All of this sentiment is many years out of date. "Alt-right" hasn't been a term of self-identification for almost a decade, and hasn't been used as an identifier by pretty much anyone for at least half of that. /pol/ is not the epicentre of the radical online right and has not been for years - it's a backwater in that regard now.
The most notable radicalisation happening on /pol/ nowadays, in my opinion, is a kind of hyper-masculine third-worldist ideology that is anti-semitic in its foundation and deeply misogynistic. While those two traits might sound superficially similar to the 2015 "Alt right", this new ideology has a significant pro-Islamist tendency, and has an almost comprehensive disdain for the west and its ways of life, in favour of authoritarian regimes like like Russia, Iran, and China. Also, as is being corroborated by other online circles like the Nick Fuentes "Groyper" movement, this faction of the online far-right is an increasingly post-racial one, with more traditionally white supremacist views disappearing, to be filled in by antisemitism.
Personally, I think this cultural political shift in the imageboard represents the increased representation of developing countries online, and is an important case study in how quickly cultural foundations can shift inside the borderless land of the internet.
Anti-jewish content was there 10 years ago as well. The board is full of white supremacist posts when I checked yesterday with lots of threads complaining about non-white races. There's absolutely no indication that it has been overtaken by developing countries.
Just because they changed their name to "groyper" doesn't mean they aren't alt-right anymore.
As for support for authoritarian regimes like russia, it is obvious that they are running propaganda on the website and want to sow division in the US by encouraging fringe groups like these.
> There's absolutely no indication that it has been overtaken by developing countries.
A lot of influencers in this space are non-whites born outside of the west. The scale of what he’s describing is exaggerated, but the trend is there.
> As for support for authoritarian regimes like russia, it is obvious that they are running propaganda on the website and want to sow division in the US by encouraging fringe groups like these.
This might have been true ten years ago. Most of the people in this space became disaffected with Putin after the war began owing to his moves with Dagestan and the Wagner group’s activities in Africa. /pol/ and /k/ are far more supportive of Ukraine than one would expect if your theory held true. There’s reason to suspect this is the result of the same kind of influence campaigns that were being run on the site by Russia during the Syrian Civil War.
> Also, as is being corroborated by other online circles like the Nick Fuentes "Groyper" movement
On 4chan, Nick Fuentes is loudly and routinely criticized as a closeted homosexual who hates women and encourages his impressionable underage followers to also hate women. He's a more active part of the incel pipeline than 4chan these days and is called out for it on 4chan.
(He's also as a federal informant, since he was never thrown in the slammer for plainly inciting J6 activity. The feds had him dead to rights for that and just let him. I mention this not because it's relevant to the point, just for completeness.)
I would still call it one of the epicenters. Yes, many venues that were previously only multlipliers like some prolific streamers / Youtubers / TikTok channels have grown and cultivated their own distinct subcommunities which form new epicenters.
However, from what I can see /pol/ still serves as significant breeding ground where people deeply committed to their views can get together in a "mask-off" manner without fear of moderation, while they have to be more "mask-on" on platforms that are more dissemination-focused like Youtube.
Name anything which doesn't need to be explained by somebody to someone. BTW, "you disagreeing with me is evidence that I am right" is a very 4chan way of arguing.
What caused people to stop using the free service that is MySpace? What caused people stop using the free service that is Digg? Being free isn't particularly novel. Facebook isn't providing this service out of some sense of altruism. It is incredibly profitable.
What about the tariffs would cause people to stop using it? Because they - along with many other of the administrations postulations and policies - are incredibly unpopular and a complete 180 of US foreign trade policy. Because tech is a money printing machine for the US and tech oligarchs who have largely bent the knee to Trump.
Carl Sagan died the year after this quote. With the greatest respect to him as a science communicator, he has not lived to see an entire generation of politics. When he died, the liberal capitalist post-historical consensus was in full swing. World leaders believed that all notions of identity and nationhood would gently fade away, to be replaced by a world of fungible, peaceful shoppers, administered by an all-knowing, all-loving class of technocratic managers.
The election of Trump (especially Trump 2.0) is a ground-up repudiation of this consensus by ordinary people, who have a completely different life experience to the managerial cosmopolitan class (of whom this website largely represents). Trump, and various other right-wing ascendants throughout the world, are a statement by the common people of the belief that a desire for identity, sovereignty and representation does not disappear the moment a McDonald's appears in their home country.
The (understandable!) lamentations of the academic class towards the current actions of the Trump administration have, to my mind, a deficit of self-reflection and theory of mind towards the people supporting these actions. For decades, the stage of "democracy" has been increasingly garnished with explicitly non-democratic embellishments. NGOs, panels of "experts", bureaucratic oversight, international "obligations" and so on.
This is the exact same situation that motivated the people of Britain to vote for Brexit 9 years ago. Michael Gove, while I have very little time for him as a politician, made a point in a news interview that was condemned for years, but that I think was an accurate capture of working-class sentiment in that time. The soundbite form was "Britain has had enough of experts". And he was exactly right.
For decades, academia has been part of an ongoing anti-democratic, elitist movement to effectively take control away from common people. Health matters are deferred to "listening to the experts", and ordinary people were made to feel as if they didn't deserve a say on if they should be allowed to leave their own homes in 2020-21. NGO-funded academic studies serve to tell normal people that despite their own experiences, mass immigration has been an unambiguous good in their lives, and they have no right to express otherwise. This idea of deference to unelected experts peaked when normal people started being told that it was not within their jurisdiction to define for themselves what the words "man" and "woman" mean -- these two words that are foundational to human civilisation and the language spoken in it were to become the domain of a sect of largely self-appointed modern-day clerics, who expected the public to believe that they were completely rational, objective, and blind to ideology.
This is what the conversation on "anti-intellectualism" very often misses, when being discussed by those in the intellectual classes. While criticising the "uneducated" masses for being so unenlightened, they fail to notice that they also have biases, incentives, and ideological motivations, and it is these that the public are pushing back against, not the noble pursuit of objective knowledge.
This is the kind of dishonest motte-and-bailey framing that is all too common in academia, that my post was trying to highlight. There are many aspects and fields of academia that are very obviously ideologically captured, whether that's "studies" in economics and sociology that are obvious attempts to reify the modern consensus of human beings as identical, fungible, latently-liberal economic units. Or it could be well-known physicists being taken to task about how their research on cosmological inflation contributes to the cause of diversity [0].
When such things are rightly levied in criticisms of academic ideological capture, the discussion reverts to the idea that the entire industry is nothing more than "studying things", as you put it, for knowledge and knowledge alone.
>A PhD student earning $40k a year is not, in any sense, part of the elite.
You could say the same thing about a private-rank soldier, or a party secretary. The relatively low wages of one particular person is incidental to the main issue of the overall power structure, and who it serves.
I just think “elite” has no meaning if you’re just using it as a synonym for “people I don’t like”.
“Elite” is traditionally a synonym for rich white men educated at Ivy League universities working comfortable, high-earning jobs. Those people still exist! Trump is one of them, as is George W Bush, and his father before him.
The contradictions in that definition and its examples indicates to me how outdated it is. Connecting "white men" and Ivy League universities, despite those institutions adopting an ideology explicitly designed to dispossess white men from institutional power. Connecting universities and Trump, despite the Trump administration occupying an opposing faction of power to academia (hence the articles bemoaning this being posted on HN). Connecting Trump to Bush despite Trump existing outside and against the Bush dynasty (to the point that the Democrats took Liz Cheney onboard in their campaign against Trump).
The better definition is simply that the elites of a nation are the ones that hold the most outsized political power, often the kind of intangible power that they are loathe to admit having. Trump is more or less attempting a small-scale revolution in America, being the replacement of one class of elites with another. What the prospective replacement class of elites looks like is harder to say than who they're attempting to replace.
> The election of Trump (especially Trump 2.0) is a ground-up repudiation of this consensus by ordinary people
Or maybe it's just a reaction to the "class of technocratic managers" becoming corrupt and dysfunctional, and attempting to control things that were far outside of the role that the "liberal capitalist post-historical consensus" had defined for them.
Most people in London don't care because they are not English and have no connection with the thousands of years of history the city and country have. Only a third of the population has any connection at all to the London of the 1950s, never mind the 1100s. They are not stakeholders in its heritage, the explanation is as simple as that.
I don't see anything in the article claiming this will damage the efficiency of London's food supply chains; indeed I wouldn't be surprised if it improved them.
Disappointing that a project that should ostensibly care about preserving the open, non-centralised internet takes the time to namedrop and talk about making "compromises" against preserving a well-known, medium-sized clearnet forum legally operated from a US-based LLC. Still-living independent forum sites in this day and age have unrivalled SNR of actual human-to-human communication, there should be no better candidate for archival. It's sad that a self-hosted archival tool has to apologise for any "evil" content it might be used for in the first place. Tape recorders do not require a disclaimer about people saying "hate speech" into them.
Sorry which medium sized forum are you referring to?
I love forums and want them to continue, I'm not sure where you got the idea that I dislike them as a medium. I was just pointing out that public sites in general have started to see some attrition a bit lately for a variety of reasons, and the tooling needs to keep with new mediums as they appear.
I also make no apology for the content, in fact ArchiveBox is explicitly designed to archive the most vile stuff for lawyers and governments to use for long term storage or evidence collection. One of our first prospective clients was the UN wanting to use it to document Syrian war crimes. The point there was that we can save stuff without amplifying it, and that's sometimes useful in niche scenarios.
Lawyers/LE especially don't want to broadcast to the world (or tip off their suspect) that they are investigating or endorsing a particular person, so the ability to capture without publicly announcing/mirroring every capture is vital.
Ahh that makes sense. Well all I can say to that is that it's not up to me what's evil. The point I was trying to make is: sometimes you want to archive something that you don't endorse / don't want to be publicly linked.
You might not want to amplify and broadcast the fact that you're archiving it to the world.
what? I think you have posted in the wrong thread or something...
User A complained about a forum, user B asked what they were talking about, and I guessed as to the meaning of user A's complaint. So why am I acting like anything?
>What is interesting in the UK is that it seems largely to be people voting against their own interests a lot of the time.
Without meaning this as a comment towards your post in particular, I've found that people who say "they're voting against their own interests" tend to project their own solidly middle-class interests (access to abundant, cheap labour, better deals on fees to go to university, etc - completely valid self-interests to have!) onto working-class people who may be unaffected or even harmed by those interests (competing with that same labour pool for work, being outbid for housing from the rest of the population, being unable to afford to have a child).
What this also misses is that people have self-interests besides straightforward economic metrics. Is it not a valid self interest for someone to want their home town to maintain a sense of local identity? For a community to not change beyond recognisability in a single lifetime? For a person to not feel like a foreigner in the only place they've ever been able to call home?
These concerns aren't as strongly felt by the more well-to-do people, since they have the means to live a more cosmopolitan, travelled lifestyle, and give their lives "higher" aspirations and meaning, like academia, or activism. But for poorer people, their home, and local identity and sense of community, is all they have. Like you said, there's little sense of collectivism in the UK, and is it any wonder why when whole communities have been either displaced by market forces, or replaced demographically, in less than a single generation?
My socio-economic status was "poor", "white-british" and from a very deprived area. My Mother continues in this social class though I (through accident of being interested in computers) have seemed to escape.
The reason I point out that "white-british" bit is because there's a lot of social programmes I was looked-over for simply because race was an important qualifier. As you might imagine that made me obscenely bitter about migration and non-native races; but that's something I haven gotten over as the years have gone by.
Cheap labour is not what I consider important at all, however if you vote for tax cuts because you think you'll be better off despite the tax cuts being mostly for the very wealthy: well that's less money for social services.
If you vote in favour of cutting benefits because you think that immigrants get too many benefits despite being on benefits yourself then that's directly against your own interest.
If you vote for a reduction in healthcare spending despite depending on it to live: you have voted against your own interest.
All of the above are some examples of what I mean, and I have tory-voting friends in these exact situations.
I think those are all good points, which is why I opened my comment with "Without meaning this as a comment towards your post in particular" since I didn't have much context about how you were using that phrase. I was more responding to the phrase itself since I've seen it used a lot of times to castigate people for trying to vote for things that might actually benefit them.
I'd imagine that most of poor and working class people "voting for" the policies you mentioned are victims of our terrible voting system, and doing so very begrudgingly because they believe that overall, that set of policies is the least-worst.
Out of genuine interest, when you say you say you have friends in these exact situations, do you actually have friends on benefits who are explicitly in favour of an across-the-board reduction in benefits in a way that would lower their own take-home? I'd be interested to know their reasoning for that. Or are they more in favour of a stricter set of requirements for immigrants to receive benefits?
Anyway, cheers to you for managing to get out of deprivation, definitely not easy.
I think I agree that the nuance is lost with our voting system.
It becomes about perspective at some point. The conservatives are seen as "tough on migration" but the mechanisms with which they are seen that way are actually "tough on lower classes". Thus when someone wants to vote against migration they wind up voting based on perspective.
It's also funny to consider the sorry state of the liberal democrats.
With the risk of your prior perspective of things being somewhat hardened; this is the reality of what happened:
* Lib Dems campaigned on a platform of an alternative voting mechanism and of freezing university caps.
* No clear majority in the GE
* Coalition government is floated, Conservative leader David Cameron says "join me and we will abide one of your major campaign pledges, you can pick which one".
* Lib dems join, pick alternative voting, as it has the best chance of doing the most good in the future.
* Conservatives employ the most underhanded tactics (using the same ad agency as Vote Leave fwiw) to undermine the referendum they hold. "This baby doesn't need an alternative voting system, they need a life support system" etc;
* Referendum fails
* Lib Dems come out as traitors for betraying their pledge to freeze university fees'.
* Nobody will seriously vote Lib Dem now because of this, instead preferring to vote for a party consistently embroiled in scandals after scandals.
Thus: we are perpetually stuck in a "lesser evil" voting system, and it's easy to completely decimate the other side by either eating a bacon sandwich wrong or making a choice that was intended to break this horrible situation.
Everyone loses, A/V is considered unpalatable due to the failed referendum.
Unrelated but nice to see that my tonedeaf and somewhat rude comment sparked such an interesting conversation.
I think I learned something reading this comment chain, so thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Couldn’t respond to others in this comment chain for some reason but fwiw I think politics in my country (Germany) are equally insane at times if not more so…
>People would rather lurch even further right for answers
God forbid we have an even more "far right" government than the one that has overseen a full decade of all-time-high immigration, has utterly failed to stop the years-long exponential increase in illegal boat border crossings, has swept under the rug the revelations of rape gangs operating in towns and cities all throughout England, has rolled out the red carpet for agitative gender and race activist groups to take root in every institution from museums to universities to primary schools to the civil service, ....
I think we're more in agreement than you think; the difference is that I think that this is the nature of the right wing in the UK in general.
The issue is that the right wing will tell you things you want to hear and then either: not do those things, or they "solve" them in a way that cuts you off at the knees.
I'm not sure if it's a right wing thing in general but it's definitely something I see the right wing in the UK and US do a lot. Populism seems to be a lot about treating symptoms not causes, so if there's a migration crisis: lets make life so bad in the country that people don't want to live here!
Not to mention that the phrase has existed for over 100 years, which is quite a long "late stage" for an economic system that's arguably only a few hundred years old. It's used in conversations like religious doomsday predictions, to conjure up the idea that the collapse of capitalism (and subsequent revolution) is coming Any Day Now.
It wears especially thin when people use the phrase to imply that companies overlooking the environment in the following of money is a brand new thing.
This is the same argument that communists use all the time
"Socialism/Communism is great and we should all live under that system as it is self-evidently the best"
"Well, there were some pretty bad aspects of the USSR and communist China, maybe we should take heed of those."
"Actually, I now choose to define communism as a perfect, not-yet-realised ideal. Any criticism you have of the closest existing system is actually a criticism of State Capitalism and not applicable to real communism."
---
"Capitalism is great and we should all live under that system as it is self-evidently the best"
"Well, there are some pretty bad aspects of the capitalist systems, maybe we should take heed of those."
"Actually, I now choose to define capitalism as a perfect, not-yet-realised ideal. Any criticism you have of the closest existing system is actually a criticism of Corporatism and not applicable to real capitalism."
Fair point. That might be the case... I fail to see how Capitalism inevitably requires Big Government in the same way that Communism inevitably requires centralized power but it might be my problem and you might be right. I'll have to spend more time thinking about it.
I always thought about it as an indirect connection. Capitalism -> Economic Prosperity -> People become more socialist -> Big Government that undermines Capitalism. But that might be wrong. Have to think about it some more.
> I love these conspiracy theory level claims that groups like the ADL are massive power brokers with far reaching influence that can just dictate the advertising spend of multi-billion dollar companies without warrant.
The bill was presented as an appeal to body autonomy in children and protecting their interest, however it was pointed out that Iceland allowed for operations on intersex babies without consent and would deport children back to countries where they were not protected.
It was a bill proposed by a progressive party member without consulting religious groups in the country. National polls never had more than 50% support, and it was challenged by both Muslim and Jewish communities in Iceland. There was a concern that it would set a precedent in Europe for religious discrimination. There was never a vote and it was withdrawn after international outcry.
So to frame it as though the ADL waved it's hand and made the government change it's mind is misleading and dishonest.
The most notable radicalisation happening on /pol/ nowadays, in my opinion, is a kind of hyper-masculine third-worldist ideology that is anti-semitic in its foundation and deeply misogynistic. While those two traits might sound superficially similar to the 2015 "Alt right", this new ideology has a significant pro-Islamist tendency, and has an almost comprehensive disdain for the west and its ways of life, in favour of authoritarian regimes like like Russia, Iran, and China. Also, as is being corroborated by other online circles like the Nick Fuentes "Groyper" movement, this faction of the online far-right is an increasingly post-racial one, with more traditionally white supremacist views disappearing, to be filled in by antisemitism.
Personally, I think this cultural political shift in the imageboard represents the increased representation of developing countries online, and is an important case study in how quickly cultural foundations can shift inside the borderless land of the internet.