Telika: The irony is : Rwarehall completely agrees with me, and strenghtens my point. What he asks for, explicitely, is the "alt right" to be as respected as any other discourse or ideology. The current GOG forum norm is centered around this notion.
I only point out that the respectability of the "alt right" is an obscene notion in and by itself, as post-ww2 societies as a whole (just as most general public forums) used to agree about, hence "hate speech" laws and etiquette rules against "alt right" propaganda.
The very fact that, within the GOG forum's common sense, the "alt right" has to be treated as equivalent to, say, antiracism, humanism, etc, is a clear illustration of the local subculture. This normalisation is a victory. It's a re-definition of the range of the thinkable. And it is a general movement that is also visible in broader, (geo)political contexts.
Nothing escapes this. It's the core of the issue.
Funny, I don't see where I exactly "completely agree with you". And where am I saying that everything the alt-right says needs to be accepted? You sure like to put words in people's mouths...
I do agree that some of those on your "alt-right" spectrum may very well be crossing a line and might belong in potential ban territory. I have to cringe when I see posts, for example, claiming that all Muslims are violent or that the Koran is inherently a violent text which encourages violence as if it's some sort of Satanic bible. Or that all Hillary supporters are part of some grand feminist conspiracy to neuter men. But that is not to say that some Muslims (or some feminists for that matter) have bad (or self-centered) intentions.
But I see the same from the alt-left where anyone supporting Trump is called an idiot, racist, xenophobic, serial killing nut job. Or that disliking or not voting Hillary means one hates all women. Or supporting limits in immigration means one is racist and on and on. I don't really see the difference here. Again, there are racists here and there, but I certainly don't see them as even a sizable minority.
The problem is the extremists on both sides see no nuance.
On immigration, is it so hard to see that there is a valid argument for a country to use infrastructures built for generations for the same citizens who built them? While simultaneously acknowledging that some level of immigration into a country can be a positive thing? Why does it have to be so absolute?
On Trump, I find it even more curious. This is someone who the religious right within the Republican party didn't exactly embrace. The same religious right that the alt-left has been complaining about for years. I'll acknowledge Trump has said some controversial things (but so has Hillary). The real question is which Trump did we get? Is it New York Republican Trump? Blue-state Republicans tend to be very similar to moderate Democrats. As far as I can tell, Trump tends to be fairly liberal when it comes to abortion or even gay rights for example. Or the Trump rhetoric in different states where he seemed to be saying what they wanted to hear (again not that Hillary wasn't doing the same thing).
I have to wonder to what extent Trump has said just enough to win the election and then have to wonder what it is he really believes in. At the very least, the Republican party has been changed. It's not the "Contract for America" party where to be considered a good Republican one had to agree on all of 25 separate points about guns, abortions and everything else.
But I have to wonder if all this alt-left extremism isn't a self-fulfilling prophecy as they push a fairly moderate Trump (besides a couple issues) into the waiting arms of the truly Conservatives.
At the end of the day, none of us really know and everyone proclaiming doom and gloom seem to ignore the fact that Republicans have controlled all three branches in the past (as recently as 2006) and the world hasn't ended yet...
