The Student Room Group

The gays of the alt-right

It's interesting to me that three gays are now considered highly respectable on the alt-right; Milo Yiannopolous, Dave Rubin and Douglas Murray.

Of course Dave Rubin is really a liberal who is nonetheless opposed to Islamic aggression, and Douglas Murray is a traditional conservative. I like them both a lot

Milo Yiannapolous, by contrast, is a ****** par excellence. He's not only a traitor to the gay race (lisping and mincing his way through interviews, playing up to the worst stereotypes of gay men wanting to get dressed up in slap and drag and get ****ed by ten sailors... at the same time, opposing civil rights for ordinary, decent gays who just want to pair up, have kids, live a respectable life etc etc) but also only seems to be valued insofar as he's a minority who's saying "outrageous" things. Kind of like "kids say the darndest things".

I know he's supposed to be one of these provocative, outrageous characters but could you imagine actually trying to, I don't know, have a conversation with him? I don't even want to think about how traumatic it would probably be to bed him

Milo Yiannopolous seems to thrive on the ugly/crazy side of the anti-Islamic sphere, with whack jobs like Alex Jones and Donald Trump. I find it very unsettling that justifiable and reasonable anti-Islam views are being crowded out by idiots who bang on about "cucks" and "feminazis" and what have you
(edited 7 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

I thought I should add, Dave Rubin did an excellent interview with the Commander of the Assyrian Army (kind-of like an Assyrian Peshmerga). The Assyrians are Christians of Northern Iraq and are really the only surviving culture from the Babylonian/Sumerian peoples. Naturally, both the Turks in the 20th century and ISIS in the 21st century have tried to wipe them out. Can't have indigenous cultures that predate Islam and the Arab expansion surviving and thriving

[video="youtube;M_aNxKNQHq0"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_aNxKNQHq0[/video]

I think this is why all the non-Islamic or non-Arab Middle Eastern cultures, like the Jews, the Kurds, the Assyrians and the Druze seem to get along with one another quite well. They know what it's like to suffer under the Islamic boot
As I've said before, he's a professional troll. He doesn't even believe in anything as such, just exists to advocate things he thinks sound edgy or 'controversial'.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Don't know who either of these 3 are 🙃 But would like to see more gay figures in right wing politics
Original post by anarchism101
As I've said before, he's a professional troll. He doesn't even believe in anything as such, just exists to advocate things he thinks sound edgy or 'controversial'.

Posted from TSR Mobile


No, he isn't. Just because Milo says things which are provocative, that doesn't mitigate his legitimacy.
Reply 5
Milo himself admits he shouldn't be listened to as a leading source in the area and his goal is just to get people to look at the issues closer from a different perspective, he uses facts and winds people up as this gets his target audience (18-22) to listen to his points, people love to bash him but you have to admit he is successful at what he does.
Original post by anarchism101
As I've said before, he's a professional troll. He doesn't even believe in anything as such, just exists to advocate things he thinks sound edgy or 'controversial'.


Precisely. He thrives on controversy and provocation, not on substantive disussion. He reminds me of various African-Americans like Ben Carson who are only valued by the republican right insofar as they validate racism against black people (i.e. they act as a black spokesman for the idea that it's all black people's fault etc)

Oh and I'd bet £100 that Milo Yiannopolous is an aggressive power-bottom, which makes him even more obnoxious in principle.
Reply 7
Why would gays side with people (left-wingers) who are allies with their butcher (Islamists and muslim refugees)? Once you question this you will have a clear perspective.
Original post by slaven
Why would gays side with people (left-wingers) who are allies with their butcher (Islamists and muslim refugees)? Once you question this you will have a clear perspective.


Not all left-wingers side with the Islamists. Dave Rubin is a liberal. As is Sam Harris.

And why exactly would they side with people who want to deprive them of their rights? The right-wing is no friend of the gay community.
"Traitor of the gay race"

"Aggressive power bottom"

Today tsr is educating me and god damn its great
Original post by AlexanderHam
It's interesting to me that three gays are now considered highly respectable on the alt-right; Milo Yiannopolous, Dave Rubin and Douglas Murray.

Of course Dave Rubin is really a liberal who is nonetheless opposed to Islamic aggression, and Douglas Murray is a traditional conservative. I like them both a lot

Milo Yiannapolous, by contrast, is a ****** par excellence. He's not only a traitor to the gay race (lisping and mincing his way through interviews, playing up to the worst stereotypes of gay men wanting to get dressed up in slap and drag and get ****ed by ten sailors... at the same time, opposing civil rights for ordinary, decent gays who just want to pair up, have kids, live a respectable life etc etc) but also only seems to be valued insofar as he's a minority who's saying "outrageous" things. Kind of like "kids say the darndest things".

I know he's supposed to be one of these provocative, outrageous characters but could you imagine actually trying to, I don't know, have a conversation with him? I don't even want to think about how traumatic it would probably be to bed him

Milo Yiannopolous seems to thrive on the ugly/crazy side of the anti-Islamic sphere, with whack jobs like Alex Jones and Donald Trump. I find it very unsettling that justifiable and reasonable anti-Islam views are being crowded out by idiots who bang on about "cucks" and "feminazis" and what have you
Original post by AlexanderHam
I thought I should add, Dave Rubin did an excellent interview with the Commander of the Assyrian Army (kind-of like an Assyrian Peshmerga). The Assyrians are Christians of Northern Iraq and are really the only surviving culture from the Babylonian/Sumerian peoples. Naturally, both the Turks in the 20th century and ISIS in the 21st century have tried to wipe them out. Can't have indigenous cultures that predate Islam and the Arab expansion surviving and thriving
I think this is why all the non-Islamic or non-Arab Middle Eastern cultures, like the Jews, the Kurds, the Assyrians and the Druze seem to get along with one another quite well. They know what it's like to suffer under the Islamic boot
All the nonsense aside (struck-through). I still don't see how any of this has anything to do with sexuality.
Reply 11
Original post by AlexanderHam
Not all left-wingers side with the Islamists. Dave Rubin is a liberal. As is Sam Harris.

And why exactly would they side with people who want to deprive them of their rights? The right-wing is no friend of the gay community.

There is no right-wing in Europe or else where in the west that is for banning homosexuality on daily basis or want to kill gay people because they are gays. And if you believe that advocating death to homosexuals is equal to not wanting gay marriage well it is not. if you people cannot see that immigration in fact hurts directly gays than social-conservatism well it is their problem.

I bet in 100 euros gays would prefer to live in Poland than in Saudi Arabia or ISIS.
Original post by AlexanderHam
Dave Rubin is a liberal. As is Sam Harris.


Rubin and Harris I would class as primarily 'liberal' rather than clearly lefties. More to the point, they're also both good examples of liberal orientalists. Douglas Murray, while I don't agree with him on much at all, at least has something more of a substantive theoretical base behind his positions.
Original post by Betelgeuse-
"Traitor of the gay race"

"Aggressive power bottom"

Today tsr is educating me and god damn its great


Have you seen the Urban Dictionary number 3 definition is the best;

An experienced bottom who loves cock so much, he wants to get pounded as roughly & aggressively as possible. The harder the better. He can take it like a champ with no pain. A power bottom doesn't just passively lay there, he pushes back on every thrust from the top. Sometimes he'll do all the work and ride the top like a mechanical bull until they both explode with ecstasy.


There's something obnoxiously needy and pushy about power bottoms. I'd be willing to bet bottom dollar ( geddit? :wink: ) that Milo is one of those.

And yes, he is totally a traitor to the gay race. He trades on being a lisping, mincing stereotype, hands flapping around like a meerkat (http://s551.photobucket.com/user/djtobey_album/media/-meerkat.jpg.html), appealing to the worst prejudices, and then using the apparent dissonance between that stereotype and his harsh and bigoted views, to get eyeballs and cash
Original post by slaven
There is no right-wing in Europe or else where in the west that is for banning homosexuality on daily basis or want to kill gay people because they are gays.


"At least we don't want to kill you" doesn't exactly mean I'm supposed to think the alt-right is a good thing. I will ally with them on those subjects on which we are in agreement (opposing the spread of militant Islam) but that doesn't mean I'm supposed to be ****ing grateful or fail to point out that many of them are bigots.

We (gay people, allies, civilised individuals) absolutely steamrolled them in the gay marriage debate. Therefore, they have no leverage in asserting that somehow gay people should be grateful or compromise on our fundamental rights simply because militant Islam is worse. In any case, many on the alt-right are allies of homophobic fascists like Putin in any case

I bet in 100 euros gays would prefer to live in Poland than in Saudi Arabia or ISIS.


....and? I'm not exactly sure what that is supposed to signify?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by anarchism101
liberal orientalists


What's that?
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
What's that?


Orientalism was originally a concept presented by Edward Said, about patronising Western attitudes and stereotypes about Asia. Now it's somewhat been expanded beyond Asia to non-Western societies in general (for example, it was very prominent in British and American views of the Balkans in the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s). In short, it's a description for simplistic, static, facile, essentialist stereotypes and tropes, usually by people who actually don't know a lot about the societies in question.

Typical political orientalist tropes include:
- anything about "ancient hatreds" between ethnic groups and or religious sects.
- linked to the above, trying to fit every political dispute or conflict into simplictic identity-based explanations (often
- claims that relatively recent horrific phenomena are actually the product of some inherent, deep-ingrained, cultural or even racial characteristics.
- portrayal of bad people/groups as almost cartoonishly evil pure antagonists motivated solely by irrational hate; often including the implicit argument that any explanation is justification.
- trying to explain the politics of authoritarian or highly ideological states solely in terms of "hardliners" and "reformists/moderates".

There are more than I can't think of right now, and some that undoubtedly exist but just seem too trivial to mention. It's particularly common in media, because TV news and newspapers like simplicity, and don't think their readers want a whole education on the topic (and most of the time, they're probably right). To give a few simple examples, here's an amusing set of mock-ups of US news events presented as if it was US news reporting on a foreign country.
Original post by anarchism101
Orientalism was originally a concept presented by Edward Said, about patronising Western attitudes and stereotypes about Asia. Now it's somewhat been expanded beyond Asia to non-Western societies in general (for example, it was very prominent in British and American views of the Balkans in the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s). In short, it's a description for simplistic, static, facile, essentialist stereotypes and tropes, usually by people who actually don't know a lot about the societies in question.

Typical political orientalist tropes include:
- anything about "ancient hatreds" between ethnic groups and or religious sects.
- linked to the above, trying to fit every political dispute or conflict into simplictic identity-based explanations (often
- claims that relatively recent horrific phenomena are actually the product of some inherent, deep-ingrained, cultural or even racial characteristics.
- portrayal of bad people/groups as almost cartoonishly evil pure antagonists motivated solely by irrational hate; often including the implicit argument that any explanation is justification.
- trying to explain the politics of authoritarian or highly ideological states solely in terms of "hardliners" and "reformists/moderates".

There are more than I can't think of right now, and some that undoubtedly exist but just seem too trivial to mention. It's particularly common in media, because TV news and newspapers like simplicity, and don't think their readers want a whole education on the topic (and most of the time, they're probably right). To give a few simple examples, here's an amusing set of mock-ups of US news events presented as if it was US news reporting on a foreign country.


I liked the link which was pretty funny and a fair observation. But I think that too often critics of 'orientalist' thinkers draw a false equivalence say between the west and The rest of the world. Sure the U.S. Has problems with say gay rights in certain states but it's a paradise for gay rights when compared to somewhere like Uganda.

Secondly, suggesting that the problem posed by Islamists is purely political and has nothing to do with cultural factors (namely religion) is absurd. Whilst I do not doubt that it is for some- for the overwhelming majority are influenced by their religious doctrine.

https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/what-do-jihadists-really-want

It's essentially the and as saying that Nazism had nothing to do with the Holocaust or Catholicism with the Inquisition.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
What's that?


Essentially that because of colonialism-and disastrous foreign policy the west has no right criticise others. Additionally, because at many times non western spheres have been the locus point for civilisation (eg ancient China, the golden age of Islam) compared to the west*, the idea that the west needs to civilise parts if the world is preemptive nonsense.


My criticism of this is that

A) we are not responsible for the actions of our ancestors

B) whilst we should take into account history and the past, we should be more focussed on the reality of the present. That Afghanistan was once the beacon of civilisation 1000 years ago doesn't much matter when the Taliban are torturing and enslaveing people

C) whilst certainly legitimate in highlighting western hypocrisy in some aspects most people that refer to orientalist these days are either relativists or oseudo nihilists.

D) the fact I don't know that much about North Korea shouldn't preclude me from finding its mode of existence abominable.




* which supposedly orientalist thinkers such as Hitchens (who co-authored a book with said) and even Blair readily acknowledged .
Original post by Davij038
I liked the link which was pretty funny and a fair observation. But I think that too often critics of 'orientalist' thinkers draw a false equivalence say between the west and The rest of the world. Sure the U.S. Has problems with say gay rights in certain states but it's a paradise for gay rights when compared to somewhere like Uganda.

Secondly, suggesting that the problem posed by Islamists is purely political and has nothing to do with cultural factors (namely religion) is absurd. Whilst I do not doubt that it is for some- for the overwhelming majority are influenced by their religious doctrine.

https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/what-do-jihadists-really-want

It's essentially the and as saying that Nazism had nothing to do with the Holocaust or Catholicism with the Inquisition.


But Nazism is a political ideology, one which had no existence prior to around 1920. It is not some inherent part of German identity or political culture; indeed, the only prominent work arguing that Nazi-esque traits were indeed deep-rooted in German culture - Daniel Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners - was almost unanimously subject to scathing dismissals by historians of the Holocaust. In fact, a lot of influential work on the Holocaust in recent decades has emphasised the importance of shockingly mundane issues in motivating perpetrators.

The idea that the overwhelming majority of Islamist fighters are motivated solely or primarily by religious doctrine would appear to be contradicted by the recent leaked ISIS documents. 70% of recruits described their knowledge of Sharia as 'basic', the lowest possible answer. And we're not talking a small sample size here, but over 3,000 people - about 10% of ISIS' estimated fighting strength at the time.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending