Loading...

The NYT gives its readers definitions for "alt-right" and "alt-left." - Hallo friend WELCOME TO AMERICA, In the article you read this time with the title The NYT gives its readers definitions for "alt-right" and "alt-left.", we have prepared well for this article you read and download the information therein. hopefully fill posts Article AMERICA, Article CULTURAL, Article ECONOMIC, Article POLITICAL, Article SECURITY, Article SOCCER, Article SOCIAL, we write this you can understand. Well, happy reading.

Title : The NYT gives its readers definitions for "alt-right" and "alt-left."
link : The NYT gives its readers definitions for "alt-right" and "alt-left."

The NYT gives its readers definitions for "alt-right" and "alt-left."

In the transcript (NYT) of yesterday's press conference, we see Trump talking about the "alt-right" and the "alt-left" and challenging a reporter to give a definition:

REPORTER: Senator McCain said that the alt-right is behind these and he linked that same group to those that perpetrated the attack in Charlottesville.

TRUMP: Well, I don’t know. I can’t tell you. I’m sure Senator McCain must know what he is talking about. When you say the alt-right. Define alt-right to me. You define it. Go ahead. No, define it for me. Come on. Let’s go.

REPORTER: Senator McCain defined them as the same group —

[cross talk]

TRUMP: What about the alt-left that came charging at — Excuse me — What about the alt-left that came charging at the, as you say, the alt-right? Do they have any semblance of guilt? [cross talk] Let me ask you this: What about the fact that they came charging, that they came charging with clubs in their hands swinging clubs? Do they have any problem? I think they do. So, you know, as far as I’m concerned, that was a horrible, horrible day.

Define your terms — it's a way of slowing down an interlocutor who's letting labels do too much of the work. Trump combines the demand for a definition of one thing that is said with calling attention to what is unsaid: You've got a label for one side but not for the other side.

Perhaps reacting to that demand for definition, the NYT has "Alt-Right, Alt-Left, Antifa: A Glossary of Extremist Language" (by Liam Stack).

First up is the definition of "Alt-Right," and I think this definition pushes the word into a much uglier zone than some of the people who have popularized the term deserve:

The “alt-right” is a racist, far-right movement based on an ideology of white nationalism and anti-Semitism. Many news organizations do not use the term, preferring terms like “white nationalism” and “far right.”

The NYT cedes the term to Richard B. Spencer, calling him "a leader in the movement," and noting his definition: “identity politics for white people.”

Let's compare what Milo Yiannopoulos writes in his book "Dangerous":

When we published [“An Establishment Conservative’s Guide to the Alt-Right" in March 2016], there had been little commentary, and no trace of an authoritative definition of the emerging alt-right. The media stuck to their usual hysterics that accompany the rise of any popular new right-wing movement.... [I]n its early days, the alt-right included a member base as diverse as disaffected Tea Party supporters and eighteen-year old meme addicts curious about a movement that defied so many taboos....

The definition of alt-right has evolved since we penned our guide. White nationalists and Neo-Nazis took over, and people who initially enjoyed the label were being accused of sins they did not commit. This suited the media just fine... In effect, the extremist fringe of the alt-right and the leftist media worked together to define “alt-right” as something narrow and ugly, and entirely different from the broad, culturally libertarian movement Bokhari and I sketched out. This wanton virtue signaling was wholly unjust to young members of the movement who were flirting with dangerous imagery and boundary pushing....

Thanks to the willingness of old-school conservatives to march in lockstep with the mainstream media, the alt-right gradually came to be dominated not by friends of Pepe, but by actual white nationalists.... 

That gives the history of the term and how it's changed over its brief lifespan, but it also verifies the NYT definition as the current definition.

Let's move on to the NYT definition of "Alt-Left":

Researchers who study extremist groups in the United States say there is no such thing as the “alt-left.” Mark Pitcavage, an analyst at the Anti-Defamation League, said the word had been made up to create a false equivalence between the far right and “anything vaguely left-seeming that they didn’t like.”

Some centrist liberals have taken to using this term.

“It did not arise organically, and it refers to no actual group or movement or network,” Mr. Pitcavage said in an email. “It’s just a made-up epithet, similar to certain people calling any news they don’t like ‘fake news.’”

What's unorganic about the way the term arose? And why is Pitcavage the beginning and the end of the story of this word? Once we have left and right (terminology that goes back to the French Revolution), if you're going to put a prefix in front of one, it — organically! — suggests a corresponding prefix for the other, whether or not the people receiving the label enjoy its application to them.

Notice how Trump introduced the word: "What about the alt-left that came charging at the, as you say, the alt-right?" He's not accepting the organic quality of "alt-right," because he's distancing himself from the usage with "as you say." It's almost as though he's saying: Okay, if you're going to say "alt-right," I'm going to say "alt-left." (By the way, as Alt-house, I don't like the creeping pejorative nature of the prefix "alt-." Like I'm a very extreme house.)

The NYT piece proceeds to define "Alt-Light," which I'd never seen before. Is that organic? Is it sugar-free? Does it taste great or have fewer calories?

The “alt-light” comprises members of the far right who once fell under the “alt-right” umbrella but have since split from the group because, by and large, racism and anti-Semitism are not central to its far-right nationalist views, according to Ryan Lenz, the editor of Hatewatch, a publication of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Members of the alt-right mocked these dissidents as “the alt-light.”

“The alt-light is the alt-right without the racist overtones, but it is hard to differentiate it sometimes because you’re looking at people who sometimes dance between both camps,” he said.

I see that there's a Wikipedia entry for "Alt-lite" ("also known as the 'alt-light'"). Excerpt:

Individuals associated with the alt-lite include Paul Joseph Watson, Milo Yiannopoulos, Gavin McInnes, Mike Cernovich and Jack Posobiec. Many such figures who are now identified with the alt-lite were previously associated with a broader conception of the "alt-right."

Hmm. I'm dubious. If you want to distance yourself from alt-right because it's been dragged into an ugly place, why would you want a label that sounds almost the same? I note that Milo doesn't use the term (either spelling) in his book. It has an off-taste to me. I'm going to say: unorganic.

In the transcript (NYT) of yesterday's press conference, we see Trump talking about the "alt-right" and the "alt-left" and challenging a reporter to give a definition:

REPORTER: Senator McCain said that the alt-right is behind these and he linked that same group to those that perpetrated the attack in Charlottesville.

TRUMP: Well, I don’t know. I can’t tell you. I’m sure Senator McCain must know what he is talking about. When you say the alt-right. Define alt-right to me. You define it. Go ahead. No, define it for me. Come on. Let’s go.

REPORTER: Senator McCain defined them as the same group —

[cross talk]

TRUMP: What about the alt-left that came charging at — Excuse me — What about the alt-left that came charging at the, as you say, the alt-right? Do they have any semblance of guilt? [cross talk] Let me ask you this: What about the fact that they came charging, that they came charging with clubs in their hands swinging clubs? Do they have any problem? I think they do. So, you know, as far as I’m concerned, that was a horrible, horrible day.

Define your terms — it's a way of slowing down an interlocutor who's letting labels do too much of the work. Trump combines the demand for a definition of one thing that is said with calling attention to what is unsaid: You've got a label for one side but not for the other side.

Perhaps reacting to that demand for definition, the NYT has "Alt-Right, Alt-Left, Antifa: A Glossary of Extremist Language" (by Liam Stack).

First up is the definition of "Alt-Right," and I think this definition pushes the word into a much uglier zone than some of the people who have popularized the term deserve:

The “alt-right” is a racist, far-right movement based on an ideology of white nationalism and anti-Semitism. Many news organizations do not use the term, preferring terms like “white nationalism” and “far right.”

The NYT cedes the term to Richard B. Spencer, calling him "a leader in the movement," and noting his definition: “identity politics for white people.”

Let's compare what Milo Yiannopoulos writes in his book "Dangerous":

When we published [“An Establishment Conservative’s Guide to the Alt-Right" in March 2016], there had been little commentary, and no trace of an authoritative definition of the emerging alt-right. The media stuck to their usual hysterics that accompany the rise of any popular new right-wing movement.... [I]n its early days, the alt-right included a member base as diverse as disaffected Tea Party supporters and eighteen-year old meme addicts curious about a movement that defied so many taboos....

The definition of alt-right has evolved since we penned our guide. White nationalists and Neo-Nazis took over, and people who initially enjoyed the label were being accused of sins they did not commit. This suited the media just fine... In effect, the extremist fringe of the alt-right and the leftist media worked together to define “alt-right” as something narrow and ugly, and entirely different from the broad, culturally libertarian movement Bokhari and I sketched out. This wanton virtue signaling was wholly unjust to young members of the movement who were flirting with dangerous imagery and boundary pushing....

Thanks to the willingness of old-school conservatives to march in

Loading...

lockstep with the mainstream media, the alt-right gradually came to be dominated not by friends of Pepe, but by actual white nationalists....  That gives the history of the term and how it's changed over its brief lifespan, but it also verifies the NYT definition as the current definition.

Let's move on to the NYT definition of "Alt-Left":

Researchers who study extremist groups in the United States say there is no such thing as the “alt-left.” Mark Pitcavage, an analyst at the Anti-Defamation League, said the word had been made up to create a false equivalence between the far right and “anything vaguely left-seeming that they didn’t like.”

Some centrist liberals have taken to using this term.

“It did not arise organically, and it refers to no actual group or movement or network,” Mr. Pitcavage said in an email. “It’s just a made-up epithet, similar to certain people calling any news they don’t like ‘fake news.’”

What's unorganic about the way the term arose? And why is Pitcavage the beginning and the end of the story of this word? Once we have left and right (terminology that goes back to the French Revolution), if you're going to put a prefix in front of one, it — organically! — suggests a corresponding prefix for the other, whether or not the people receiving the label enjoy its application to them.

Notice how Trump introduced the word: "What about the alt-left that came charging at the, as you say, the alt-right?" He's not accepting the organic quality of "alt-right," because he's distancing himself from the usage with "as you say." It's almost as though he's saying: Okay, if you're going to say "alt-right," I'm going to say "alt-left." (By the way, as Alt-house, I don't like the creeping pejorative nature of the prefix "alt-." Like I'm a very extreme house.)

The NYT piece proceeds to define "Alt-Light," which I'd never seen before. Is that organic? Is it sugar-free? Does it taste great or have fewer calories?

The “alt-light” comprises members of the far right who once fell under the “alt-right” umbrella but have since split from the group because, by and large, racism and anti-Semitism are not central to its far-right nationalist views, according to Ryan Lenz, the editor of Hatewatch, a publication of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Members of the alt-right mocked these dissidents as “the alt-light.”

“The alt-light is the alt-right without the racist overtones, but it is hard to differentiate it sometimes because you’re looking at people who sometimes dance between both camps,” he said.

I see that there's a Wikipedia entry for "Alt-lite" ("also known as the 'alt-light'"). Excerpt:

Individuals associated with the alt-lite include Paul Joseph Watson, Milo Yiannopoulos, Gavin McInnes, Mike Cernovich and Jack Posobiec. Many such figures who are now identified with the alt-lite were previously associated with a broader conception of the "alt-right."

Hmm. I'm dubious. If you want to distance yourself from alt-right because it's been dragged into an ugly place, why would you want a label that sounds almost the same? I note that Milo doesn't use the term (either spelling) in his book. It has an off-taste to me. I'm going to say: unorganic.

Thus articles The NYT gives its readers definitions for "alt-right" and "alt-left."

that is all articles The NYT gives its readers definitions for "alt-right" and "alt-left." This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.

You now read the article The NYT gives its readers definitions for "alt-right" and "alt-left." with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-nyt-gives-its-readers-definitions.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: