The Alt-Right

[Athos]

What stupid shit has Trump done today?

Thanks. Didn't see this rubbish at the time, as I'd given up on that thread.

 

[danny la rouge]

Thanks. Didn't see this rubbish at the time, as I'd given up on that thread.

Ditto.

 

[BigTom]

Sure, no one likes being generalised about. It happens all the time though when the subject is people who are marginalised due to race, class, gender, sexual orientation, etc. If they complained about every example, they'd be talking about nothing else all day, every day. Too often when they do, they're told they have a chip on their shoulder, are jealous, are bitter, or making a fuss of nothing.

When a woman who's experienced say sexual harassment talks about how "men are like this," and a bloke says, "but not all men . . . " or a Black person says they're uncomfortable working with white people, knowing so many back a racist President, and a white person insists, "not all white people . . . " it's not simply asking for "clarity." It's expecting the person to put aside their painful experience long enough to reassure that they didn't mean you, no you are nice, of course you're not like that, it's definitely not to do with you, make sure your feelings aren't hurt, etc. before going on to describe their experience of injustice.

It also says, "Okay, you can carry on now, but if I'm not convinced (or you make me feel uncomfortable again), I reserve the right to reject what you say completely.

It's really just playing along with the rules of structural oppression while wanting to play at showing solidarity and it sucks.

If you know they're not talking about you, don't insist they make it about you.

Except all you need is one word - some, many, most, lots - take your pick, plenty to choose between.
The scenario you are portraying doesn't fit me at all, certainly there in other people but not in me and I'll explain why, but if that is all you see then I think you are missing something else that is happening, which is damaging in the way redsquirell and j_ed are talking about.

I'm non neuro-typical as a result of severe paranoid clinical depression. Depression destroyed my ego right back to the point of it me only having knowledge of my self being separate to other people. I didn't, and still don't really, have any desires (those I do have I have generated myself as part of being in recovery from depression). I am going to kill myself tomorrow*. I have no interest in praise, no need for affirmation or reassurance. What I want to know is that I can improve the situation and leave things better than they were.
Every time someone generalises it tells me that there is no point, and makes me not want to bother, not beyond the way I treat people immediately in my life. It says I cannot help, I can only harm. So why bother.

*I'm not but I've not said that for melodramatic purposes, you need to understand my emotional mindset. Tomorrow I will make the same decision I made today, for the same reason - that if I kill myself, and it turns out I was wrong and I should have stayed alive, I cannot change my mind; but if I stay alive and I'm right and I should kill myself then I can change my mind and kill myself. But emotionally, my life ends tomorrow, so why would I care about affirmation, or anything else really? And yet, despite that, being generalised about in this way makes me want to not bother with sexism/racism/homophobia/transphobia/etc. You won't find someone with less of a need for affirmation than me so believe me this effect is real and likely bigger in other people, and not coming from the place you think it is. It's damaging and divisive and very simply solved with a single word.

ps: I always have the right to reject what you say completely, as does anyone in any political discussion. If you start off with something I know to be untrue, I'm not likely to accept anything else you say afterwards, emotionally you've already lost me, not because I have any need for affirmation, but because I no longer trust you to be accurate and truthful.

 

[ViolentPanda]

They keep trying to normalise them though...

They can try all they like. All they'll ever be is socially-aberrant.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

The claim is fairly obvious, whether the assumptions behind it correct is not so clear. Perhaps you could start with Stalin being an anti-capitalist.

Maybe I'm being thick here but you've lost me. Don't get what you mean by the last sentence. Of course Stalin was anti capitalist. That's my point.

 

[Pickman's model]

Maybe I'm being thick here but you've lost me. Don't get what you mean by the last sentence. Of course Stalin was anti capitalist. That's my point.

Yeh. Of course. But many people see the USSR as capitalist, albeit state capitalist, Stalin famously allied with capitalist nations including Germany, the UK and of course the USA. Under Stalin the USSR worked with ford and fiat. I am not sure I can see the anti-capitalism of which you speak. Could you please adduce some evidence to support your assertion?

 

[Casually Red]

I was under the impression mr Stalin invited in US and other companies , particularly Ford, studied their mass production methods, and when all was learned fucked them out again . Is that wrong ?

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Yeh. Of course. But many people see the USSR as capitalist, albeit state capitalist, Stalin famously allied with capitalist nations including Germany, the UK and of course the USA. Under Stalin the USSR worked with ford and fiat. I am not sure I can see the anti-capitalism of which you speak. Could you please adduce some evidence to support your assertion?

Ok, I see what you mean now I think. Not sure I agree that the USSR working with capitalist firms/countries makes it capitalist though, or even pro-capitalist. Pragmatic, maybe. I'll have to ponder on that one.

 

[Pickman's model]

Ok, I see what you mean now I think. Not sure I agree that the USSR working with capitalist firms/countries makes it capitalist though, or even pro-capitalist. Pragmatic, maybe. I'll have to ponder on that one.

see e.g. http://www.econ.yale.edu/~egcenter/Link_Soviet Fordism in Practice.pdf

 

[danny la rouge]

Well I'm glad to hear that. The isolated quote doesn't really get that across though.

Thats the thing about quotes, though: the stuff either side is left out. But you know who Stokely Carmichael was, and you knew the context we were discussing, so you had a fair idea the quote was about America in the era of the capitalist mode of production.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

see e.g. http://www.econ.yale.edu/~egcenter/Link_Soviet Fordism in Practice.pdf

Cheers. Will have a read.

Thats the thing about quotes, though: the stuff either side is left out. But you know who Stokely Carmichael was, and you knew the context we were discussing, so you had a fair idea the quote was about America in the era of the capitalist mode of production.

I've actually never heard of the guy.

 

[Omaplata]

Except all you need is one word - some, many, most, lots - take your pick, plenty to choose between.
The scenario you are portraying doesn't fit me at all, certainly there in other people but not in me and I'll explain why, but if that is all you see then I think you are missing something else that is happening, which is damaging in the way redsquirell and j_ed are talking about.

I'm non neuro-typical as a result of severe paranoid clinical depression. Depression destroyed my ego right back to the point of it me only having knowledge of my self being separate to other people. I didn't, and still don't really, have any desires (those I do have I have generated myself as part of being in recovery from depression). I am going to kill myself tomorrow*. I have no interest in praise, no need for affirmation or reassurance. What I want to know is that I can improve the situation and leave things better than they were.
Every time someone generalises it tells me that there is no point, and makes me not want to bother, not beyond the way I treat people immediately in my life. It says I cannot help, I can only harm. So why bother.

*I'm not but I've not said that for melodramatic purposes, you need to understand my emotional mindset. Tomorrow I will make the same decision I made today, for the same reason - that if I kill myself, and it turns out I was wrong and I should have stayed alive, I cannot change my mind; but if I stay alive and I'm right and I should kill myself then I can change my mind and kill myself. But emotionally, my life ends tomorrow, so why would I care about affirmation, or anything else really? And yet, despite that, being generalised about in this way makes me want to not bother with sexism/racism/homophobia/transphobia/etc. You won't find someone with less of a need for affirmation than me so believe me this effect is real and likely bigger in other people, and not coming from the place you think it is. It's damaging and divisive and very simply solved with a single word.

ps: I always have the right to reject what you say completely, as does anyone in any political discussion. If you start off with something I know to be untrue, I'm not likely to accept anything else you say afterwards, emotionally you've already lost me, not because I have any need for affirmation, but because I no longer trust you to be accurate and truthful.

I've lurked on this site for years and, although you say you have no desire for affirmation, I just wanted to say whenever I see your username I always read your posts as they are almost always of interest and thought provoking.

Cheers

 

[danny la rouge]

I've actually never heard of the guy.

OK, sorry. Maybe an age thing, but it's just one of those names I assumed everyone knows. He was a leading black power figure during the civil rights era, who became the "Honorary Prime Minister" of the Black Panthers. Later adopted the name Kwame Ture, but wasn't precious about it as he knew he'd come to public notice under the other name.

I've got his autobiography, Ready For Revolution. It's well worth a read. I don't agree with him on everything at every point of his political development, but if you want to get to grips with the politics of the civil rights era, he's one of the people you need to read/read about, to see the journey he and his comrades were on, what they were dealing with, how it affected their thinking and their actions.

 

[mojo pixy]

Except all you need is one word - some, many, most, lots - take your pick, plenty to choose between.
The scenario you are portraying doesn't fit me at all, certainly there in other people but not in me and I'll explain why, but if that is all you see then I think you are missing something else that is happening, which is damaging in the way redsquirell and j_ed are talking about.

I'm non neuro-typical as a result of severe paranoid clinical depression. Depression destroyed my ego right back to the point of it me only having knowledge of my self being separate to other people. I didn't, and still don't really, have any desires (those I do have I have generated myself as part of being in recovery from depression). I am going to kill myself tomorrow*. I have no interest in praise, no need for affirmation or reassurance. What I want to know is that I can improve the situation and leave things better than they were.
Every time someone generalises it tells me that there is no point, and makes me not want to bother, not beyond the way I treat people immediately in my life. It says I cannot help, I can only harm. So why bother.

*I'm not but I've not said that for melodramatic purposes, you need to understand my emotional mindset. Tomorrow I will make the same decision I made today, for the same reason - that if I kill myself, and it turns out I was wrong and I should have stayed alive, I cannot change my mind; but if I stay alive and I'm right and I should kill myself then I can change my mind and kill myself. But emotionally, my life ends tomorrow, so why would I care about affirmation, or anything else really? And yet, despite that, being generalised about in this way makes me want to not bother with sexism/racism/homophobia/transphobia/etc. You won't find someone with less of a need for affirmation than me so believe me this effect is real and likely bigger in other people, and not coming from the place you think it is. It's damaging and divisive and very simply solved with a single word.

ps: I always have the right to reject what you say completely, as does anyone in any political discussion. If you start off with something I know to be untrue, I'm not likely to accept anything else you say afterwards, emotionally you've already lost me, not because I have any need for affirmation, but because I no longer trust you to be accurate and truthful.

I want to add something to this excellent post. I grew up in a place that was extremely masculine, toxic, and for want of a better word let's say ''white''. Most of the boys (and girls) I grew up with weren't drawn to far-right politics, most didn't give a shit about politics at all. Football was what we had to make us feel powerful (well, what they had. I always hated football, but there I was stuck there anyway. In the end I discovered punk, which worked for me) .. and then a small, noisy minority of us were actually drawn leftwards, and we ended up fighting .. physically fighting, regularly and publicly .. against the slightly larger minority who were drawn towards (again, for want of a better word) fascism.

The reason I'm posting all this bla is that when I hear that neo-nazism is all the fault of whiteness and toxic masculinity, I remember back to the days when the toxic white males I counted as my friends were fighting nazis and other thuggish wankers in Portsmouth and in Southampton and in London, wherever we encountered their dodgy attitudes and shitty behaviour. I'm not exactly proud of that shit, but there it is, it happened. It was all we knew how to do, and at least it was a challenge, it let them know some people wouldn't stand for it.

But I think what I'm saying is, people need to leave off the pointless, meaningless generalisations. Because at best such finger-wagging can lose potential allies among the right people, and at worst it actually drives people who aren't particularly committed to any cause, into the welcoming arms of the wrong people.

(ETA: I acknowledge that the USA is different from the UK, and now is different from then)

Someone else might be able to express this better than me. Call it defensiveness if y'like, but at least there is something to defend. For those making generalisations: what have you done to help, apart from identify as an in-group member?

 

[Pickman's model]

I want to add something to this excellent post. I grew up in a place that was extremely masculine, toxic, and for want of a better word let's say ''white''. Most of the boys (and girls) I grew up with weren't drawn to far-right politics, most didn't give a shit about politics at all. Football was what we had to make us feel powerful (well, what they had. I always hated football, but there I was stuck there anyway. In the end I discovered punk, which worked for me) .. and then a small, noisy minority of us were actually drawn leftwards, and we ended up fighting .. physically fighting, regularly and publicly .. against the slightly larger minority who were drawn towards (again, for want of a better word) fascism.

The reason I'm posting all this bla is that when I hear that neo-nazism is all the fault of whiteness and toxic masculinity, I remember back to the days when the toxic white males I counted as my friends were fighting nazis and other thuggish wankers in Portsmouth and in Southampton and in London, wherever we encountered their dodgy attitudes and shitty behaviour. I'm not exactly proud of that shit, but there it is, it happened. It was all we knew how to do, and at least it was a challenge, it let them know some people wouldn't stand for it.

But I think what I'm saying is, people need to leave off the pointless, meaningless generalisations. Because at best such finger-wagging can lose potential allies among the right people, and at worst it actually drives people who aren't particularly committed to any cause, into the welcoming arms of the wrong people.

Someone else might be able to express this better than me. Call it defensiveness if y'like, but at least there is something to defend. For those making generalisations: what have you done to help, apart from identify as an in-group member?

i've met some toxic white males in anti-fascism but they were our toxic white males and bloody glad we were to have them.

 

[mojo pixy]

Some of the best, most committed and reliable antifa I've ever met have been toxic, and white. Many have indeed been male.

 

[Pickman's model]

Some of the best, most committed and reliable antifa I've ever met have been toxic, and white. Many have indeed been male.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Some of the best, most committed and reliable antifa I've ever met have been toxic, and white. Many have indeed been male.

Are you being sacastic? If not can you explain to me what you mean by 'toxic' please?

 

[Pickman's model]

Are you being sacastic? If not can you explain to me what you mean by 'toxic' please?

if you'd ever met tony hooligan you'd know exactly what mojo pixy meant

scares the fuck out of me, but what a lovely man he is.

 

[mojo pixy]

Are you being sacastic? If not can you explain to me what you mean by 'toxic' please?

Sure. I mean aggressive, unforgiving, vengeful and quick to violence.
I'm sure there are other toxics, but that's the one I mean.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

if you'd ever met tony hooligan you'd know exactly what mojo pixy meant

Now that's one hell of a case of nominative determinism.

 

[Pickman's model]

Now that's one hell of a case of nominative determinism.

you sound very accusative

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

you sound very accusative

Far too clever for me.

 

[Pickman's model]

Far too clever for me.

it's one of the cases foreign nouns go in.

for example, latin goes nominative, vocative, accusative, genitive, dative and ablative. other languages apparently have other cases, but i'm fucked if i know anything about them.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Sure. I mean aggressive, unforgiving, vengeful and quick to violence.
I'm sure there are other toxics, but that's the one I mean.

I wonder then what you imagine people mean when they describe the Alt Right/MRA/Nazi types as 'toxic' and what they mean by 'toxic masculinity' when talking about those people?

 

[mojo pixy]

I imagine they mean broadly the same traits, but in people whose views they find repellent. I imagine narcissistic would be thrown in, but people use that term willy-nilly these days so it's become devalued outside of actual, qualified diagnosis.

To be fair, I've known plenty of anti-fash (and other flavour eg animal rights, road protests) of direct-activists who hold views that I believe most liberals would find pretty appalling, particularly with respect to who should have violence done upon them, and what that violence should specifically consist of. I think Toxic Masculinity is a pretty meaningless term in making a distinction between people we might fucking despise and people we might tolerate under the premise that my enemy's enemy is my friend.

 

[Fozzie Bear]

I have seen macho anti-fascist blokes having their behaviour respectfully challenged by other macho anti-fascist blokes though.

 

[mojo pixy]

On some level it's bound to, maybe because of the underlying principles of what's being fought for.

 

[Treacle Toes]

I think Toxic Masculinity is a pretty meaningless term in making a distinction between people we might fucking despise and people we might tolerate under the premise that my enemy's enemy is my friend.

I would appreciate you going further and explaining this more... examples?

 

[LDC]

IMO the term 'toxic masculinity' is most usually used in a sneering anti-proletarian way by Guardian journalists and their ilk.

Never actually heard anyone use it in real life in a useful way. Funnily enough we're got plenty of words and phrases to describe shit attitudes and behavior already.