won a nobel prize.
As a general rule you need to understand that a belief that originate from emotions can rarely be undone by logic, if they were able to think objectively they wouldn't be there.
You have to understand how they "think", logic won't be enough you also have to make them feel stupid.
Just get them with Jews and Asians having higher Autism Levels
>right wing = mental illness. this we know
This rhetoric makes horse shoe theory look true because the right also says that leftism is a mental illness.
>the route of all evil can always be traced back to JOOZ with them, and when you press them on it you realise how hollow the hatred is. just blind emotional stupidity with only the most thin veil of faux-intellectualism to coat it
It's really hard to anything when debating the alt right about da jooz because pic related happens
>Thats were you're wrong.
>Its like playing chess with a pidgin, its going to crap on the table and stare at you like he won a nobel prize.
Lol I like that analogy
another one for the anti-pol folder. thanks fam.
>they say the same about us
be that as it may, it's they who have all these completely ludicrous delusions and doublethink.
>jews are inferior
>but they also secretly rule everything
being a prime example
>>jews are inferior
>>but they also secretly rule everything
That's my favorite example. When you point that out everyone jumps on you. Just like when they say Jews are a hivemind, they're all socialist but they're all capitalist at the same time. It really makes no sense.
Another example is this:
>joos control global banking
Top 10 wall street banks according to the wikipedia:
1. JP Morgan Chase - Jamie Dimon (Greek)
2. Goldman Sachs - David Solomon (Jewish)
3. Bank of America Merrill Lynch - Brian Moynihan (Irish)
4. Morgan Stanley - James P. Gorman (Irish)
5. Citigroup - Michael Corbat (Irish)
6. Credit Suisse - Tidjane Thiam (French-Ivorian)
7. Barclays Investment Bank - Jes Staley (English or French)
8. Deutsche Bank - Christian Sewing (German & Irish)
9. UBS - Sergio Ermotti (Swiss & Irish)
10. RBC Capital Markets - Doug McGregor (Scottish)
>Its like playing chess with a pidgin, its going to crap on the table and stare at you like he won a nobel prize.
>all those irish
Begorrah… 'tis like a second potato famine..
right wingers are gay and dumb and don't read wikipedia articles trust me I understand how these people work.
>How would that "get" a race realist? That is literally what they believe!
Go on 4/pol/ and claim that Jews have a higher Autism Level than whites. See how they lash out.
>Inferior is a value judgement. There exists no contradiction between jews being inferior and jews having a disproportionate pull in various areas if the value the judgement is depending on is not contradictory to that reality. You can't just throw a value judgement out there without qualifying it with value
Look at the Nazis. They claimed Jews were subhuman but they also controlled the world. The term inferior is also ambiguous. It relate to intelligence, power, morals, humanity, etc. So it depends how define it
Let's assume for the sake of argument that racialist claims about genetically inherited intelligence are true.
Why is the solution to promote segregation and racial infighting? There exist now emergent technologies like CRISPR which could be used to increase the general level of intelligence among all humans, assuming you actually are able to identify genes related to intelligence.
As it stands now this technology (and other emergent technology) is probably just going to be used to entrench the social standing of the ruling-class once it's actually available for use. So why wouldn't you want to unite all racial groups under a set of achievable egalitarian goals, i.e. more equal distribution of these technologies, and better research into it? This would benefit the white population the same as the nonwhite population.
So what you are saying it's segregation works?
I find it bizarre, the fasination with birthrate and its intersection with rightwing ideology. As this stance takes all agency away from the individual. That said, love, procreation, and the birthrate are severally hindered by capitalism. Two examples. For those in developed countries, having a child is a financial burden, both for young adults wishing to carve a career within capitalism, and for workers. In the undeveloped world, having a child equates to another worker who is exploited by developed countries imperalism. On top of this, there is the child mortality rate between the developed and undeveloped world. People from the developed world have assurance that their child probably wont die before the they are 10-15. Whereas child mortality rate is exponentially high in the undeveloped world. Communist revolution would be the quickest way to end rampant birthrates as it would end the exploitation of all the workers.
Still you must realize these people are an online presence only. Most of them are dumb kids having fun and the slowly becoming koolaid. They are not relevant to the real non-digital world.
>A right winger will never defend their positions with well-researched facts, they will only say what they think will make them win the argument. Therefore, a rightwinger can espouse contradictory views at different points without suffering from any kind of mental dissonance.
Because right-wingers and /pol/ types, despite pretending to be 'counterculture', actually defend the status quo. They argue for things to remai in the same, which is the easiest thing to do.
>Because they value genetic lineage and genetic diversity.
>But let me ask, if it is of no consequence to you what genetic material inherits the future, why would you mind if the future 'egalitarian' ideal was that of a white super race?
So do you value genetic "diversity" or don't you?... My point is that increasing intelligence doesn't necessarily have to mean changing skin color. And didn't you just admit one post ago that racialists view Asians and Jews as having higher Autism Levels than whites? So why would white people be the standard for a "super race"?
>Who says anything about promotion of racial infighting? They see segregation as both an emancipation of whites and a means of ending racial tension by separating the parties.
People of the same race have common interests, especially economic interests.
I think they do this on purpose, even if they understand the difference. Partially because they are rhetorically trained to attack liberal talking points, but more importantly, liberals are retarded, and attacking them is easy. If they can associate you with stupid liberal shit it makes it easier to attack you by tearing down flimsy liberal positions.
boy are you trying hard
ITT: /leftypol/ thinks they are smart because they can debunk nazis
I've come to the conclusion that this is an absolute waste of time. Maybe you could have a reasonable debate with some classic rightists that still hang out on forums like nationstates, but those are going the way of the dodo. Arguing with aut-right zoomers is like arguing with chimps who just want to outscreech and smear you in shit. Whenever you feel like debating an extremely online rightists, just do 10 pushups or something instead, that'd be far more productive.
By classic do you mean classical liberals and libertarians?
>Arguing with aut-right zoomers is like arguing with chimps who just want to outscreech and smear you in shit.
I can attest to this
>By classic do you mean classical liberals and libertarians?
I mean anyone who wasn't given a lobotomy through imageboard culture yet. Even stormfront nazis who haven't migrated to /pol/.
they have people who argue that unite the right was a victory for the right in both instances. I wouldn't bother.
Every so often I see yet another delusional right wing spergout on some random website and I just have to reply with arguments and sources. Don't care if the post is 1 minute old or 5 years old.
I do it not to correct or engage the poster, but to give any potential neutral reader a dose of reality before their brain is warped forever.
They may have shitty and wrong opinions but at least they don't autistically screech and shit themselves like /pol/ bаboons. That's something. Extremely online politically charged people (both /pol/ and idpol tumblrinas) are impossible to talk with and live completely divorced from reality.
Socialism works well in a homogeneous society with high productivity. Requires high trust and high responsibility, like your family, tribe. This is the human nature. This is why it calls to us.
Imposing socialism in large scale non trust society will result in authoritarian tendencies.
You can't debate the right wing anonymously. They don't debate in good faith. They're trivial to prove wrong, but often they don't even understand what they're saying, let alone what you are, and if you do prove them wrong they'll just spam memes or become aggressive.
Debating right wingers when they have an identity attached is a lot better because when they make a fool of themselves, they can't vanish back into anonymity.
BUMPITY BOMPO BAMP
> Whenever you feel like debating an extremely online rightists, just do 10 pushups or something instead, that'd be far more productive.
Well, for counter-attacking when some alt-righter employs racial or anti-Semitic prejudices, I will actually play with stereotypes to undermine them. Like trying to angrily "debunk" a prejudice with reason and "the facts" like a liberal will do does not work. But the idea of a Jewish conspiracy is pretty laughable if you know any actual Jews because they argue with each other constantly. It's like they've never watched Seinfeld. There's a saying: "two Jews, three opinions." The idea that Jews of all people could pull of a conspiracy – that is the real joke.
Really makes you think
Right wing, nothing. Have a dose of the real, you crazy rarities; shine your light on this:
act for free.nostate.net/?p=19372
Who can love firebombing a doctor, right? Who wants to enable crime? These demands, these actions, they are… “deplorable”, hahaha!
So close your ears up to the demands; they are in any case from nearing four years ago. Still now we may look back towards the causes. For the fantastic thing about causality is that in all save a very few quantum physics edgecases, causality operates strictly in the past. We can see the past, sometimes. The specific complaints are of bias, incompetence, and repression. The doctor did not merely comply with the prison system, but did not even act as a doctor ought. The prisons are as dungeons, and that comparison is fair. There is a great “lawful” bias against thinkers beyond the norm in Greece, whereby the quality of law is degraded. That is someone’s status quo!
There was another event recently. A man’s case was mishandled by a vengeful establishment. I could tell you his name, but I would rather tell you that such events are common in Greece. That is why the Grecian state has no respect, why so many of its people harbor anarchists, seek employment outside of the norm, and will not pay their taxes. For the state of Greece is not earning the affinity of the public, but demanding it! They have not vision to act in usefully novel manners nor adequate control of their supposed exemplars of law.
Where the state’s pretense of law is valid, these kinds of movements do useful things, no things, or criminal things, and society may sort them accordingly. Where the state acts in a biased and vengeful manner against those it perceives as lawless, it makes ever more of people who must be perceived as lawless. The law cannot give up its force, but it can use that force honestly, consistently, and with apologetic sincerity; by this the incendiary zeal may be reduced.
You can make the argument that socialism will promote economic security and less work time which could promote white birth rates and more family time. I made this argument with a nazi once and they seemed to agree. But of course they have to ruin it by saying, "yeah, okay socialism is good, but we also need nationalism". I swear that these NPCs are just fulfilling the etymological satisfaction of aligning themselves with an ideology called "national socialism", even if it is completely divorced from it's ideological roots. You can even see pro-LGBT fascists these days. Further just proves the point that nazism is simply an aesthetic and identity, not any type of coherent political philosophy. Neopagan cancer seems to be a pulling factor for far-right nerds these days too, is there any way the left can appropriate this "European Awakening" beyond the typical wiccan and satanic stuff, to control the conversation?
Don’t even entertain their spooks. At this point I just tell them that anuddah shoah is a good thing to piss these nerds off
So you're suggesting that we bash the fash instead?
The left never appropriates, only creates.
t. Troy Southgate.
Yes. Nobody can completely divorce someone from fascist spooks. You cannot argue against those spooks they are not rooted in reality. It is up to the fascist to fix themselves or be crushed.
The Fash always deserve a good bash.
the fucking canucks have to somehow be involved in this.
>appropriate this "European Awakening"
What I consider to be the most autistic is the right's definition of race/ehnicity. Like.
If you want to segregate people by their race, then how do you exactly determine their race? The human genome has many genes responsible for physical appearance. How do you check if someone is Balkan, Afroamerican, or mixed-race?
I have not been answered yet, btw.
somewhat arbitrary lines or genetic clustering with super computers like in Rosenberg 2002
The far-right is beyond spooked by traditionalism, muh country, and muh ancestor ghosts that live in the soil, these are not leftist by their very nature so it'll be difficult to appropriate them.
Reactionary mindests have possessed the nihilistic alienated west, controlling the narrative would at least help bring some rational solutions to these wacky spiritual exercises.