- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
The problem is that any and all on the right seem to be immediately called alt right.
Yeah, it's in part due to the confusing history of the term and in part due to a desire to tarnish regular conservatives as extremists.
So which right wing positions are mainstream enough that you aren’t automatically called a Nazi for having them?
Any position that isn't related to white nationalism. Of course, calling political opponents "fascists" and "Nazis" is a useful tactic to cause people to dismiss opposing ideas without actually engaging with them.
Very few people actually understand the term "alt-right". There are a lot of reasons for this, one of which being the vagueness of the term's meaning "alternative right". This sounds like a name for any brand of conservatism that isn't the mainstream.
Two very different factions took it to mean completely different things. The white nationalists (who originally coined the term in 2010) took it to mean their alternative to the mainstream right wing. Other non-mainstream conservatives, on the other hand, took it to mean anything on the right that wasn't regular party Republicanism.
Now, the non-mainstream conservatives who weren't white supremacists quickly abandoned the label when they found what it originally meant. Nobody wanted to be associated with Richard Spencer's white nationalists. As a result, Spencer's definition of alt-right was put forth as the correct usage, so that alternative conservatives would not be grouped with Spencer's ilk. At the same time, these non-mainstream conservatives argued strongly that they were not to be labeled "alt-right" as it now had a very discrete meaning: white nationalism.
However, the regular non-mainstream conservatives are the ones who popularized the term, despite the white nationalist Richard Spencer coining it. As such, it has become associated with people who aren't extremists. This confusion is then magnified due to the corporate media using both definitions simultaneously whenever it suits them. Regular alternative right-wing figures are called alt-right, while simultaneously alt-right is called white nationalist. This means that they can call any right-wing alternative figures white nationalists by proxy.
It's been around 30 years since the media were told that publishing the names of school shooters creates copycat shooters. This is because it gives them infamy, which is exactly what these people want. Of course, the corporate media doesn't care about reducing school shootings and to this day always publishes their names.
To defend oneself against an armed or stronger attacker, rapist, thief, etc. one requires a weapon. The police do not typically arrive until after the crime has taken place; when it is too late. I don't believe that people's ability to defend themselves and their property should be taken away simply because other people are irresponsible. Studies suggest 2 million crimes are prevented annually by firearms, of which 200k are rapes (1,2). Compared with the 20k annual homicides by gun, this seems to me a worthy tradeoff (3).
(1) http://americangunfacts.com/pdf/Armed Resistance to Crime- The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defe.pdf
(You need to copy and paste sources 1 and 2 for them to work).
".. a place where large numbers of people (such as prisoners of war, political prisoners, refugees, or the members of an ethnic or religious minority) are detained or confined under armed guard..
Technically regular prisons are concentration camps under such a broad definition. In which case, concentration camps are not inherently bad things.
I'm confused, you think I want to blur the line between the moderate and extremist right because this would be of benefit to me? Does that mean that you think I'm a right wing extremist? Of course I distinguish, for example, between the extremist right that want to kill all whites or throw gays from buildings and regular conservatives.
Being rich requires the existence of poor people because it is a relative, not an absolute, term.
Interesting, I think of it as absolute. For instance, the fact that I don't have to worry about food, shelter, clothing etc. and also have a multitude of luxuries at my disposal makes me consider myself rich. I don't look at the guy making more than me and feel poor.
Therefore, since the gap between rich and poor is increasing, one can reasonably conclude (without any data) that you are distorting factual reality for the sake of ideology.
OK, so then can we distinguish between inequality and wealth?
you illustrate how wages and personal wealth has increased on average, but you steer well clear of explaining the effect inflation has had on the price of goods and services over time
You probably don't remember this but I'm against central banking and fiat currency which are the drivers of inflation. Note also that such increases are in terms of purchasing power, which means inflation is accounted for (1).
you illustrate how wages and personal wealth has increased on average, but you steer well clear of explaining the effect inflation has had on the price of goods and services over time, and indeed of explaining how averages even work in the first place! If there are ten of us and one of us earns a million bucks a year while the other 9 earn nothing, the average wage between us is 100,000 per year.
Well actually, my source demonstrated that there were less people in extreme poverty, since I imagined that demographic would be more of interest to you for the reason you are giving here.