One of the suspended accounts belong to Richard Spencer: " an American white nationalist known for promoting white supremacist views" [1]. The others are the same type of character.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Spencer

So?

Are you kidding me? Those who identify as "alt-right" aka Far Right are definitely racist and nasty folks and you can easily see it by reading through their screeds and "jokes."

In the US, they have a right to express themselves, but they do not have a right to be accepted as decent and normal people.

> Those who identify as "alt-right" aka Far Right

While the alt-right is defined by some toxic views (white nationalism, particularly) also found in some parts of the far right, it's a distinct group.

Wrong. Alt-right is a burgeoning group, AND what we are seeing is democrats are trying to strike early to get the "racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe" label associated with them. Basically alt-right is the same as "anonymous" people don't really know who identifies with x,y,z parts of it and it's just frightened democrats who are scared to death to have another group against them that they can't use their standard buzzwords to demean them. E.G. Obama with his "oke-dokes"

Wake me up when Twitter actually suspends demonstrably more toxic groups on the left. Those who have infiltrated and are even holding conferences on evils of "whiteness" and white-hating. So far, Twitter are showing they are biased censoring scared little puritans.

You have no idea. I worked with someone who had been radicalized by these groups, and the things they are willing to do to achieve their aims of stamping out people of color and other groups they oppose is nauseating. They are dangerous.

Stereotyping as opposed to it being a conclusion about a person's character based on things they say?

alt-right by definition is racist and sexist. that is the definition of the alt-right platform.

Citation?

From Wikipedia: "The alt-right has no formal ideology... 'Alt-right' is a recently coined umbrella term, with no clear criteria of membership yet agreed upon."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right

Would each of the people being banned agree that they've signed on to an admittedly racist and sexist platform? I doubt it.

EDIT: Let me amend "I doubt it" to "I am not sure and haven't done enough research to have an informed opinion." From the article I can't get the full set of people that are known to have been banned or how many of them are professed white nationalists...

The funny thing is that the alt right (at least from the Trump campaign onwards) is based on the idea that if you're not an extremist, you're a "cuck". So, while it isn't a clearly defined ideology, it is a group seeking increasingly more extreme ideologies as time passes.

Twitter's move reduces their platform and reach but increases their cultural cachet — they're becoming the Certified Opposition to all of society's ills.

I'm fairly sure the whole "cuck" insult thing grew out of chan culture. I think it was adopted by /pol/ and then disseminated to the wider alt right community. The funny thing is that while it may have started as an insult to those not extreme enough in their views it evolved (devolved?) into a general purpose insult. Do you like Apple? You're a cuck. How about M$, also a cuck. Google? Yep, cuck. It's basically lost all meaning now.

Even on /b/, which is known for putting up with the absolute lowest quality shitposting on the entire internet, insulting someone as a cuck will now be met with a litany of retorts regarding your "low quality bait". Weird times.

Dozens of people in my close social circles identify as "alt-right", and none of them are remotely sexist or racist.

Do they understand what is happening to the label that they identify with? Do they seek to make a clear statement about what they believe the alt right stands for?

If they let some definition take hold that includes racism, then in the future when they object to saying that the alt right is racist, they aren't standing up for what they believe in anymore, they are providing cover for the racists that stole the label from them.

Racists are not the people who are defining the term - it's the left and the media.

Who changes the meaning is totally irrelevant to it becoming cover. It's not fair to the people that aren't racist, but it's irrelevant to whether they end up providing cover for racists.

I would expect libertarians to be considered "alt right" by the average person.

Do they call themselves alt-right?

edit: honest question

.

They also call themselves deplorables, and I've seen Clinton supporters calling themselves nasty women. I guess I should take that at face value as well?

r/altright has 6,253 subscribers making it one of the smaller subreddits?

Yes, it's a very convenient label to throw on people who disagree with the orthodoxy regardless of their actual beliefs.

By their opponents anyway.

then what is the alt-right to its supporters?

Watch this and let us know who should be getting the ban hammer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXpi3F0E5ro

We should have hearings to deal with this problem, and then blacklist anyone who might be a racist sympathizer. If only good old Joe Mccarthy was still around.