The Alt Right tends to make the fundamental mistake the Internet nearly always makes, which is the conflation between “triggering people” and “winning an argument.” Before I get started in my jumbled criticism of this movement I want to get a few things out of the way. I am opposed to mass immigration. I think that Western values/cultures are worth preserving. Finally, I think that multiculturalism is a bad idea. Those tend to be explained as the core beliefs of the Alt Right, and they are entirely agreeable. This curtain however, is swiftly yanked away whenever one speaks with someone who isn’t a prominent figure within the movement. Then it devolves into racial divisiveness, political propositions bordering on 19th century European racial fascism, and flat-out authoritarianism. Many people who oppose the authoritarianism of the radical left, are only opposed to it because it isn’t “their” authoritarianism. Hence, the underbelly of the Alt Right exposes itself.
There are reasons some positions are met with an immediate harsh reaction, because they are stupid ideas that have been tried and end in either slaughter or injustice. For example, if I were to expressly advocate genocide on the internet, was met with harsh logical rebukes, and simply screamed “Triggered” that doesn’t make my position any stronger. I simply don’t understand why this attitude is being taken in regards to this type of thing. The Alt Right tends to fancy itself as a movement that advocates “reals over feels” which is simply a repurposing of anti-SJW points, and are mainly used incorrectly. I’ve noticed a common trend of movements using these points where they don’t belong in order to end discussion with honest critics.
One can be angry with you (“triggered”), and factually correct. Just ask any of Donald Trump’s supporters. It’s strange that a movement basing itself on “reals over feels” would cite how angry and frightened they are so consistently. Members of the movement commonly express that they are necessary in order to fight the rise of the radical left. But what is over-looked is that the radical left arose from combating actual racism and bigotry. The Alt Right is in the process of building a movement functionally equivalent to the radical left, to fight the radical left. One can’t expect they will simply dissolve after reaching their goal, no movement does.
There is also a tendency towards the “Motte-Bailey” strategy within this movement as is customary with nearly every movement throughout history. If you notice someone from the Alt Right making claims which state, “It would be better for everyone if black people just went back to Africa,” and you criticize that particular point you will be swarmed with various irrelevant accusations. Some of these accusations include, but are not limited to:
“You’re a cuck”
“I guess we should just open our borders then”
“Sure, let Muslims just come in and rape your women”
“((( Your name here ))) so typical” [The parentheses are a reference to a Jewish person]
And last but not least: “Disgusting anti-white behavior”
This is entirely expected from any political movement where there is a strong need to hide behind the collective in order to defend your individual insanity. The same sorts of responses are seen from feminists who make insane claims about men:
“You’re a misogynist”
“I guess women just shouldn’t have rights”
“Disgusting anti-woman behavior”
Why are we currently treating people that simply looking to seek an angry reaction as intellectual power houses? Why are we currently treating any view that is “edgy” and in the minority, by default, more correct? Why in the world are we treating anyone who can make someone angry online a salient dissident voice? Finally, why are we treating any enraged buffoon that opposes the radical left like a genius worthy of praise?