Forums
Guides
Features
Media
Zelda Wiki
Patreon
  • Contentious
Radicalization of the right
  • MOD NOTE: Thread split from War Room



    Jarl Ulfric Stormcloak wrote:

    With the way things are going in America, I'd say everyone's fucked to a certain extent.

    I'm just waiting for the political violence to start again. It really feels like we're living in the 1920s again.

    The post was edited 2 times, last by Viajero de la Galaxia ().

  • for the record though, the political violence started a long ass fucking time ago

    hate crimes have been on the rise for the last two years, a spate of them happening in the immediate aftermath of the election

    and let us not forget Heather Heyer, a woman killed by a nazi for exercising her first amendment rights

    and now bombs are being sent to the political opponents of Donald Trump


    “Gandalf put his hand on Pippin's head. "There never was much hope," he answered. "Just a fool's hope, as I have been told.”
    ― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King

  • Great White North wrote:



    Jarl Ulfric Stormcloak wrote:

    With the way things are going in America, I'd say everyone's fucked to a certain extent.
    I'm just waiting for the political violence to start again. It really feels like we're living in the 1920s again.

    Bowsette wrote:

    Mod Note

    Incitements to physical violence/execution/etc (even if it's not specific ZUers or a marginalized group) are not permitted and if I see it again I'll be issuing infractions. To be clear, this is in addition to what Pietro said above as his authority overrides mine, so what he said in response to Mozly Alice still holds. You're welcome to be harsh within the boundaries of the rules, but I don't want to see posts calling for executions - there are plenty of avenues to express frustration but that's not one of them.

    ^ Since it bears repeating

    I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume that this mod note was missed.
  • Avalanchemike wrote:

    tbh its pretty funny that while linking to an image illustrating you're an authoritarian and nationalist you respond to a self-described nazi
    I'm not around often enough to know the political leanings of most members of this board. So whatever convictions Ulfric has or doesn't have, I'm not aware of them.

    Avalanchemike wrote:

    for the record though, the political violence started a long ass fucking time ago

    hate crimes have been on the rise for the last two years, a spate of them happening in the immediate aftermath of the election

    and let us not forget Heather Heyer, a woman killed by a nazi for exercising her first amendment rights

    and now bombs are being sent to the political opponents of Donald Trump

    When I say political violence I'm not referring to standalone extremist attacks. I'm referring to the possibility that in the near future we may begin to see conflict similar to the open street battles and mass civil conflict that marked the interwar era.

    Bowsette wrote:

    ^ Since it bears repeating

    I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume that this mod note was missed

    I'm not advocating for violence, just noting that I'm expecting that it will occur. If it sounded like I was promoting it that wasn't my intent.

    RealmWings wrote:

    "Alt-Right" is just a nicer looking Nazism. The right has a lot of nice sounding words for one very nasty thing. That's what's so dangerous about it; they draw people in with "normal" sounding stances, hiding their much less acceptable ones.

    More accurately, 'the alt-right' is a loosely affiliated number of political positions marked by nativism and opposition to the conventional political order.

    It's not helpful to assume that alt-right instantly translates to support for National Socialist ideology, because in doing so you're painting with broad strokes. A neocameralist doesn't instantly transform into a Hitlerite simply because they both share nativist ideals, but insisting they are the same does run the risk of radicalizing the former.

    Edit: Also I must say oh my God, I feel like an old man. This is twice that I unknowingly responded to posts from forever ago thinking they were recent. It's like I'm technologically illiterate.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Great White North ().

  • Great White North wrote:

    It's not helpful to assume that alt-right instantly translates to support for National Socialist ideology, because in doing so you're painting with broad strokes. A neocameralist doesn't instantly transform into a Hitlerite simply because they both share nativist ideals, but insisting they are the same does run the risk of radicalizing the former.
    Well you did proclaim in another SD post you could easily be pushed into supporting genocide (and used Jews specifically as an example), so that doesn't particularly help your argument here

    I don't care if there are members who reject literal Nazism in the sense that they don't praise Hitler, they're all attracted to the movement because it's about shitting on minorities - the only real disagreement is a matter of degree.



    The post was edited 1 time, last by Viajero de la Galaxia ().

  • Bowsette wrote:

    Great White North wrote:

    It's not helpful to assume that alt-right instantly translates to support for National Socialist ideology, because in doing so you're painting with broad strokes. A neocameralist doesn't instantly transform into a Hitlerite simply because they both share nativist ideals, but insisting they are the same does run the risk of radicalizing the former.
    Well you did proclaim in another SD post you could easily be pushed into supporting genocide (and using Jews specifically as an example), so that doesn't particularly help your argument here
    I don't care if there are members who reject literal Nazism in the sense that they don't praise Hitler, they're all attracted to the movement because it's about shitting on minorities - the only real disagreement is a matter of degree.

    That was so long ago I'm surprised you remember it. I didn't even remember it.

    Regardless, David Frum over at the Atlantic explained it pretty succinctly - "If liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders, then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals will not do."


    The reason people like me can radicalize is not because we all secretly read Mein Kampf before bed and say to ourselves 'Oh man I really hate Group X but maybe not as much as this guy'. It's because we have we have a deep dissatisfaction with the current direction of national policy that no one else but the far right will address.

    The only way to prevent radicalization is for there to be a systemic shift that accommodates the desires and opinions of people that make up a very significant portion of the societies we live in. But this is not happening, because the left is of the opinion that they are on the 'right side of history' and that conceding anything would be an unconscionable moral evil.

    We are not monsters just because we have different opinions on taxation, immigration, multiculturalism, sexuality, ect. We are citizens of your countries and we have the same rights that you do. This means you either must come to terms with us, or else just dismiss our concerns and treat us with contempt.

    But the more you despise people and attempt to force them to be silent, the more radical they become. You prove the most fringe elements right and show that the national debate really is framed in clear-cut nonnegotiable "us versus them" terms.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Great White North ().

  • If only there was some sort of historical point of reference we could look to about giving in to far right demands on how we should organise society. About how we need to yield to them in order for there to be peace in our society.



    “Gandalf put his hand on Pippin's head. "There never was much hope," he answered. "Just a fool's hope, as I have been told.”
    ― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King

  • The problem in the 1920s was that the establishment parties in Europe didn't engage potential fascists. The Europeans never imagined that the fascists could win, and so they either weren't able or weren't willing to accommodate those potential fascists.

    And so they won.

    Radical movements didn't take off in America because Roosevelt created a coalition of southern racists, northern blacks, Italians, and just about everyone else. He understood that you cannot simply isolate the people who don't believe everything you do. He understood that you have to embrace them.

    The American Right - and indeed the Right in most Western countries - has their priorities. They want less immigrants, and social homogeneity. They want low taxes and 'fair trade'. They want their bibles and their guns and everything else that the left sneers at as bigoted and archaic. So you can either acknowledge that and search for a compromise even if it tastes bitter, or you can try to drive all your opponents to the edge of polite society.

    But you don't win running against the other party's voters. You need to take them. You need to account for their concerns and woo them. Somehow or another, a coalition of enemies has to be put together. Hillary Clinton did not lose the election because of the Russians. She lost when she labelled a quarter of the country as "a basket of deplorables". Donald Trump did not win the election because of the Russians. He won when he went to the Rust Belt and promised the white working class that if they abandoned the Democrats he would save them from globalization.

    I guess it's less advice and more of a warning. Just remember that in 10 years if things haven't gone your way, that you didn't want to talk to 'the far right' because all engagement was equivalent to surrendering totally to the National Socialists.

    The post was edited 2 times, last by Great White North ().

  • Respect is something that must be earned. Civility is a question of practicality. We were civil in 2016 as much as you can be civil to a buffoon who brags about groping women and mocks disability. In the end he got elected on a technicality and now we are putting people in concentration camps. There is nothing the alt right has done which earns my respect and I see no reason to be civil to the people who would gleefully see my brethren executed.

    They enabled this mess and no amount economic prosperity they claim to have brought makes up for it. Anyone who favors authoritarian government and identifies as alt-right should know this: you broke bread with monsters and I will never let you wrought. I will never let any of you forget. Don’t think you can blame me for the shitty choices you’ve made. You could have done better, you could have been better.
  • Great White North wrote:

    More accurately, 'the alt-right' is a loosely affiliated number of political positions marked by nativism and opposition to the conventional political order.

    It's not helpful to assume that alt-right instantly translates to support for National Socialist ideology, because in doing so you're painting with broad strokes. A neocameralist doesn't instantly transform into a Hitlerite simply because they both share nativist ideals, but insisting they are the same does run the risk of radicalizing the former.
    So the Nazis are my fault. Cool.

    Post by Keyaki ().

    This post was deleted by the author themselves: Wrong thread. Sorry didn't know the thread was moved before I posted. ().