What is the alt-right?

[Senethro]

Yeah, thats a comparison between "too many" and "Twice what that wuss has. He doesn't even have enough guns for each limb".

Beyond a certain point it doesn't matter - you might as well consider the society saturated with guns.

So I guess America needs to watch out for increasing rates of self-radicalized and internet radicalized young men who think they're the next Breivik (of all political persuasions).

 

[Ryika]

And college-radicalized young men who think they're warriors for equality.

But I disagree that it does not matter, I think it very much does. There's one side that has a lot more guns than the other, and even if we assume that there are so many guns around that the other side could equalize that if the need arises, then the assumption is still that a person who does own a gun is much more likely to know how to use it than a person who just organized a gun because "Omg, street battles!". That's a distinct advantage right there, and the only possibly equalizing force in such a scenario would be the large amount of guns in the neutral camp.

But thankfully, such a scenario is unlikely anyway. As bad as some of the events in the recent past look, the total, irredeemable nutcases on both sides are still fringe minorities.

 

[Perfection]

 

[Virote_Considon]

Jesus, clean your keyboard bro

 

[Perfection]

It's my work keyboard and my job ends in two weeks, I'd like to leave a reminder of me.

 

[Virote_Considon]

understandable, piss in yr boss's favourite mug

 

[Virote_Considon]

nah, just kidding.

good luck down your new path tho

 

[Traitorfish]

But I disagree that it does not matter, I think it very much does. There's one side that has a lot more guns than the other, and even if we assume that there are so many guns around that the other side could equalize that if the need arises, then the assumption is still that a person who does own a gun is much more likely to know how to use it than a person who just organized a gun because "Omg, street battles!". That's a distinct advantage right there, and the only possibly equalizing force in such a scenario would be the large amount of guns in the neutral camp.

I don't think the prospect of an American civil war is remotely plausible, but if it were to occur, I'm sceptical that it would take the form of everyone who voted Trump and everyone who voted Clinton all spontaneously lining up and shooting at each other like it's 1812.

 

[Lexicus]

I don't think the prospect of an American civil war is remotely plausible, but if it were to occur, I'm sceptical that it would take the form of everyone who voted Trump and everyone who voted Clinton all spontaneously lining up and shooting at each other like it's 1812.

What about an American Troubles or American Big Annoying Insurgency?

 

[Senethro]

You've got a good sized american generation with experience of insurgency and a well trodden path of political polarization.

 

[Traitorfish]

You've got a good sized american generation with experience of insurgency and a well trodden path of political polarization.

Well, partisan polarisation. For all the Jeremiads of the centre, American political outrage is firmly focuses on getting the public from their front door to the voting booth. There's really very little in the way of extra-electoral political activity from either side.

 

[Lexicus]

There's really very little in the way of extra-electoral political activity from either side.

That's...really not true. The business class is highly politically-organized and engages in quite a lot of extra-electoral political activity.

 

[Traitorfish]

That's...really not true. The business class is highly politically-organized and engages in quite a lot of extra-electoral political activity.

I really meant in the sense of the numbers of people involved, but I appreciate your point.

 

[Lexicus]

I really meant in the sense of the numbers of people involved, but I appreciate your point.

The basic premise of the US system is that the state more or less functions as a vessel for forces that originate in civil society. And the cancer in the US body politic right now is that "civil society" is basically synonymous with rent-seeking of various types. It's political economy that's highly similar to the cities of late medieval Europe, where more or less all the activity is patronized by the fantastically wealthy. There is no basis for organized mass politics, it's all just rich people paying consultants to maintain an epistemological bubble.

EDIT: There was a good example of what I'm talking about in that thread BvBPL posted a while back about that think tank (?) that set out to survey Americans about what they thought and concluded...exactly what they believed at the beginning of the exercise.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/on-safari-in-trumps-america/543288/

 

[Truthy]

I think it's a common mistake to understate the importance of memetics, reward concentration, and internet addiction in explaining the popularity of both the SJ movement and the alt-right

 

[Traitorfish]

But perhaps not so common as imagining that everyone who disagrees with you is just some internet weirdo.

 

[Truthy]

But perhaps not so common as imagining that everyone who disagrees with you is just some internet weirdo.

Who are you saying is doing that?

 

[Traitorfish]

Most of us, at least some of the time. I don't pretend innocence.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Quiet! You Weirdos!

 

[Truthy]

Most of us, at least some of the time. I don't pretend innocence.

Sure.

To make my point a little clearer, there were two mentions of the internet in this thread prior to my post, one of which pretty much ignored the importance of the internet (by presenting it as just a source of anonymity) and the other only mentioned it in passing. I'm pretty sure there's going to be a lot of misunderstanding when technology is exponential and analytical tool kits are not (in fact, a lot of the models offered on OT are starting to sound amazingly antiquated. Arguments against a claim like "technology is exponential" would probably be antiques). You probably want to avoid seeing people as weirdos, but still want some heuristics to help you read an argument and appreciate it like you'd appreciate an old clock, but not appreciate it for its usefulness. We're talking about an evolution of news and controversy consumption/spread that is a level more advanced and addictive than cable news. There should be some insights into how technology has been optimizing for addictiveness and how controversy is a great way to get memes to spread (e.g., Ferguson--not anywhere close to being the most clear cut example of police brutality, but that's a huge part of why the story propagated through the internet and news cycles). Some important dynamics of what we're seeing are frequently left out of the explanation in favor of old school explanations (often a lot of talk of some kind of fabric). I suspect there's often a buried social constructionist assumption about tech-social interplay being driven a lot more by the social and that gives us more confidence in the durability of our tool kits.