Hacker News Reader

Comment by stcredzero | Hacker News Reader

It is an impressive feat of mental gymnastics to both kinda sorta acknowledge the alt-right might not be a great group of guys but then also claim Damore had no choice but to pull into that port

It's an impressive feat of mental gymnastics to put people like Dave Rubin, Gad Saad, and Steven Pinker into the category of "Alt-Right." (The first two being an openly gay man in a gay marriage, and a Lebanese jew.) There is no logic there. Basically, if you're not a true believer who has drunk the Kool-Aid, you must be one of the lurking enemy harboring evil thoughts. Sorry, but there are a lot of people who are happy to live and let live, but who have different ways of interpreting the world.

View on HN

The comment you replied to does not describe those figures as alt-right. On the other hand, the very first person Damore engaged after being fired was Stefan Molyneux, who is undeniably alt-right. It's also insipid to suggest that being gay or Jewish precludes being alt-right or otherwise bigoted. What would that make Milo Yiannopoulos?

I agree with you, although I had never heard of Stefan Molyneux until that interview came out, and I wouldn't be surprised if Damore hadn't either. He was probably really glad to be able to speak his mind, and may not have realized what he was doing. I'm definitely giving him the benefit of the doubt here, a position which I admit is somewhat undermined by him (apparently) tweeting out Breitbart articles.

I listened to most of his interviews tho, and he didn't sound alt-right to me at all. He sounded pretty Libertarian/Classical Liberal (he describes himself as a Classical Liberal)

the very first person Damore engaged after his firing was Stefan Molyneux, who is undeniably alt-right.

I try to avoid Molyneux as much as possible. Keep in mind that the term "alt-right" is overloaded terminology. Roaming Millenial has a video where she outlines 4 broad categories of "alt-right." Not all of them are White Supremacist. Molyneux, I would just categorize as a very cultish Libertarian. Molyneaux should be rejected because of observations of his actual morality, with regards to questions of free inquiry. You might know additional bad things about him. However, it's "insipid" (your word) to judge James Damore's ideas based on association.

It's also insipid to suggest that being gay or Jewish precludes being alt-right

Just as insipid to put Gad Saad, Dave Rubin, and Steven Pinker into that category, based on what they say and the positions they take. The fact that they are gay or Jewish should at least get you to question the narratives pushed by media and take into account their actual positions. Hint: The narratives with regards to those 3 are false, and are unprincipled attempts to silence through association, probably because the critiques and information they supply pretty much demolish those narratives.

What would that make Milo Yiannopoulos?

Milo is, as far as I can tell, genuinely is anti Alt-Right, where that term encompasses the more radical 3/4ths of Roaming Millenial's categorization. He may well line up politically with some segment of the online community which rejects identity politics, but which is still far right. He also displays a problematic morality as evidenced by some of his actions. In my estimation, he's half activist and half opportunist.

Stefan Molyneux is not alt-right where do you get that idea from?

Milo was one of the most hated people by the alt-right, his husband is black, how much more do you need for him to most probably no being alt-right?.

I refuse to believe that anyone who sincerely and honestly spent any time looking into the actual opinions of Milo, Ben Shapiro, Molyneux etc and not just cherry-picked soundbites would make such claims about them. Milo is extreme in his provocations but he is hardly anything close to alt-right.

I certainly don't agree with everything these guys have to say but I would urge you to actually listen to what they are trying to say before you judge them.

To the downvoters. At least provide me with a reason for the downvote. What did I say that's so wrong?

How is Milo not espousing alt right views? He was employed by Breitbart.

How is Milo not espousing alt right views?

He's an active and vocal critic of the Alt-Right. He devoted an entire chapter of his book to criticism of the Alt-Right. Just what views of his would you cite as "Alt-Right?" Can you back those up with quotes? As far as I can tell, he's an amoral opportunist who will stoop to saying vile things, but he's not Alt-Right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blJfibQnTgU

He was employed by Breitbart.

He left.

The leaked emails documenting his correspondence with various alt-right figureheads paints a different picture.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/heres-how-breitbart...

One suggestion.

Listen to an interview with him and here he present his opinions. He is provocative but mostly just an annoying showman. His harshest stance is on islam which given he is gay seems fairly understandable.

Joe Rogan has a good interview with him (which is the one that got him fired from Breibart.)

I've already seen that interview. How people behave behind closed doors is a more trustworthy guide to their sympathies.

But you don't know how they behave behind closed doors as you only have access to very little and out of context.

I just find it amusing that in a thread about someone who stated maybe all women are genetically less suited to engineering, we are supposed to understand the differences among four or five distinct fringe right-wing ideologies, and refrain from general remarks based on the behaviors of one group or another.

Can you please point to anywhere in the memo where he claimed that? I am not asking about your interpretation but where he actually claims that women are genentically less suited for engineering.

I hope you realize how important it is to be precise here. The man lost his job for providing feedback as encouraged by HR after he did a diversity course.

Just making claims that isn't backed up about by what he is actually saying isn't very helpful.

It's actually a thread about someone who didn't state that. You can only emotionally impute that to him.

we are supposed to understand the differences among four or five distinct fringe right-wing ideologies

No, you're supposed to be informed, and you're not supposed to impute views on others they don't actually have, just because you think you can get away with it. You know, intellectual honesty?

refrain from general remarks based on the behaviors of one group or another.

Yes, please don't tar people through stereotypes or anything which is not factually or rationally founded. Furthermore, judge people on the merit of what they do and say as individuals. Don't lump people into groups because you are incensed and you feel like it. That sort of behavior is precisely the moral downfall of the Alt-Right.

> He was employed by Breitbart.

> He left

He resigned under pressure when controversy erupted over his past comments that were viewed as supporting, or at least minimizing the significance of, pedophilia.

He didn't leave because he suddenly realized, after years of association, that Breitbart was an alt-right outlet, so the fact that he left is not really germane to what his voluntary association with Breitbart says about his ideology.

Actually not really and I would challenge you to say exactly what he says that is alt-right.

He is a conservative who knows how to provoke that's about it.

What neo-nazi, neo-white supremacy, neo-fascist, neo-fascists or another hate-group view have you heard Milo consistently claim?

I am aware of his provocations and yes he can be extreme but calling him alt-right while he is at the same time one of the most hated on the alt-right.

Breitbart was a more of an alt-media rather than alt-right. He didn't care about peoples political views he was after the existing media.

The downvoters are mindless ideologues who can't argue, only mash arrow buttons.

Re: Ben Shapiro -- As far as I can tell, he's a religious conservative, with a certain cosmopolitan flavor of rationalist deism, which completely falls in line with his particular religious beliefs. He's also one of the most effective and vocal critics of the Alt-Right. He's actively regarded as an enemy by most of the Alt-Right. Anyone who tries and tell you that Ben Shapiro is Alt-Right is an unprincipled ideologue who doesn't care about facts, only political power.

If you want to see how easy it is to be defined as alt-right take a look at this tweet from someone here on HN who now claims that I love alt-right.

https://twitter.com/albedoa/status/964709008559964161

That's how little it takes.

It's really absurd.

People are throwing around such terms as a means of trying to scare others into silence. Such cherry picking is breath-taking in its sheer intellectual dishonesty.

Yet, in your reply, you question the fellow's literacy?? That's not acceptable.

We have taken the art of discourse and replaced it with barbs designed wholly to get likes, or whatever the hell Twitter calls them now. This does not help anyone.

Not sure what you think I should have replied. He claims I have a love for the alt-right and his attempt is to shame me. I wrote that message and then muted him.

You shouldn't have replied. You and the other guy are both out of your gourds, and you don't understand how crazy you look.

I look crazy for saying he didn't learn to read when he claimed I love the alt-right based on that post I wrote?

Maybe I shouldn't have replied but he was basically trying to start a mob against me. Not that I care but just wanted for the record that his claim was wrong and didn't want to engage in any civil manor when not spoken to that way either.

You failed to achieve your goals and just made things worse by replying. Block and move on.

Your reply is a case of putting out the fire with gasoline. When you know nothing else to do, but you are absolutely sure this will make things vastly worse, standing idly by and watching the fire burn is the least worst thing you can do.

Granted, it's a horrible experience.

Maybe I shouldn't have replied but he was basically trying to start a mob against me.

This is precisely how they operate. They are trying to use a tactic of persuasion by repetition simultaneously with a tactic of tarring by association. Far left ideologues are currently engaging in this behavior towards DC Comics artist Ethan Van Sciver, claiming he's an actual Nazi based on his drawing the Green Lantern villain Sinestro with a Hitler mustache and titling it "My Struggle" -- ten years ago. It is conscious and deliberate. And it has been going on that way since 2012 or so.

Both Politico and the Washington Post describe Molyneux as alt-right.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/trump-alt-ri...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2017/...

Do they make distinctions between the 4 major sub-groups? Molyneux is, as far as I know, a kooky Libertarian. Mainstream media is getting pretty skewed and desperate for eyeballs. If you're not shocked and dismayed, you're not looking very hard. Basically, in these death-throe days of old media news, you have to do your own fact checking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0ykkHNRAro

I have no idea and honestly, at this point, I don't really care. For some reason, politics has become a game of zingers and one liners. Actual respectful discourse has gone out of style.

Hell, I hopped over to Twitter to defend ThomPete against a very tasteless tweet. I dreamed that maybe, just maybe I could be involved in a conversation that revolved around mutual respect and well worded arguments. Instead, there was ThomPete questioning his critic's literacy???

This shit has to stop. When I was younger, we used to be able to have conversations like:

Me - I believe ________.

You - I disagree because ________, __________, and __________.

Me - Good points, but what about _______?

Today, conversations like that just don't exist. I'm sick and tired of this shit and frankly, I want to disengage.

But seriously, we need genuine discourse. We have to leave the hurtful barbs at the schoolyard and actually speak to each other like respectful adults. Fuck all of this division. It's leading us all down a horrible path.

What else should I have responded? Claiming I have love for the alt-right based on that post is absurd.

I'm right there with you. I'm in my 40s, and to me, your dialog is the normal and expected way for adults to discuss. I truly don't understand this brave new world of 'you're either with us, presenting a unified, jargon-tastic front, or you're a nazi/marxist'. So I mostly just don't speak to anyone anymore.

They're coming for you next. Soon behaving ethically will be insufficient, you'll be required to make public statements in support of the party or be presumed to be with the enemy.

I have no idea and honestly, at this point, I don't really care. For some reason, politics has become a game of zingers and one liners. Actual respectful discourse has gone out of style.

It's precisely this sort of apathy which far-left ideologues are using. Given that you are an advocate of good old fashioned rational dialogue, it might not be too long before they come after you next and try to lump you into the "Alt-Right." They're already doing that to people who are basically just Republicans, like Ben Shapiro.

Then, they can come after me, but again, I don't really care. I know the truth about myself.

Not judging these people at all, but being Gay or Jewish is no way incompatible with being racist.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com