Official War Room Awards 2017

[MacDuffle]

I'd say the same is true for whatever alt right is. Labels usually aren't useful, especially when they don't have an agreed upon definition. People would be better off attack the actually actions of whatever person/ group then slowly building up a title to use to smear others. It isn't useful in the long term unless a clear identity can be reached and usually with politics that's hard to do.

With "alt right" it's easy to not fit the definition once anyone sheds the white nationalism positions that have dogged its label since Richard Spencer's use of it

Paleoconservatism is a much harder political umbrella to get out from under in modern conservatism, but far less offensive if applied to someone

They might think you're calling them a Jurassic Park Game Warden

 

[Jack V Savage]

BTW, this whole Evergreen discussion is an example of what I call the "Anung special." A good discussion would be if the Evergreen folks were saying that telling white people to stay off the campus for a day is good and here's why, and then if people who disagreed with it were saying it's bad and here's why. Instead, what's happening is some people are saying, "this (obviously bad) thing is what the Evergreen people believe/did" and then the Evergreen people saying, "no, that's not what we believe/did." Those Anung-style arguments are always a waste of time and always get hostile.

 

[Lead]

"Alt-right" is self-applied, though. I think that's the test of whether a term has any real meaning. If there are people who call themselves it, it does; if it's applied to others who don't accept it, it doesn't.

I could agree with that. My point was the second part where it's being applied to people who don't accept it. That is where I see the parallel to "leftist". The people usually applying it to people who don't accept it are doing the same thing as those making the leftist term. You come up with a word that might put a negative context on a person/group off the bat and then can signal it continually without actually pointing to any actions or views the person/ group has. It's guilty by association without the participant even agreeing they are apart of the group.

Somewhat a straw man though labeling.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

BTW, this whole Evergreen discussion is an example of what I call the "Anung special." A good discussion would be if the Evergreen folks were saying that telling white people to stay off the campus for a day is good and here's why, and then if people who disagreed with it were saying it's bad and here's why. Instead, what's happening is some people are saying, "this (obviously bad) thing is what the Evergreen people believe/did" and then the Evergreen people saying, "no, that's not what we believe/did." Those Anung-style arguments are always a waste of time and always get hostile.

I really hurt you bad, huh?

 

[Bald1]

I pointed it out pretty clearly, actually. Might want to take a deep breath and re-read.

And, sure, that last sentence is close enough, but it doesn't accurately represent the situation we're discussing. For what it's worth, I agree that if your fantasy version of events were true, it would be bad. The issue is that it is not, and further, you're unable to weigh in on that because of how deeply committed you are to the narrative.



The facts are relevant to what I think, though. You communicated very clearly that you are too emotional about the issue to consider the possibility that you have the facts wrong (we're not discussing differences of opinion about the facts).

So your position is that white folks weren't asked to voluntarily "excuse" themselves for the day, correct?

 

[Headkicktoleg]

BTW, this whole Evergreen discussion is an example of what I call the "Anung special." A good discussion would be if the Evergreen folks were saying that telling white people to stay off the campus for a day is good and here's why, and then if people who disagreed with it were saying it's bad and here's why. Instead, what's happening is some people are saying, "this (obviously bad) thing is what the Evergreen people believe/did" and then the Evergreen people saying, "no, that's not what we believe/did." Those Anung-style arguments are always a waste of time and always get hostile.

What if someone said black people should stay away for a day?

 

[Lead]

With "alt right" it's easy to not fit the definition once anyone sheds the white nationalism positions that have dogged its label since Richard Spencer's use of it

Paleoconservatism is a much harder political umbrella to get out from under in modern conservatism, but far less offensive if applied to someone

They might think you're calling them a Jurassic Park Game Warden

I think paleoconservstive has a much clearer definition to it which at least would allow people to state why or why they are not that. Alt right still is very ambiguous possibly due to have new it is or that it doesn't actually have any grounding to it and thus a reason why it's contested by multiple groups for spotlight.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I could agree with that. My point was the second part where it's being applied to people who don't accept it. That is where I see the parallel to "leftist". The people usually applying it to people who don't accept it are doing the same thing as those making the leftist term. You come up with a word that might put a negative context on a person/group off the bat and then can signal it continually without actually pointing to any actions or views the person/ group has. It's guilty by association without the participant even agreeing they are apart of the group.

Somewhat a straw man though labeling.

I can see that in theory, but I don't know if I've seen it happen (where someone is labeling "alt-right," they deny the label, and the other person insists). Seems to me that most alt-righters are happy to embrace the term, and most other right-wingers are happy to distance themselves from the term in an acceptable way or sort of embrace it on the grounds of, "eh, close enough." Compare that with "new far left" or "neocon."

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I think that's the test of whether a term has any real meaning. If there are people who call themselves it, it does; if it's applied to others who don't accept it, it doesn't.

Kinda funny considering you're insisting on labeling me as angry when I've assured you that's not the case. Or insisting I'm a Republican when when I've assured you I'm not.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I really hurt you bad, huh?

You're annoying, you mean? Yeah, your dishonest argumentation style is annoying.

What if someone said black people should stay away for a day?

That's how it had been in all previous years going back to the 1970s before 2017 (again, they were encouraged to attend off-campus events, as whites were in 2017). And as for what happened, if there were any negative reaction to it, it was not ever covered to my knowledge.

 

[Lead]

What if someone said black people should stay away for a day?

That's actually what originally was going on. They had a day where blacks were suppose to not show up to make people see what it would be like to not have that community around and see how their absence negatively affected them. I believe that's part of what came from this event but it didn't work out well. Weinstein mentioned he understood that the black absence was to miss them but thought the white absence was meant to be an act of force or consequence of white oppression being turned around. He talked about it on JRE awhile back but I can't remember his exact take on the difference.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So your position is that white folks weren't asked to voluntarily "excuse" themselves for the day, correct?

They were asked to attend off-campus events, as non-whites had been for 40-plus years annually. But they were not discouraged from appearing on campus or attending classes in addition to attending those off-campus events. Evergreen professors did indicate that there was a misunderstanding among some students.

Kinda funny considering you're insisting on labeling me as angry when I've assured you that's not the case. Or insisting I'm a Republican when when I've assured you I'm not.

I "insist" that you uncritically swallow Republican propaganda (this thread is another example) and inconsistently support tactics that you'd never consistently support (like trying to arrest political opponents of Republicans on trumped up charges after they've been cleared of wrongdoing by law enforcement). Also, by your own admission, disputing the factual claims you made makes you too angry to continue this discussion (and I again wonder how it is that you're so certain that the right-wing account is accurate and that of the students and faculty is not--tribalism?).

 

[Anung Un Rama]

You're annoying, you mean? Yeah, your dishonest argumentation style is annoying.
.

Your trolling is insatiable. Get help.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That's actually what originally was going on. They had a day where blacks were suppose to not show up to make people see what it would be like to not have that community around and see how their absence negatively affected them. I believe that's part of what came from this event but it didn't work out well. Weinstein mentioned he understood that the black absence was to miss them but thought the white absence was meant to be an act of force or consequence of white oppression being turned around. He talked about it on JRE awhile back but I can't remember his exact take on the difference.

That's Weinstein's understanding. Other professors claimed that they informed him that he was getting it wrong but that he wouldn't listen.

Another thing that the college can be criticized here (regardless of your take on the overall situation) is poor internal communication.

 

[Lead]

I can see that in theory, but I don't know if I've seen it happen (where someone is labeling "alt-right," they deny the label, and the other person insists). Seems to me that most alt-righters are happy to embrace the term, and most other right-wingers are happy to distance themselves from the term in an acceptable way or sort of embrace it on the grounds of, "eh, close enough." Compare that with "new far left" or "neocon."

The instances I've seen have been articles but they comply with editing when asked. I would say the number of people I've seen wanting to opt out of the label yet still seeing new articles giving them that label would further add to the point that it's a poor term.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Your trolling is insatiable. Get help.

Yes, surely, I only claim to object to your dishonest argument style because I'm trying to make you mad. I secretly like it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The instances I've seen have been articles but they comply with editing when asked. I would say the number of people I've seen wanting to opt out of the label yet still seeing new articles giving them that label would further add to the point that it's a poor term.

Fair enough. I haven't seen it myself, but I believe it's happened. Still think "alt-right" is more widely self-applied and more useful than "new far left."

 

[Lead]

That's Weinstein's understanding. Other professors claimed that they informed him that he was getting it wrong but that he wouldn't listen.

Another thing that the college can be criticized here (regardless of your take on the overall situation) is poor internal communication.

Yes, I was trying to say it was his perspective for the second part and that's why his entire issue blew up. Definitely an over escalation that you'd think could've been handled with some type of public forum beforehand possibly.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Yes, surely, I only claim to object to your dishonest argument style because I'm trying to make you mad. I secretly like it.

Jack, if apologizing for whatever it is that I’ve done to make you so unhinged that you think about me everyday and talk about me even when I’m not around will help you pull yourself together, then I’m sorry.



Unless it was outing you as a liar with no honor. I can’t apologize for that. I won’t be an enabler.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I "insist" that you uncritically swallow Republican propaganda (this thread is another example) and inconsistently support tactics that you'd never consistently support (like trying to arrest political opponents of Republicans on trumped up charges after they've been cleared of wrongdoing by law enforcement). Also, by your own admission, disputing the factual claims you made makes you too angry to continue this discussion (and I again wonder how it is that you're so certain that the right-wing account is accurate and that of the students and faculty is not--tribalism?).

lol. This just adds to the humor. Thanks.

By the way, can you quote this "admission" you refer to? I bet you can't.