It's more that any place that doesn't censor information currently gets overrun by the alt-right, because they are pushed out everywhere else.

But yes, the effect is pretty much that.

Man I never thought of it that way, when you state it like that its almost poetic.

What could make me love the established media more than a narrative that 'uncensored truth' would turn me into some kind of QAnon zombie.

I simply cannot handle it.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by human biodiversity.

As for the others on your list, non-alt-right people (cf. non-alt-right sites) might be more inclined to discuss (cf. host discussions about) these "facts" if their primary use wasn't to be woven into otherwise fictional narratives claiming to be coherent justifications of racism and homophobia.

> these "facts" if their primary use wasn't to be woven into otherwise fictional narratives claiming to be coherent justifications of racism and homophobia.

So, the same thing mainstream society has been doing for the last 6 years, just for different races and groups?

If they criticized things like Outreachy (which literally discriminates people based on race and gender [1]) with the same energy that they criticize the "alt-right" then I would believe them. Otherwise it's just hypocrisy.

[1] https://www.outreachy.org/docs/applicant/

Those are alt-right facts is just a defense mechanism for people to avoid confronting the contradictions in their own belief system. None of this is driven by reason, at least not the logic of the truth of the matters allegedly being examined. It's all about the logic of identity and social status. It is high status to believe in magical equality. It is low status to acknowledge human biodiversity. The idea of settling important questions through mass society, mass media, mass democracy is more laughable every day.

Nah. There was quite recently a very interesting article about personality differences across sex on this very website. But being suuper interested in "human biodiversity" without going through the upfront pain of explaining to the reader that you aren't trying to rehash a lot of old racist garbage is, well, a huge red flag.

Also, there are actual HBD blogs and communities and they're frankly pretty uninterested in the african-american vs european-american thing and far more interested in the movements and traits of all sorts of obscure people groups I've never heard of. While also being interested in things your typical white supremicist wouldn't think about like differences between Scottish and South-Western English peoples.

I would also not publish in areas that would lead to complete ostracization from academia.

I agree with you, here is a good paper for hereditarianism if anyone wants to learn more https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188692...

I think your value judgements show through the things you listed and your assertion of all those things being 100% true. The lethal dose comment has already had solid rebuttal arguments disproving the statement. That mixed in with your comment about him saying “I can’t breathe” also seems to imply more ambiguity of fault at his death and ignored the fact Floyd also stated he was claustrophobic right before that. I’m just commenting this to hopefully inform you that you may not be as impartial as you originally thought

The claustrophobic was a fake excuse considering he was sitting in a car right before, officers offered to roll down the windows to make him comfortable, he had used the same swallowing drugs and resisting arrest 1 year prior, and a man who is capable of breaking into a pregnant woman’s house with his 5 friends and beating her up with his gun in front of her son and then pushing the gun into her pregnant belly simply can’t believed to be claustrophobic. Nor can a man who worked security as their job be claustrophobic.

Well it's true that certain world views are incompatible with knowledge of certain facts.

This is true.

The challenge is that when they come into conflict, we know that humans tend to discard the facts before the world views.

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/05/alternative-facts

The George Floyd one at leat I've seen discussed outside places that could be termed alt-right.

There are also plenty of things that can't be discussed in alt-right places, only in proper free-speech places (which are rare and often heavily contaminated with alt-right due to them being kicked out of everywhere else). E.g. if you wanted to discuss whether "consensual child molestation" is actually harmful you'd get banned from any right-wing space.

The issue with all these things is that on right-wing forums these issues are spun from human biodiversity to white nationalism, racial crime statistics to racist rhetoric, concern about pedophilia into homophobia, an obvious lie into support of disproportionately tough policing relative to crimes committed, and, again, racism supportive of police. What is true for alt-right forums that isn't true for others is that hate speech tends to be protected on these private platforms.

If you read some alt right content (like 4chan /pol/), you might agree that some opinions deserve to be censored.

Hate and stupidity breed more hate and stupidity. If we approach this situation from a generic perspective we can defend free speech and argue against censorship; but if we talk about speech such as antisemitism, homophobia or black people hate, we cannot defend it anymore.

The way that an opinion is expressed matters a lot :

https://www.ecosophia.net/conversation-as-commons/

Somehow we achieved major accomplishments like civil rights act and gay marriage and defeating the bad guys when free speech was at its peak few decades ago. So I would disagree with your comment. Only way to defeat extremism is by absolute freedom speech. Else you are throwing it under the rug.

they are having some information remove from other places but are also having many misleading thing circulating, example being "election steal" in year past. like with regular media, alt-right and alt-left are having some thing you cannot find outside of them so reading a little is good (not fun but still good).

Just a nitpick; there is no alt-left: leftism has deep historical roots in the French Revolution that predate liberalism (which is by definition a centrist ideology). The left is the left, the right wing just calls centrist liberals leftist.

Just to nitpick some more. Alt-Right is a new term, a neologism. In current research it’s seen as a conflated term. This is due to it not actually being an “alternative ideology” since it matches to already existing ideologies. It’s a set of ideologies that are under Far-Right politics on the Left-Right political spectrum. [1]

While there is literally not an “Alt-Left” there are 100% Far-Left ideologies that a a hypothetical “Alt-Left” movement would most likely match to. The Left is the entire spectrum of the left, which is many things. [2]

Liberalism as a whole is not Centrism, . Social liberalism fits in Centrism which is a subset of liberalism.

Mind you also the Left-Right political spectrum does not equal the American Left and Right. It is a long history of observation including Alain’s reflections on the French Revolution and the study of international relations today. Hypothetically, the American Left could very well be on the Right and the Australian Left could be on the Left.

[1]: A mix of references from Timothy Snyder, and his book “On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century” and George Hawley’s “Right-wing Critics of American Conservatism”

[2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

The “alt-left” label is a bit eye roll inducing to me because it seems completely synthesized as some tit-for-tat term for political argument and slurring. Whereas alt-right originated from reactionaries as a more of a self descriptive term (for some reason I thought it was Steve Bannon who first coined it but Wikipedia says it originated with Richard Spencer). Admittedly though it got appropriated as another boring catch-all slur.

The American left is absolutely centrist at best. The real “left” legitimately believes in socialism / communism at some scale. If actual socialism isn’t part of your policy position, I struggle to say you’re on the left.