Salt-right inanity
This section is terrible thirdly because it's inane, secondly because it's stupid and not funny, but primarily because alt-righters absolutely don't give a shit about logic, coherence or words. They're fucking Internet trolls, not creationists. They are not even pretending to be coherent. Even if you think "I wanna be funny here", this shit literally doesn't work, they don't care and never did. Reread Sartre's Anti-Semite and Jew to get the idea: literally all alt-right engagement with others is argument in bad faith, and their goal is the art of amusement with elaborate bad faith argument.
If you really want a section on arguing with alt-righters, read Anti-Semite and Jew and explain the argument style cribbing heavily from Sartre. (Turns out Jean-Paul Sartre was intelligent, perspicacious and a good writer!) - David Gerard (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that trying to discuss things with them isn't worth the time but it is a way to at least bait them to attack each other instead of derailing a proper discussion( It is like asking on Stormfront if Jews or black are worse or if east europeans are white.Flamewar ensues) In addition i personaly love the blazing saddle reference and it alone is worth the inclusion.--Benaresh (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 A history of the Alt-right
|In high school me and my mate were virulently anti-Semitic, not because we were racially conscious just because it was hilarious, we would accuse people of acting Jewish, claim jews stole our home work and kinds of shit, everyone thought I was a nazi (I wasn't) but I didn't really mind I thought it was funny and to hell with everyone else.
I don't hold my tongue on facebook either, I don't go full fash but I shit post, mock leftists and praise kek.
Anyway at my reunion on Sunday everyone (thinking I'm a nazi) was so keen to come and tell me how funny they think my facebook arguments are and how I'm right about most things, especially the more alpha sorta guys.
I was absolutely shocked by how many of them were checking my wall every day to see my shit posting and talking about immigration and nationalism.
I directed a lot of them to TRS and stormer and genuinely they were receptive to it, one of the guys was going around doing roman Salutes, and no one was going to stop him.
These guys weren't political, they didn't know what the alt-right is but they see so much stupid shit at college, all this anti white garbage that they are looking for an outlet, looking for a way the can absolutely reject it.
Which made me think, a few months ago I saw at a milo event there were people handing out dailystormer leaflets, I thought it was a waste of time, but it really isn't.
There are so many men who want to reject cultural Marxism in the most aggressive way possible and not in alt-lite terms they wont to be stronger and more assertive than that. We have an opportunity right now to get these people on board because of how fucking stupid universities are. Normally these people wouldn't have the impetus to unlearn everything they know about ww2 or to watch the greatest story never told, but right now they do. Lets harness it, put up a flyer at college do these subtle things that can convince these men to view our sites.
 Removed this
|There is a deep gulf between the alt-right and mainstream religious conservatives in the USA. The latter either reject evolution entirely, or else acknowledge it but insist that evolutionary science cannot be used a source for moral and ethical values; only religion can (i.e., the nonoverlapping magisteria thesis). Either way, they also affirm some type of "human exceptionalism": that man is not simply just another animal.
In contrast, the alt-right not only universally accept Darwinian evolution, but also biological determinism, social Darwinism, and sometimes eugenics as well, which they see as logically following from it. As all the "human biodiversity" talk implies, they aren't always human exceptionalists and many do see man (or at least certain races of man) as just another animal. Much like Lord Tennyson, they see nature as "red in tooth and claw" and human nature as no different. Steve Sailer, a precursor to the alt-right, used the term "evolutionary conservative" to describe himself and how his views differed from those of other conservatives.
This schism has led to those on both sides of the divide taking very different positions on issues such as abortion (religious conservatives are strongly opposed, while the alt-right is not: John Tanton, another precursor of the movement, even founded a Planned Parenthood chapter!), bioethics, immigration, economics, and of course the teaching of evolution. Other differences include the attitude toward history. Mainstream conservatives these days have no beef with the civil rights movement of the 1960s (although today's LGBT rights movement is quite another story), but among alt-rightists, neo-segregationist rhetoric is commonplace. Creationists also dislike the alt-right's social Darwinism.
This seems to suggest that alt-righters are almost completely not religious conservatives. I have not personally found this to be true. They may dress their arguments in science, but they are often creationists or anti-evolution themselves. Moreover, I think this fails to recognize that modern conservatism has had raciallist and sexist undertones for a long time.
- yeah, I was never fond of that section. Even if it were true, it's trivia at best and not important to why the alt-right rate an article - David Gerard (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- lol. But if you mean "should we use it", not unless it's freely licensed - David Gerard (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
<ref>tags exist, but no
<references/>tag was found