science and medicine is white supremacy.

Decolonize science and math

I've considered use of the Alt-Right epithet to be intentional and calculated, but I think I may have found another explanation as to why it's used

I think it's less emphasis on what Alt-right means, and more emphasis that Alt-Right is the Alternative to what they, themselves believe.

I think it might be some massive conflation of terms by people who really don't care to know, because they're 'Other'.

'they're' being the people they label as Alt-right.

So, since the Alt-Right by their definition is the Alternative to their viewpoint, and the actual Alt-Right are ethnic nationalists, Their defined Alternative are all Nazis.

Actually, it's far simpler. It was becoming a popular term for the anti-establishment right-leaning younger generation. A number of people who we probably wouldn't consider alt-right (like Milo Yiannopolis) openly embraced the term. They didn't want to be associated with the right wing of the 80s (which is the core of the Republican party and what people think of when they say the "right" in the US) but they didn't see themselves as being on the left. While in their little bubble they got to define what it meant among themselves and that worked for them (I doubt Milo considered the ethnic nationalists to be a core group of the alt-right when he was using the term and likely only had small mentions of them at his peak)

After Charlottesville, it became easy to destroy the whole movement by labeling everyone who used the term as a member of the Neo-Nazi's or KKK as they were the most vocal. So they did and everyone joined in. The mainstream right doesn't want to get into that fight. The Milo Alt-right fled the term as they wanted nothing to do with the Nazi's and KKK'ers and saw what was happening and started looking for other terms (which seem to have never caught on). The left wasn't going to let a challenge to Social Justice go unattacked. Plus, the left controls basically all the information organs so they didn't get any meaningful resistance.

In communist-speak it's the capitalist class destroying the organization of the people by tying it to a vocal extreme. A tried and true tactic of both radicals and non-radicals alike.

I should say I was never a part of any of these movements and only heard about this stuff secondhand after Charlottesville. But this seems to be the most favorable reading to the Milo Yiannopolises of the world.

Alright I got a debate question for yall

One of my friends lives in Utah and he recently messaged a political cause he doesnt agree with

Sent them two different messages as you can see here
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/225360563121684480/485520462361657383/Screenshot_20180901-124436_Messenger.jpg

he insists that they're both effective at different things

Is one message more persuasive to you than the other? Why or why not?

If your trying to be persuasive, you want to seem like your on their side. You don't disagree with them as people, you disagree with how they go around doing it.

No one changes their mind when you call them an "awful, disgusting, ingenuous human piece of garbage"

Well, a few things first off:, 'Ingenuous' means innocent and well-meaning.

"If you think there is a God" <:tiptip:462282246695419934>

'you might want to pray because I will sabotage this page' talk about bringing it from a 10 to a 2

Those messages both come across as absolutely rambling.

Vague threats, and impotent rage.

Are the two messages you're talking about the long ass one AND the following message or are both of them part of the same message?

@Blackhawk342

Both of them are separate messages

Im calling right now, harassment gonna get to the point where we make fun of people who do something stupid when theyre kids, like shitting their pants in a 4th grade field trip

I hold the humble, considered position that your friend is a moron.

soon boys wetting the bed will be toxic masculinity, re-enforcing the patriarchy by forcing their mothers to clean up after them.

While I was reading the message in the screenshot I kept getting this stuck in my head https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IASfzAP5Xbc

Everything is a pendulum, if you push too far in one direction, it will come back to bite you in the ass big time.
At the moment, the Feminists are still strong. Wanne bett that that might become an offense in the next 50 years?

When the pendulum swings back and women will loose some kind of rights in some areas. For example Voting Rights or the right to hold a public office.

Its unlikely that the swing back will result in them losing actual rights

it will see a heavy curbing of their unnamed natural privileges that they enjoy

Divorce court favoritism, exemption from the draft and maternity leave will probably be up for debate

Do you guys think that politicians make their arguments more because they believe what they're doing is genuinely best for their countries, on principle, or for the special interests of their shareholders/themselves and personal beliefs?

Depends on the politician. Shareholders/themselves probably win most. There are some who actually care about the future of their country and want to change it.

They are few and far between. And rarely last long or get anywhere

@Blackhawk342 I disagree as Women in Politics are what caused the Migrant Crisis in Europe.
And Women voting caused the worst President in the History of an english speaking country....

That's why we get people who want programs that work for 20 years but bankrupt the system @Grenade123

@Vigil, @Grenade123 Having met some guys who go into politics, I think the majority really believe some fraction of what they say. They'll have a couple personal points they care about and then the rest will get filled in by what they think they'll need to say to get support (and that plays more to the base, the party and the donors than anything). If you sit down with them on a personal level and push their opinions around a bit you can start to realize which issues an individual politician cares about most and which one's their secretly flexible on.

The argument that the "politicians are in the basket of the moneyed class" is overplayed. The moneyed class tends to seek out politicians who already align with them. Money adjusts the congressional schedule more than the position of individual politicians.

The politicians do tend to adopt attitudes more inline with the intellectual and business elite, but that's because they usually come from those circles or have extensive training in something like Law (where you'll be put through the University indoctrination ringer). As for why there's not more janitors running for congress, I think you need to have some degree of name recognition with a lot of people and be able to talk among people in the media (especially the media) and donor classes to get the initial push. The Democrats in particular have been trying to get around this constraint but you can see what happens when the media decides a person is too 'folksy' (see: Sarah Palin).

That's some really interesting insight, thank you

Hi

Hola