Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Pouncey wrote:
Are you sure it's Trump supporters who are equating Trump to Imperium stuff?

Given the lore about WH40k's Imperium, shouldn't it be people who hate Trump that are making these references?

The alt-right is actually known for coopting memes and fandoms.

However, there is an issue with simply saying "alt-right" because much like "Black Lives Matter" or "Anonymous", it's not a centralized movement or group. It's effectively individuals self-identifying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grimdark wrote:

I don't have a dog in this fight.
I don't actually give a feth that people are making images about trump being the empy.

On the other I find it absolutely hilarious to see how the left is the new right

Yeah, racists are friggin' hilarious.

This Thread Summed up in a sentence
"OP is Triggered by People posting memes of Trump as the Emperor, and believes GW should do something to stop this"

All this hate of memes would make baby harambe spin in his grave.

The alt-right is a meme.

Memes. The DNA of the soul.

I thought the whole God Emperor thing was a Dune reference. Shows what I know...

 Kanluwen wrote:
The alt-right is actually known for coopting memes and fandoms.

However, there is an issue with simply saying "alt-right" because much like "Black Lives Matter" or "Anonymous", it's not a centralized movement or group. It's effectively individuals self-identifying.

I'm pretty sure that "alt-right" is a derogatory label that is applied to groups (and often, quite liberal groups), not something that anybody self-identifies as. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think they co-opt fandoms, but instead are actual existing members of a fandom that are protesting the co-opting of their fandom by what they see as cultural authoritarians. I know that was the case with GamerGate, Sad Puppies, and comic book fans who like Spider-woman's butt.

Yeah, racists are friggin' hilarious.

I know you are being sarcastic, but some of the funniest jokes I've ever heard were racist as crap.

 Kanluwen wrote:

The alt-right is actually known for coopting memes and fandoms.

This is one of the most absurd claims by the perpetually offended re: the `alt-right`

Saying a certain group is "known for coopting memes" is like saying a certain group is "known for breathing" or "known for requiring water to survive", using it as a defining feature is spastic. There is no conspiratorial group out there churning out memes to take over the world. Memes were huge in internet culture long before the perpetually offended even discovered the internet, same with `trolls` who are the `new danger` posed by evil internet culture.

Edit: Just noticed my previous post triggered this guy into ignoring me. That's pretty much par for the course with these social authoritarians when they venture out of the echo chamber and have to endure reality.

 MarsNZ wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

The alt-right is actually known for coopting memes and fandoms.

This is one of the most absurd claims by the perpetually offended re: the `alt-right`

And one of the most absurd claims is the one made by you earlier, that the alt-right is "just a label used by the perpetually offended".

Saying a certain group is "known for coopting memes" is like saying a certain group is "known for breathing" or "known for requiring water to survive", using it as a defining feature is spastic. There is no conspiratorial group out there churning out memes to take over the world. Memes were huge in internet culture long before the perpetually offended even discovered the internet, same with `trolls` who are the `new danger` posed by evil internet culture.

Do you actually know what "coopting" means?

 Sqorgar wrote:

However, there is an issue with simply saying "alt-right" because much like "Black Lives Matter" or "Anonymous", it's not a centralized movement or group. It's effectively individuals self-identifying.

I'm pretty sure that "alt-right" is a derogatory label that is applied to groups (and often, quite liberal groups), not something that anybody self-identifies as.

The alt-right is a self-identified label to differentiate themselves from the traditional right-wing in the US. The alternative right is less about free markets and Christian values (they aren't conservatives or libertarians) and more about the race science that the traditional right has abandoned. If there is an issue with the term it's simply that "white nationalists" and "neo-nazis" already existed and were fairly accurate.

So when you claimed to ignore me it was just hot air huh. Why am I not surprised. I guess it's easier than actually providing any sort of evidence to the argument that you don't even have.

edit: god dang quote button

 MarsNZ wrote:
So when you claimed to ignore me it was just hot air huh. Why am I not surprised. I guess it's easier than actually providing any sort of evidence to the argument that you don't even have.

I'm not the person making the claims that the alt-right is simply a label used by the "perpetually offended", now am I?
You want to make an argument for that, provide the evidence.

You actually are on Ignore, just FYI. Thread previews however still show ignored posts.

I find it funny seeing people constantly bitching about the "perpetually offended" and they can't let it go but never realize the irony.

 MarsNZ wrote:
This is one of the most absurd claims by the perpetually offended

So the alt-right is a meme created by the alt-right? I suppose that makes sense, but it's a bit of an odd statement for you to make.

 NInjatactiks wrote:
Doesn't this fall under free speech, though?

No not at all its a blatant breach of their copyright and or trademarks depending on how they phrase it and what immages they use. Its up to GW if they want to let it go or focus more attention at it. I for sure haven't a single one of them but this might change if it hits the news, and stuff like this is never good for the company when it hits the news.

 Sqorgar wrote:
I thought the whole God Emperor thing was a Dune reference. Shows what I know...

 Kanluwen wrote:
The alt-right is actually known for coopting memes and fandoms.

However, there is an issue with simply saying "alt-right" because much like "Black Lives Matter" or "Anonymous", it's not a centralized movement or group. It's effectively individuals self-identifying.

I'm pretty sure that "alt-right" is a derogatory label that is applied to groups (and often, quite liberal groups), not something that anybody self-identifies as. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think they co-opt fandoms, but instead are actual existing members of a fandom that are protesting the co-opting of their fandom by what they see as cultural authoritarians. I know that was the case with GamerGate, Sad Puppies, and comic book fans who like Spider-woman's butt.

Yeah, racists are friggin' hilarious.

I know you are being sarcastic, but some of the funniest jokes I've ever heard were racist as crap.

No, the alt-right is not liberal. They often espouse white nationalist and supremacist views, which are the complete opposite of liberalism.

Gamergate wasn't about cultural authoritarianism, except on the part of the gamergaters who took any suggestion that games could be more inclusive to be a personal attack on themselves and they responded with harassment.

For those who care about sources
Deleted memes -> http://knowyourmeme.com/forums/q-a/topics/15676-kym-office-of-cease-and-desist-records

OK...

RULE #1.

Seriously everyone - enough with the personal attacks already.

Also, there's an OT Forum where you can discuss political things to your heart's content.

In fact, off this thread goes now...

LightKing wrote:
With this election of Trump, there have been many on the Alt-Right twitter, White Nationalists etc. that are appropriating Warhammer 40k stuff...for example

calling Trump "God Emperor" and posting alot of far right fanfiction using warhammer 40k images as the storytelling device

GW should come out and say we don't support the use of our property for this, I mean Warhammer 40k already has a reputation as being a "fascist" science fiction universe, from what many outsiders think

Its not from 40K. 40K stole it from the Dune series.

 MarsNZ wrote:
The 'alt-right' is a useless and disingenuous term coined by tiggered extreme-left moral authoritarians to discredit those who disagree with their agenda. Moderate and sane liberals fall under this umbrella simply for not going along with the outrage culture being pedaled by these idiots.

Let the people meme in peace. Nobody cares if you're offended.

I'm OK with the alt-right label, until people attempt to equate it with homophobia / white nationalism / neo-Nazism. Breitbart, arguably the voice of the alt-right, has gay, Jewish, and Muslim writers.

Nationalist, yes. Anti-establishment? Yes. Anti-PC? Yes. White Nationalist? taylorswiftlolok.gif

 Frazzled wrote:

LightKing wrote:
With this election of Trump, there have been many on the Alt-Right twitter, White Nationalists etc. that are appropriating Warhammer 40k stuff...for example

calling Trump "God Emperor" and posting alot of far right fanfiction using warhammer 40k images as the storytelling device

GW should come out and say we don't support the use of our property for this, I mean Warhammer 40k already has a reputation as being a "fascist" science fiction universe, from what many outsiders think

Its not from 40K. 40K stole it from the Dune series.

Welp there goes the copy-write infringement argument.

Rosebuddy wrote:The alt-right is a self-identified label to differentiate themselves from the traditional right-wing in the US. The alternative right is less about free markets and Christian values (they aren't conservatives or libertarians) and more about the race science that the traditional right has abandoned. If there is an issue with the term it's simply that "white nationalists" and "neo-nazis" already existed and were fairly accurate.

Absolutely not. The alt-right started with GamerGate, which was initially a response to cultural authoritarianism. They'll say that it was about journalistic integrity, which it was, but it was more about how gaming journalists were collectively pushing certain progressive agendas - including the near universal labeling of GamerGate as harassers and white supremacists (both untrue). This led to strange bedfellows as GamerGate started allying itself with anti-cultural authoritarians such as Christina Hoff Sommers (writer of "Who Stole Feminism?") and Breitbart professional troll, Milo Yiannopoulos. Milo and Sommers would often tour college campuses giving controversial talks against progressivism (and feminism in particular) which were frequently met with bomb threats and protests. Milo used this platform, along with Breitbart, to gain increasing fame. Any time there was any "social justice" issues out there, like Sad Puppies or Spider-woman's butt, GamerGate and Milo would ultimately ally with them, creating a sort of social movement against cultural authoritarianism. That movement also largely gained steam with Trump's supporters (who was a Milo-like figure, unlike the much more authoritarian Hillary, who used paid trolls to manipulate online discussions), and everything just sort of got mushed together into one big pejorative label, the alt-right. That label was never something that was self identified was, and it largely came into popularity due to one of Hillary's speeches condemning the alt-right.

But make no mistake. The people that are called the alt-right are not white supremacists or racist or misogynists or anything of the sort. That is the cultural authoritarianism using labels to denigrate and dismiss their viewpoints without having to address them. That's why GamerGate started the #NotYourShield hashtag, to fight against the idea that GamerGate was just a bunch of white men. Last year, one of the authors behind Sad Puppies had to explain that he wasn't racist and that, in fact, he was married to a black woman. It's a label and an unfair one that is wholly inaccurate and frankly, abusive.

I don't count myself among these various movements personally, though I required a bit more nuance in my discussions than "GamerGate is a bunch of sexist white males" and actually went and looked at both sides of the story. I found that GamerGate was unfairly criticized for things they didn't do or believe, and since then have come to suspect anyone who throws out morality labels on their opponents rather than attempting to actually discuss and debate with them.

A Town Called Malus wrote:No, the alt-right is not liberal. They often espouse white nationalist and supremacist views, which are the complete opposite of liberalism.

Actually, many of them are extremely liberal. But they are not progressive, or maybe don't put as much weight on their progressive attitudes as some people would like. Take the whole concept of transgendered people being able to use whatever bathroom they identify with. Believe it or not, there are multiple ways to argue both for and against that idea, and it may be that someone is for it, but understands that the issue is socially complicated and require nuance. Anyone attempting to say, "woah, let's back up a second and think about this" is instantly labeled as transphobic. Anything short of complete and total support for the idea, without exception, is labeled as transphobic. Similarly, having a nuanced views on immigration, the refuge crisis, or radical islam can get you labeled as a white supremacist, even when you largely agree on the broad strokes, but disagree in the implementation.

Honestly, it is this attempt to morally label their opponents as racists that caused things like GamerGate and the Trump presidency to happen in the first place, and you'd think by now, people would say, "geez, maybe pissing off people by calling them racist isn't working" - but instead, they just say, "No, we just haven't called them racist enough."

Gamergate wasn't about cultural authoritarianism, except on the part of the gamergaters who took any suggestion that games could be more inclusive to be a personal attack on themselves and they responded with harassment.

Oh, GamerGate was about cultural authoritarianism. I guarantee it. I watched it happen. It is why they latched on to Milo. What better way to fight cultural authoritarianism than with a cultural anarchist?

No, the alt-right are racists. They admit as much. It's their defining feature.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
No, the alt-right are racists. They admit as much. It's their defining feature.

Who is they? who are they grouped around? how can you make the claim that all alt-right is racist?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
No, the alt-right are racists. They admit as much. It's their defining feature.

Who is they? who are they grouped around? how can you make the claim that all alt-right is racist?

Because the alt-right guys admit as much. Remember alt-right =/= conservative. They are a group dedicated to white nationalism.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
No, the alt-right are racists. They admit as much. It's their defining feature.

Who is they? who are they grouped around? how can you make the claim that all alt-right is racist?

Because the alt-right guys admit as much. Remember alt-right =/= conservative. They are a group dedicated to white nationalism.

You left out the part where you actually answered his question.

 MarsNZ wrote:
The 'alt-right' is a useless and disingenuous term coined by tiggered extreme-left moral authoritarians to discredit those who disagree with their agenda.

The irony.......

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
No, the alt-right are racists. They admit as much. It's their defining feature.

Who is they? who are they grouped around? how can you make the claim that all alt-right is racist?

Because the alt-right guys admit as much. Remember alt-right =/= conservative. They are a group dedicated to white nationalism.

You left out the part where you actually answered his question.

Fine, look at their gak on reddit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/altright/

Literally look at their "what is th alt right" section.

Another core principle of the Alt-Right is Identitarianism. Identitarianism is the prioritization of social identity, regardless of political persuasion. Thus, the Alt-Right promotes White Identity and White Nationalism.

Or just look at the content.

 MarsNZ wrote:
The 'alt-right' is a useless and disingenuous term coined by tiggered extreme-left moral authoritarians

Nope. You're completely wrong there. "Alternative right" was first used by Paul Gottfried, of the new hard right conservative movement that he considered himself a part of, in 2008. Through 2009 the descriptor was increasingly used, eventually becoming 'alt right' as the broad descriptor the overall movement gave to itself. It wasn't until years later that anyone outside of the movement, on the left or right, even noticed the existance of these crazies, until all of a sudden people noticed the co-ordinated troll campaigns they were running on-line. Even then they remained a curiosity until they started playing an out-sized role in the campaign of a US presidential candidate. Then people notice what they were calling themselves.

Seriously, if you're going to play the role of tribal warrior, know the basic details of your own tribe.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Absolutely not. The alt-right started with GamerGate, which was initially a response to cultural authoritarianism.

Gamergate started because a guy whipped up a hate mob against his ex. It flared up because people had begun analysing what videogames mean and say, and a lot of nerds want games to be art so that they can feel special for spending so much time on them but don't want to apply the critical models that films and books have developed. Games journalism is deeply corrupt but it has been so for a long time and no movement for ethics in games journalism happened until a woman could be harassed online for months over it. It's the same old culture war that finally rolled into videogames.

This stuff about "cultural authoritarianism" is a later construct.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Take the whole concept of transgendered people being able to use whatever bathroom they identify with. Believe it or not, there are multiple ways to argue both for and against that idea, and it may be that someone is for it, but understands that the issue is socially complicated and require nuance. Anyone attempting to say, "woah, let's back up a second and think about this" is instantly labeled as transphobic. Anything short of complete and total support for the idea, without exception, is labeled as transphobic. Similarly, having a nuanced views on immigration, the refuge crisis, or radical islam can get you labeled as a white supremacist, even when you largely agree on the broad strokes, but disagree in the implementation.

There isn't very much thinking that actually needs to be done, though. A woman can use a toilet designated for women, a man can use a toilet designated for men. Problem solved. The "nuanced views" that you talk about are, in my experience, not actually very nuanced or good at all. A nuanced view on the refugee crisis would mean considering how to help, what sacrifices would have to be made and how to turn welcoming refugees into a strength but for some people "nuanced views" means that we should think long and hard about whether Syrians deserve to drown in the Mediterranean. It's such a low level of debate that it isn't useful and when someone insists on sticking to this level time and time again the question must be raised whether it's meant in good faith.

An actual nuanced view of militant Islamic extremists would include an understanding of these groups as political forces, an understanding of the economics and politics of the regions involved, where they recruit from, why it is that they exist now rather than at any other time and so on and so on. But the "nuanced view" is that Muslims kill because it's what the Koran says.