Who are the alt-right, exactly? (An open letter)

[Kyriakos]

Hmm... in witnessing the handywork of one Mr. Yiannopoulos i repeatedly had the odd sensation that, for better or worse, this might be basically Coulter 2.0.
You know, more youthful vernacular but otherwise comparable m.o.
I suppose this impression is somewhat tangential to your claim.

Yeah, that was a pretty pitiable selfimplosion. But the mere idea that Ms. Anderson might just be... whatchamacallit... a liar is of course out of the question.
Anyway, we have Mr. Pakman firmly seated one way or the other.

And... i realise that i should have put one Ms. Haider on my list, but, oh well.
(You offer any refunds? Sarah Haider).

Anyway, you have still not offered commentary on whether these people can be punched and how all this relates to, say, me.
Here, i have the mental image of a continuous string between me (not punchable) and Mr. Spencer (very punchable), with the assumption that you would see most of those people somewhere spread out on this supposed continuum between the two of us.
Needless to say, i find the idea of sharing a continuum with Mr. Spencer odd, but in the spirit of inquiry we shall entertain the idea.

Is it certain that The Milo isn't also acting ala Bruno (one of the personae of that Ali-G comedian)? I wouldn't be surprised if he is, and isn't even gay. I mean, his mannerisms do seem highly theatrical.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Right, so it's just a rebranding of far-right, but with trolling thrown in?

Ah, so basically the hip version of reactionary thought?

But then why does it include MRAs?

They're believed to be more of a reaction to women's rights, rather than actually going for certain things for men. They're a subset of the men's movement. It's kinda like when people stamp independent or freedom on their movement; it doesn't mean that it includes everyone that holds those things.

Of course, as always these assumptions are always murky. You have people discrediting feminists for sprouting crazy ideas as well, even though some may be the ones campaigning to stop abuse and violence against women, and you also have men that fight for men's custody rights and the overlooked problem of men being victims of abuse as well. It does seem like these things tend to be targeted at those extremist individuals, particularly on the net that don't actually go out and help people. But that's politics for you. I call these things Social Justice Blind Spots" where many casual people that claim equality often miss other things. You'll see those out to protecting women tend to ignore male victims of abuse, and people that care for gay/lesbian issues but toss bisexual people under the rug. Etc.

 

[Lexicus]

Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal or desirable,[1][2][3]typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition.[4](p693, 721)[5][6][7][8][9][page needed]Hierarchy and inequality may be viewed as natural results of traditional social differences[10][11] or the competition in market economies.[12][13] The term right-wing can generally refer to "the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system".[14]

MRA's tick all the boxes there.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Eh? How do they even tick any of those boxes? Even if they did, you're now apparently conflating far-right (and therefore alt-right) with just "right-wing politics".

 

[innonimatu]

1) the world is full of nutty people.
2) the world is full of opportunists
3) the world is full of narcissists

The alt-right is an assortment of people with at least two of these characteristics. And as a label, I believe it has been created and kept in existence by the same kind of people. The one thing that strikes me as stupid in the "alt-right" thing (and other "alts") is that it still gets away with claiming to be "alt". It was branded, created, to be "mainstream". It is a product of mass media, and mass media does not cease to be mass just because it is "over the Internet".

Needless to say, I have a very low opinion of most people who work (or gravitate around) mass media... and has been getting lower the older I am. They are the employers of those people.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I might take a stab at a fuller answer to the OP questions in a bit, but right off the bat, I'd want to note that "alt-right" is [some group to be described more fully]'s chosen designation for itself.

They are the soi-dissant alt-right or the self-styled alt-right.

So the primary responsibility for designating who make them up should fall on their own shoulders, rather than the shoulders of their critics.

Now, I don't suspect they will be terribly forthcoming on that point, actually, and if I work up a fuller definition, part of what I'll do is say why I think that is.

A recent poll asked Republicans with whom they see themselves as more aligned: Trump or Republicans in Congress. 58% said Trump, 38% said Congress. That 58% is the alt-right. I know that's a purely external characterization, but it can give some sense of the scope: 60% of half the nation.

It is a notion invented at the media outlet Breitbart. For all I know, it may be Bannon's own coinage. But even if he didn't come up with it, he's promulgated it, and he's the primary face of it.

It is in fact primarily white people raised in at least nominally Christian households understanding themselves as an aggrieved minority, or minority-to-be. They are nostalgic for a time when Christian whites were unselfconsciously advantaged within American society. That advantage took the form of 1) significant numerical advantage, 2) the availability of manufacturing jobs the salaries from which could sustain a middle-class lifestyle and 3) domination of the culture at large by at least the trappings of Christianity. (Their own self-definition will not directly acknowledge this fact.)

Over the past thirty years, say, modern life has moved too quickly for them on a number of fronts. America has become more ethnically diverse. The American economy has lost manufacturing jobs to countries with much cheaper labor. Christian perspectives are no longer assumed as a comfortable default in discussion of social issues.

I think we need a more subtle terminology than "racist" or "white-supremacist" for describing them. Many of the milder of them may not have direct animus toward ethnic minorities (though many of the more extreme ones, of course, do). And if you as asked them if they thought whites were superior to other races, again, I think the milder of them would answer "no," and truly believe that answer. Nevertheless, it is anxiety over the waning privileges that used to attach to whiteness that I believe motivates them.

[Taking a break here to clean up my lunch dishes; not finished with my disquisition]

 

[metatron]

Well, that's why I proposed a stylistic component to the definition. To be alt-right, you need to be far right ideologically, and into the sort of trolling/***** aesthetic/style that grew up in in the 2000s. That's a tentative stab at a definition, and undoubtedly exceptions will be found etc so please don't take it as my final word on the matter.

Well, as you predicted, this doesn't apply terribly well.
You rated Mr. Harris "somewhat ideologically aligned", even though he knowingly accepted the loss if half his followership in essentially declaring atheist jihad against Trump on october 27th (last year, obviously).
Mr. Maldonado in avoiding such self-inflicted loss, didn't explicitly take a side in the election, yet in november it was implicitly apparent, including allmost slip-ups on his part (he did vote, and not for Trump). You have him down as "definitly part of the alt-right".
Mr. Mason is basically in a feud, to this day, as far as i know, with Mr. Benjamin, whom you surely know. Because they thought they should do a debate about Brexit and things ended pretty badly...
Mr. Pakman in turn is so New England Democrat, he could serve as a caricature of himself.

That's on the one hand. On the other hand you have the likes of Ms. Goldy and Ms. Southern, who occasionally derail themselves in a somewhat Fox-anchor-spitting-at-the-screen fashion when it comes to immigration but otherwise have the persona of the average nutty conservative lady-journalist.
(Never mind Ms. Southern supposedly being a man in Ontario. We all agree that we can savely misgender her, do we?)
Mr. Rubin whom you have so generously exonorated has probably had more impact on the election than anybody else on the list and is often (falsely) credited by Americans for coinage of the term "regressive left". He doesn't go on anti-immigration tirades, but he does have all the insigniae of a "very serious journalist" (never mind the Cato money).

So, this is still a very weird thing you have cobbled together here.
There are two rather unrelated criteria, plus some more unrelated criteria you mentioned earlir in your initial response; and one can freely substitute achievement in one category with another, apparently.
The only really common denominator appears to be that one most be far enough removed from your position and/or be hostile to your position in an effective fashion.
So as if you were at a left pole from which every direction is right alt-right.

(Since i have hnow brought up Mr. Pinker again is can only renew my advise, which i have given to you before, to watch "Pinker v Spelke". Once you have done so, you should justify again not labeling Mr. Pinker alt-right, seeing how - if he were a google employee - he'd surely be fired as direct result of an unofficial (and illegal) strike demanding he be gone).

They are literally reactionaries.

MRA's tick all the boxes there.

This is highly dubious since many of the things MRAs bemoan are least pronounced in rather progressive countries and within the US less pronounced in more progressive states.
Many directly implementable policy perscriptions often heard from MRAs (such as in custody or alimony law) are not phantastical but actually do exist, in northern and central Europe (and occasionally some on balance more liberal portion of the anglosphere with the individual MRA being outside of that portion).
And often enough in France too.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Re: Gori

I really hope you do work up a fuller definition because that seems to just amount to "alt-right = Trump supporters".

 

[metatron]

I might take a stab at a fuller answer to the OP questions in a bit, but right off the bat, I'd want to note that "alt-right" is [some group to be described more fully]'s chosen designation for itself.

They are the soi-dissant alt-right or the self-styled alt-right.

So the primary responsibility for designating who make them up should fall on their own shoulders, rather than the shoulders of their critics.

This doesn't work well at all vis-a-vis my list and Lexi's rating.
Feel free to rate these people yourself.

 

[AdrienIer]

This is highly dubious since many of the things MRAs bemoan are least pronounced in rather progressive countries and within the US less pronounced in more progressive states.
Many directly implementable policy perscriptions often heard from MRAs (such as in custody or alimony law) are not phantastical but actually do exist, in northern and central Europe (and occasionally some on balance more liberal portion of the anglosphere with the individual MRA being outside of that portion).
And often enough in France too.

We're not talking about the mild dudes who want parental leave equal with women or other such reasonable policies (often backed by feminist associations too). We're talking about the actual MRAs, who are nothing more than anti-feminists. They loathe women's right and want men to be more clearly advantaged in society. Those are the vocal ones, the trolls on the internet, the ones who send death threats to feminist spokespeople.
This week two people in France created a service where if you're a woman and a guy asks you for your number in an insistent manner and you can't really refuse you can give him a number which would send the guy a message after an hour telling him he's made a woman uneasy and to stop being so insistent. MRAs coordinated and managed to shut it down by overloading it. That's what these people do. They're not here for men's rights, they want women to be as oppressed as possible

 

[metatron]

We're not talking about the mild dudes who want parental leave equal with women or other such reasonable policies (often backed by feminist associations too). We're talking about the actual MRAs, who are nothing more than anti-feminists. They loathe women's right and want men to be more clearly advantaged in society. Those are the vocal ones, the trolls on the internet, the ones who send death threats to feminist spokespeople.
This week two people in France created a service where if you're a woman and a guy asks you for your number in an insistent manner and you can't really refuse you can give him a number which would send the guy a message after an hour telling him he's made a woman uneasy and to stop being so insistent. MRAs coordinated and managed to shut it down by overloading it. That's what these people do. They're not here for men's rights, they want women to be as oppressed as possible

Well, then self-identification is entirely out the window, isn't it. People are what you call them, because you call them that.

You just bake yourself your evil MRA and the others get relabeled. The same way you select a good feminist and the others don't count.

And then you select a new one every month because the last one wrote something dispicable in her column. But that's neither here nor there.

In any event, this is little more than a giant game of no true Scotsman.

 

[Lexicus]

We're not talking about the mild dudes who want parental leave equal with women or other such reasonable policies (often backed by feminist associations too).

Yeah. I mean, these are feminist positions, we wouldn't need the concept of "MRA" at all if this was what men's right's advocacy was about.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I don't believe feminism holds the copyright.

 

[AdrienIer]

You just bake yourself your evil MRA and the others get relabeled. The same way you select a good feminist and the others don't count.

Textbook strawman. Good job. I never claimed all feminists were good.

Alt-right originated as a self identification by some elements of the far right. It's grown far beyond that

 

[Gori the Grey]

Re: Gori

I really hope you do work up a fuller definition because that seems to just amount to "alt-right = Trump supporters".

alt-right = Trump supporters

On a Venn diagram, they would be very nearly co-extensive.

I continued my definition, in the form of edits to my original post. I thought the forum told me when other people posted, and I was seeing no such message, so I just worked happily along, adding stuff to my original post. I'll make a new post spoilering all of that and then continue with my treatise.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

If alt-right = Trump supporters then either:

a) the alt-right replaced all traditional Republican voters overnight and are now the mainstream, or
b) alt-right is just a synonym for Republican

(or I suppose c) most people who voted for Trump don't actually support him)

 

[Gori the Grey]

a!

But to be clear, in my equation, I'm talking about Trump's current supporters, not those who voted for him.

Some voted for him with other than alt-right motivations. (Businessman will shake up gridlock in Washington, e.g.) But those have left him. We're talking about the ~35% who in approval polls still report supporting him.

This doesn't work well at all vis-a-vis my list and Lexi's rating.
Feel free to rate these people yourself.

From me, you'll get a general discourse. I can't be bothered to look up those specific examples. The general trend interests, even fascinates, me; the particular cases nauseate me.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I can't help but feel we're not really pinning down a coherent definition in this thread.

 

[Ryika]

Lexicus is the prime example of a far right extremist, why do you people allow him to redefine the Alt Right just so he does not get associated with Nazism?

 

[OldBoomer]

Lexicus is the prime example of a far right extremist, why do you people allow him to redefine the Alt Right just so he does not get associated with Nazism?

I think you're onto something. The Alt-Right is anti-elitist, anti-establishment, poorly educated, lower income, working class... so wouldn't that make them Bolsheviks? All of that Russian collusion finally makes sense now. Donald Trump is literally Stalin.