Author Topic: Has anybody found the oranges of the Mueller Report yet?  (Read 207 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Tinister

  • Cutest
  • ****
  • Posts: 348
  • Cutes: 11
    • View Profile
Has anybody found the oranges of the Mueller Report yet?
« on: July 08, 2019, 04:00:26 AM »
Now I'm not going to posit myself as a very astute man, or even a bright one either, but something's been kicking around in my head lately.  Does anyone else feel like a major component of "alt-right" communities is recruitment, whereas a major component of "SJW" communities is disposing people with prejudice (a.k.a. "cancel culture")?  Like if those are general trends then what would you honestly expect the general population to look like across large enough timescales?

This is not trying to be positive to the alt-right.  I'm very much on the side of social justice.  It's just something that's been kicking around in my head.

aimaina

  • Administrator
  • Cutesterest
  • *****
  • Posts: 1255
  • Cutes: 173
    • View Profile
  • Pronouns: she/her
Re: Has anybody found the oranges of the Mueller Report yet?
« Reply #1 on: July 08, 2019, 04:13:03 AM »
i have been feeling like we need to spend more money on recruitment..... get some cutey zone banner ads out there, a bit of email marketing

Tinister

  • Cutest
  • ****
  • Posts: 348
  • Cutes: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Has anybody found the oranges of the Mueller Report yet?
« Reply #2 on: July 08, 2019, 04:19:44 AM »
I actually did some email marketing once as an official capacity of a previous job.  Very briefly.

Barf.

cait

  • Cuter
  • ***
  • Posts: 103
  • Cutes: 61
  • loging into the cutey zone
    • View Profile
  • Pronouns: she/her
Re: Has anybody found the oranges of the Mueller Report yet?
« Reply #3 on: July 08, 2019, 05:23:27 PM »
(gonna preface this by saying im writing this from a very uk-centric perspective and when i mention media establishments, im mainly talking about the bbc and uk newspapers, but i think a lot of it is probably broadly applicable worldwide. also i wrote way more than i meant to and i still had to trim down and rewrite a bunch of it. whoops)

i think a lot of the problem is how alt-right figureheads tend to spread their ideology through calls for debate, and if you refuse to give them a platform to say a bunch of heinous bullshit to a larger audience than they might normally reach debate, its clearly because youre scared of how correct they are and you just want to censor them.

if they do get invited on a show and get stomped, theyll either edit it down to the highlights and itll appear in everyones youtube recommendations as Milo Farage Peterson DEMOLISHES SNOWFLAKE FEMINAZI with FACTS and LOGIC, or theyll argue that the liberal establishment is trying to censor them by not just accepting the idea that maybe eugenics is sometimes cool and good in some circumstances if you really think about it.

i think refusing to debate is definitely the correct option here either way, but unfortunately a lot of media organisations try to both-sides every issue for balance. so you end up with situations where tv shows will have a debate between one person with an extreme view, vs someone who simply doesn't share that view. its hard to find a similarly extreme counterpoint to "we should deport all muslims" beyond "no we shouldn't", so you end up with debates that are one person arguing for a status quo, and another arguing that every ill society faces is the fault of [one particular group]. if one person in the debate argues that a rise in homophobic hate crimes is the fault of muslims, the other person involved in the debate can't then talk about recent influxes of funding from american christian puritanical groups towards anti-gay organisations because that would be treated as changing the subject. the subject is why we should deport muslims, not what causes homophobic hate crimes. and if a single viewer ends up associating homophobic hate crimes with muslims, or becomes more radicalised by what they've heard, the right winger has gotten what they wanted.

but people with what might be seen as an extreme take on a social justice issue, like an advocate for completely open borders, won't get invited on to tv to talk about it, to normalise the idea or to push the discussion in the direction of more comparatively open borders.


i think its a lot easier for alt right groups to recruit because you have a complacent if not complicit media inviting them in regularly to spread and normalise their message. and even still, theyll complain that the media is trying to censor them and that all the tv stations are left wing propaganda, even when that's demonstrably not true. but it's said often enough and from so many platforms that left wing / social justice oriented groups rarely get the chance to talk from, that it, or at least the idea that both sides are being pissed off equally and therefore a perfect centrist balance has been formed, just becomes broadly accepted as truth.
like twitter has started automatically banning people for for using the word "terf", while people posting transphobic slurs repeatedly are unscathed (while the people theyre attacking get suspended for telling them to fuck off) yet right wing groups will still argue that theyre the ones being silenced.


so, to bring it back, i think social justice groups have largely latched onto cancel culture as kind of a counter to that. it's ineffectual and id argue actively harmful, because sj groups dont have the power to do anything about the people who actually need "cancelling", because theyre still going to get invited onto tv or to write opinion articles or whatever, so a lot of it gets directed towards easy targets (usually small time creators with a small audience and i have way more i could say about that particular issue)

plus so much of alt right debate online is framed as politely "just asking questions", when someone comes along who is genuinely clueless but genuinely wants to know, theyre indistinguishable from someone who's just going to waste your time and demand you respond to every disingenous thing they say until they get blocked or muted or you tell them to fuck off (all of which theyll declare as a victory). and either way it still puts the onus on the oppressed to justify their own existence.


but yeah, in summary, id say alt right groups recruit because theyre regularly given the platforms to do so, particularly by self-identified centrists who say things like "sunlight is the best disinfectant" and "i dont agree with everything they say but they have a right to say it", while sj groups cancel, block, and tell nazis to fuck off because it's all they have the power to do.

plus id imagine its way easier to debate away the rights of people you hate, than to defend your own rights or the rights of other people. a far right provocateur's not going to lose anything from fluffing an interview, but someone from a minority group has to act as an ambassador and educator for everyone else like them and can't afford to say a single word out of line.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2019, 05:59:47 PM by cait »

Tinister

  • Cutest
  • ****
  • Posts: 348
  • Cutes: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Has anybody found the oranges of the Mueller Report yet?
« Reply #4 on: July 11, 2019, 02:59:06 AM »
I keep coming back and seeing you put a lot of effort into a reply and thinking "wow I really need to come back and read this when I'm sober" but I keep forgetting.  I'm really sorry.

Tinister

  • Cutest
  • ****
  • Posts: 348
  • Cutes: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Has anybody found the oranges of the Mueller Report yet?
« Reply #5 on: November 06, 2019, 09:32:26 AM »
I recently listened to the Reply All episode on Carlos Maza and got introduced to their disingenuous debate tactics.  What a racket.

But when I created this topic I wasn't even aware of mainstream righters and their platforms (goes to show much I pay attention to mainstream anything).  I was just more annoyed at how they seem to run out into every internet community they can find and need to turn it into all the same thing.