Talk:Alt-right glossary

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon altright.svg

This Alt-right related article has been awarded GOLD status for quality. Please keep this in mind when editing the article. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Information icon.svg Cover Story
This article is, among others, randomly included on the Main Page.
Please keep this in mind and be sure that your edits are of the quality that this implies.
Its front-page abstract can be found here and its editnotice here.

Archives for this talk page: , (new)

'In Minecraft'[edit]

I may be misremembering, but I believe I have heard 'In Minecraft' being used by non-Alt-Righters before, though I do not have sources to back this up sadly; Is this worth mentioning? — Unsigned, by: TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan / talk / contribs

Generally if you're adding content to a gold-ranked article, it should be sourced. Carthage (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


I have noticed that the Alt-Right and related groups (Such as the Manosphere) like to refer to groups (Specifically ones they don't like) as the name of the group with the suffix '-oid'; Would this be worth adding to the article? TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


If you're wondering how an obscure Simpsons skit turned into a catchphrase repeated by this milieu. I might have an explanation, although I'm not even totally certain about it. I've seen some indication that it turned this way because 4chan's /tv/ moderators kept deleting this "Sneed" spam, which led to some sort of conspiracy theory that liberal/transgender/CIA moderators were trying to suppress it for who knows what reason (I've seen it supposed that it was because the joke is "offensive" because it's crude). This is despite the fact that most of 4chan's moderators today seem to be right-wing, with a very small handful of notable exceptions. Anyway this is connected to a broader trend of conspiracy theories on 4chan about the site's moderation secretly being liberals, transgender, or intelligence agents (compare: Godlike Productions or Above Top Secret moderators' relationship to the conspiracy crowd). So spamming the "Sneed" thing turned into a sort of general protest against this imagined threat. I think maybe it could have been taken up this way specifically for its relatively harmless nature. Chillpilled (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Cultural Marxism and Postmodernism Disrobed[edit]

I think we should stop using the article "Postmodernism Disrobed" when discussing postmodernism in general on the Wiki, but in particular here it is quite problematic and there are a few reasons why:

The problems with citing this source:

  • It is a book review, but it is not obvious from the citation that it is a book review and not a more formal and well reviewed article.
  • It is obvious that Dawkins did not read the original material (all the quotes are directly lifted from Fashionable Nonsense. He's essentially reacting to quote mining)
  • The book being reviewed in question, "Intellectual Impostures/Fashionable Nonsense", has quite a few criticisms that make it an unreliable critique itself.
  • Intellectual Impostures/Fashionable Nonsense and the book review are promoting an extremely racist (blames black people on crimes, claims that indigenous peoples were responsible for mass extinctions), homophobic (blames AIDS crisis on gay people not stopping sexual practices) book called "Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science". It's fairly obvious when engaging with this text that the intention is not to carefully criticize postmodernists but to target minority studies (Fashionable Nonsense gets this confused and is more focused on the writers)
  • Fashionable Nonsense confuses a lot of writers as "postmodernists", most were literary theorists, feminists ect. (some, such as Guattari, even criticized extensively "postmodernism" such as in Schizoanalytic Cartographies). Again drawing into question the reliability of the source.
  • The scholarship in Fashionable Nonsense is kind of dodgy outside of the critiques mentioned above. For example, there are places where Sokal/Bricmont forget to cite the source of a particular claim regarding "mathematical tensors and psychology" in the footnotes.
  • Richard Dawkins talks about "cultural relativism" quite extensively in his essay collection "A Devil's Chaplain", published only a few years after "Postmodernism Disrobed". Should his opinion really be trusted here?

In short it's pretty obvious that the Higher Superstition-Sokal Affair-Postmodernism Disrobed triad should not be really included as a "critique" of postmodernism and is instead part of the movement towards the development of "cultural marxism" as a concept among the reactionary far right. I'm not the best at Wiki-ing, so I don't know the best way to rewrite that part of the article. Probably just cutting it entirely.

--Pfelix (talk) 14:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I would recommend removing any content that cites these books. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Carthage (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I cut the part for now. It might be good to rewrite the influence of the science wars in the development of "Cultural Marxism" but I can't come up with anything right now hahaha. EDIT: I wrote a draft for this section, but I am not familiar with Wikia so I am not sure how to place citations. I'll figure this out. --Pfelix (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


Is this really ever used as a synonym for postmodernism or Cultural Marxism? Never seen it. Maybe used by right-wing movements in non-Western countries? All I could think of. Chillpilled (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd delete it unless someone can come up with a citation. Bongolian (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


@Bongolian removed a section about "DEI" from the article. No real reason was given for its removal, so I've tentatively put it back, but I'm still not 100% sure that it belongs on the page (it was added by a BoN, which means there's a real possibility of trolling that I didn't notice, and I'm also not sure of its relevance to an alt-right glossary). Anyone have a third opinion to offer? --Luigifan18 (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The section was added without any citations and looks like a drive-by troll piece. I agree with Bongo's assessment and removal. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 01:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I rewrote a fair bit of it. Hopefully it looks a bit better now. I don't think it quite fits the alt-right either (it's more in the critical race theory category and being pushed by certain institutions and reactionaries) but I don't know where else to put it.BobJohnson (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I deleted the initial section on DEI because it had no citations and gave no evidence that there is anything specific to the alt-right that is not also in the milieu of US conservativism. There are now citations, but still no argument that it is in any way specific to the alt-right. I think it should either be removed or moved to a separate page at this point. Bongolian (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't really have any objections to that. --Luigifan18 (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Moved to its own article, DEI. (@Patty Pat) If people think it's more appropriate for the alt-right glossary, fine, but I personally concur with Bongolian. BobJohnson (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
That was an accident. Sorry. Patty Pat 18:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)