Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Alt-Right

That fucking article...

The “Unite The Right” gathering represents so much more than toxic or fragile masculinity.

Nazis = masculinity.
 
Firstly, don't tell me what to do. Secondly, perhaps your indignation would be better focused on those White women this writer was talking about, or those who actually continue to openly support this fucking shit.

My first post said fuck nazis. I'll say it again - fuck em. And I hope the cunt that drove that car gets a life sentence.

That tweet is still out of order.
 
Secondly, perhaps your indignation would be better focused on those White women this writer was talking about, or those who actually continue to openly support this fucking shit.

Its daft, though. You'd think people would have realized how utterly self-defeating a stance it was after 2016, but here they are again.
 
I wish people would in analyses actually try looking for the causes of neo-nazism and not just blame ''whiteness'' and ''masculinity'' (however toxic and whatever that actually means / is meant by). But nah, that'd be too fucking complicated, nuanced, too much to understand, too reflective. Not shouty enough. No instant gratification, no chance to otherise and objectify and point fingers.
 
Last edited:
That fucking article...

The “Unite The Right” gathering represents so much more than toxic or fragile masculinity.

Nazis = masculinity.


Look up the terms toxic masculinity and fragile masculinity.

It doesn't mean that masculinity is fragile or toxic per se. They're terms that refer to a particular kind of masculinity that arises from social dysfunction and patriarchy.

It's hard to discuss stuff without naming things and defining terms. So these terms are being used to talk about a particular expression of maleness or masculinity, in an effort to understand what's going on. Sure, it's a bit clumsy but it'll do for the time being.

It seems to me that since there appears to be some significant overlap between MRA, PUA and this Alt-Right stuff (not to mention all the other abusive stuff that is also associated with this shit) then trying to understand where dysfunctionality arises for the men involved is crucial.
 
How do you talk about things without giving them names?

And how can you separate out the dysfunctional behaviour that's associated with a particular group of people without talking about the behaviour as it's associated with that group?

How would we talk about this incident at Charlottesville without using terms like white supremacist?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CRI
I don't believe that's best done by using labels. Conflating behaviour and identity is a big mistake too.

Yes, it seems to me that there is a real crossover between the alt-right on the one hand and liberals, the left on the other here in the way that identity is talked about. Identities are seen as immutable, and the main basis of political mobilisation. Or, to the extent that identity isn't immutable it seems to require white people to denounce themselves, their parents and in many cases most of the people they know. That isn't the behaviour of normal people, is it?
 
How do you talk about things without giving them names?

And how can you separate out the dysfunctional behaviour that's associated with a particular group of people without talking about the behaviour as it's associated with that group?

How would we talk about this incident at Charlottesville without using terms like white supremacist?

Key term there is white supremacist. The man who killed Heather Heyer was a white supremacist, Heather Heyer was white. This is how normal people use language.
 
'Toxic masculinity' - the pop-psychology explanation of fascism. If only men got more cuddles when they were younger then there wouldn't be any nazis. Not too many cuddles though, because then it gets all a Freudian. Plus, Hitler only had one ball, etc.
 
How do you talk about things without giving them names?

And how can you separate out the dysfunctional behaviour that's associated with a particular group of people without talking about the behaviour as it's associated with that group?

Names / labels fair enough, but conflating behaviour and identity is still a very bad idea.

How would we talk about this incident at Charlottesville without using terms like white supremacist?

About a specific individual, to describe their behaviour and attitudes, isn't the same as blanket-terming entire social groups, whoever they may be and whatever behaviour is being talked about.
 
Milo tour manager Baked Alaska got maced:



Think the chap with him is telling people that “he's a VIP!” in order to procure extra milk.

Lovely still photo of same :cool:

1024x1024.jpg
 
What is supposed to happen if you don't 'identify' as anything in particular? What does it mean, in actual fact, to self-identify? They're just trying to put us in boxes (man). Left and right.

How did previous generations ever survive without 'identifying' themselves all the time?
 
'Toxic masculinity' - the pop-psychology explanation of fascism. If only men got more cuddles when they were younger then there wouldn't be any nazis. Not too many cuddles though, because then it gets all a Freudian. Plus, Hitler only had one ball, etc.
How explain those of us who never got many cuddles (sob), but never became Nazis or even grew up to harbour any bigotry at all (except maybe against students and hipsters?)
 
Firstly, don't tell me what to do. Secondly, perhaps your indignation would be better focused on those White women this writer was talking about, or those who actually continue to openly support this fucking shit.
Christ, please tell me people on here aren't trying the "not all white women" shit. :facepalm:
 
Back
Top Bottom