/b/, /vg/, /v/, /pol/ and sometimes /g/ all have strong alt right representation. (actually /g/ is still much more libertarian but you get some bleed in here and there).
Even /sci/ has changed. You have race IQ intelligence threads all the time compared to 2011. Instead of the daily Putnam problem thread, you get that garbage.
NYT is pretty on the money here.
If this were 2010, I'd disagree with them, but not nowadays.
disclaimer of my own bias: I stopped using 4chan in 2012 because of how much of an alt right mess it became after /r9k/. Didn't have the words to describe it back then. I remember people making endless Dragon Age memes in the pinned thread in /v/ in response to the mass shooting by a particular Anders in 2011. They were celebrating it, and it was the most active live thread on the site in that moment.
>Even /sci/ has changed. You have race IQ intelligence threads all the time compared to 2011. Instead of the daily Putnam problem thread, you get that garbage.
Is race IQ intelligence discussion really "garbage"? To my knowledge there isn't strong evidence confirming or disproving the theory, but the science on the genetic component of intelligence is pretty solid, and it isn't implausible that certain ethnic groups have genes that confer more intelligence, similar to how certain ethnic groups have genes that make them taller or better runners (see for instance, the olympic winners for sprints).
regardless of whether or not you think the topic is a worthy intellectual pursuit (i do not), the frequency at which it is discussed implies a racist agenda
And what's the frequency that doesn't imply "a racist agenda"? I went on skimmed all the OPs and found a few threads about intelligence/IQ, but couldn't find one with a racist bent.
Most of these race/iq threads end up concluding that East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews are the most intelligent racial groups, not exactly the poster children of white nationalism.
there is also the narrative that these tests are designed by secret groups (ran by whom you ask?) to have such stack ranking to keep white people down and not realizing their true potential. i don't know how anyone sees racial IQ discussion and not realize it is always going to devolve into nazis.
True, American racists are, for instance, quite often neoconfederates. OTOH, the Confederates were among the direct inspirations for the Nazis, so in a sense that makes those racists Neo-Proto-Nazis.
The board specifically set aside for politics on 4chan is probably the most popular neo-Nazi discussion forum on the internet. "Far-right" is a completely fair description of the political leanings of that site.
/pol/ most certainly is that way. I've been on 4chan for more than 15 years and I research far right extremism professionally. /pol/ isn't the most right wing or extreme place on the internet, but claiming it's not like 'traditional racial supremacy [..] neo-nazis' is nonsense, that's 20-25% of /pol/ threads.
Please elaborate. This is a common claim among "disinformation experts," when what they really mean is they occasionally browse /pol/ while telling themselves it's an academic exercise and they're obviously better than everyone posting on that "cesspool."
If reading /pol/ for hours a day is enough to say you "research far right extremism professionally," then I'd posit that every one of the most active users of /pol/ is more of an expert on it than any pseudo-intellectual making a spurious claim to authority based on their "professional expertise." By that metric, nearly every one of your "research subjects" is more of an expert than you, so if we want a fair assessment of 4chan, we should probably ask someone who uses it genuinely rather than sanctimoniously.
I was a chan user long before I took up this work full time. I didn't say I was a 'disinformation expert', I mostly study mass shooters, would-be terrorists, and violent street groups.
This comment is written in bad faith - generally on HN we try to take what people say at face value. They said they research far-right extremism professionally. The good-faith interpretation is that they do this as part of their job, as that is what "professionally" means.
While their name suggests they might be just as interested in the far-left as the far-right, if you look at their actual publications, they are almost entirely focused on the far-right, and even those rare occasions they do pay any attention to the far-left, it is generally cases of far-right/far-left overlap. So yes, they are an example of people researching far-right extremism for a living.
In fact, there are lots of other university and independent research centres looking into the topic–I cited CRE-X as an example only because they were at the top of my Google search results. It is something government research funders in many countries want to invest in, and there are also various wealthy philanthropists and charity/activist/lobby groups willing to put money towards it. Nothing unbelievable about someone claiming to do it professionally, because people do.
Lots of people work in this space. How do you expect anyone to write or teach about such a topic without performing research? Keeping an eye on 4chan/pol/ is the least interesting part of my work, because while it's the largest community of its type it functions mainly as an amplifier/dumping ground rather than a source of much original content. /g/ is a much more enjoyable community to participate in.
>But they have never been "far right" in the way that the traditional racial supremacy kind of neo nazis are.
There is no way you are talking about /pol/. I refuse to believe you have spent any amount of time on /pol/ and haven't seen the countless race IQ charts.
The_Donald was (1) banned and (2) not the official politics forum. It's more like characterizing Reddit as a whole as left-leaning because /r/politics is, which is, in my book, a fair claim.
I mean the goofiness comes from "what are the politics of a website" being inherently kind of a strange question with no clear answer. The motivations and values of the people who run these sites are mostly not legible to us. We can look at what the sites are used for.
If someone is using their own money to host a forum for neo nazis it's very coherent to describe this behavior as, at the very least, supporting neo nazis. If they are also hosting a motorcycle forum with their money, does that cancel out the neo nazi support? Is it reasonable to say either site IS a nazi forum?
What if most but not all members of the motorcycle forum are also nazi forum members? What if only a few of them are? What if they share login systems and comment histories?
There aren't clear boundaries between these things. The nazi forum is definitely a nazi forum. Whether the motorcycle forum is a nazi forum depends on how much userbase and culture and branding they share, and how high your tolerance for nazis is; an individual assessment without an objective answer.
I thought Stormfront was the big website for them? /pol/ is a bunch of nutters but it's not well organized. Arguably there's more visible White Nationalism on Twitter.
There is a substantial cohort of 'libs' who started calling themselves 'leftists' post-George Floyd, but when probed about their opinions on e.g. means testing, prison abolition, or asked to define even something as basic as Marxism, miss the mark so widely on the fundaments of those ideas that it appears they've labeled themselves without actually contending with certain core concepts that literally define the distinctions between left folks and others.
Of course, the boogeymen borne of tribalistic (politico-cultural) battlegrounds mean that those on the broad right look leftward and see people calling themselves 'leftists' dragging the classical left tenets toward strange, centrist-ized, often authoritarian lines and assume without further evidence that this applies to the left generally.
I promise you there's still plenty of folks who competently understand the labels they choose to inhabit.
Both “anarchism” and “anti-globalism” (the former largely as a result of fairly recent cooption, the latter inherently in being a label of opposition not specifically tied to the ideological reason for opposition) have both far-left and far-right versions, and that remains the case. Neither is universal on the left or the right, either, because while anarchism in the narrower historical sense is connected to socialism, there are obviously socialisms that are not anarchist (even without going to the extreme of Lenin/Stalin/Mao vanguardist approaches).
I disagree that, within the left and far-left, the anarchist or anti-globalist segments have recently retreated. OTOH, in the United States, the old (peaking around 1990) overlapping center-right neoliberal globalist faction forming the moderate wings of both major parties has faded in the Republican Party, leading the remaining segment of it – which is the dominant faction of the Democratic Party – to be called “left” (and sometimes “far left”) by Republican partisans.
The far right has a number of anti-capitalist. Usually around capitalism undermining social order and traditional bonds.
If we're talking 4chan specifically still, then the idea that capitalism is a jewish plot to... something? (the what varies a lot as far as I can tell) is probably more likely.
My guess is (since I don't claim to be a 4chan expert), in the beginning, 4chan users were just being edgy by being trolls and being for the choices that would lead to chaos (by being not politically correct, by supporting Donald Trump), but this attracted many genuine right-wingers, and if they do bother to hang out there, that would mean 4chan has become a far-right message board.
Saying 4chan isn't a far-right message board is like saying HN isn't a tech forum, and citing the existence of non-tech threads to support that argument.
It's 2023. The site has been around for 19 years. If they haven't gotten it right by this point, they never will. And its "probably" that way by design.
Cannot disagree enough. I love having dinner with people who are different from me if civil discourse is available. However, I am a US citizen, where free speech is fairly highly valued.
> "If you and 9 of your friends have a dinner with a Nazi, there are 11 Nazis around that table."
It is risible that one would make that accusation, by the way.
If we're talking about actual Nazis and not "everyone I disagree with is literally worse than Hitler" insult inflation, then it necessarily follows that civil discourse is not available.
Why? Because they mass-murdered people like me.
So, tough luck. If you use your freedom to pick them, I'll use mine to refuse you.
I'm pretty sure that even an actual Nazi would realize that they do not have the option to just straight up murder you right then and there at the restaurant table. A person also does not need to be uncontrollably angry at <minority group> to qualify as a Nazi. As one example, cynical and dispassionate severe dehumanization of <minority group> would also qualify you as a Nazi in my book. A Nazi who is cynical and dispassionate, rather than uncontrollably angry, might be able to sit at a restaurant table and maintain civil discourse with a member of <minority group>, either because the Nazi sees it as some kind of mental exercise, a display of his superior temper, logic and virtue, or whatever.
The point is, it is not physically impossible for a member of <minority group> to participate in civil discourse with actual Nazis. It just depends on the specific Nazi in question.
> I'm pretty sure that even an actualy Nazi would realize that they do not have the option to just straight up murder you right then and there at the restaurant table.
The fact that you think that's a counter argument, indicates you have severely failed to consider my perspective.
I won't willing hang out with you if you knowingly hang out with them. If you try to force me to hang out with you, I believe you would be breaking the law.
Furthermore, if they were in my country, I'd have them arrested because membership of that group is outlawed here.
There is no possibility of civil discourse, not only between me and someone who wants me dead (which wasn't actually the scenario I was describing even though it was clearly what you described in the quote), but there is also no possibility of civil discourse between me and those who tolerate those who wish me dead.
If we meet IRL, and you try to defend actual literal Nazis, the most civil I'll be able to be is getting up and leaving, not any kind of discussion. It's hard enough to not be enraged right now, and here I have the benefit of an edit button and the emotional distance that comes with text.
I don't think I am trying to (or capable of) forcing you to hang out with anyone. But I am trying to logically convince you that association and approval are orthogonal. I also don't think that wishing someone dead should be illegal. Acting on that thought, however, should of course be illegal.
Simply having a conversation with someone does nothing to help that person. If I eat at a restaurant with a Nazi, once we leave then nothing in the world will have changed.
Simply having a civil discussion with someone also does not mean that I approve of that person or their views. Most political discussions are inherently about disagreement.
If such a conversation means that you will think that I am necessarily evil, then I wonder why you think that.
If someone does something truly abhorrent, the appropriate reaction is to put them in prison. Whether or not to interact with that person is not relevant.
It seems to me like you are saying that the necessary obstacle to civil discourse is your own reaction to the situation. In my last comment I had assumed you meant the Nazi was the one who would not be able to remain civil. I guess I am opposed to emotional reactions when they accomplish nothing. Of course, overcoming our emotions is easier said than done, but it remains a goal of mine when it comes to anger and fear.
Is it too late to invoke Godwin's law, or is "actual Nazi" sufficiently unhinged for a late qualification?
I'm pretty sure there is nobody on /pol/, or anywhere on the internet for that matter (short of some 95+ year olds), who was an "actual Nazi" who "mass-murdered people like you."
Sadly there are a whole bunch of people who self describe with that term (or its translation), and whose demonstrative behaviour matches the label to the greatest extent they can get away with.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and wears a badge saying "I'm a duck", why should I treat it as anything other than an actual duck?
>> "If you and 9 of your friends have a dinner with a Nazi, there are 11 Nazis around that table."
>
> It is risible that one would make that accusation, by the way.
This is a description of how everyone else in the community would view your dinner party. You'd be "the guy who has Nazi dinner parties" to all your neighbors.
I'd recommend wading through Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco sometime this summer. Nice little morality play tucked into that book; hanging out with evil people because you find them interesting is a bad idea.
You know, the guilt by association kind of makes sense. Nazis have an ideology of violence/hate at their core - by being associated with Nazis, you tend to accept this. Therefore, it's ok to perceive you as one too.
I can't say about communists, as there are so few around these days.
> I can't say about communists, as there are so few around these days.
I dated one. Her description was basically the "People's Front of Judea" scene in Life of Brian — they're all in their own tiny rabbit holes, completely convinced all the other tiny groups are pawns, puppets, or stooges of capitalism.
It's guilt by selective association. If you regularly visit /b you know there are a lot of white nationalists there, by continuing to use /b you're choosing to associate with that kind of content.
But the mere association itself does not mean you agree with that kind of content. As an example, would you vilify a scientist studying extremism because he regularly reads Neo-Nazi forums for his research?
There are many reasons to read something other than "I am reading this because I love and agree with every aspect of it". In fact, it is probably common knowledge that only ever reading stuff you wholeheartedly agree with is quite a bad idea. Echo chambers, social media "bubbles" and all that. Also, it can be good to build a tougher skin, can't it?
Come on, what is this argument? /b/ users aren't doing academic research and you know that. Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but I'm talking about the average /b/ user here... the site is rife with racism.
Are you seriously claiming that people should visit /b/ to avoid echo chambers? Have you been to /b/? I'd argue that it's probably more productive to change your perspective by hitting yourself in the head with a hammer. You're not being freed from your echo chamber by listening to people who support genocide.
I don't think I have ever been to /b/, and it could very well be a valid claim that most /b/ frequenters are assholes. I'm glad to see you acknowledge that there are exceptions to every rule.
My comment is meant more as a defense of 4chan as a whole. I have seen valuable information originate from their technology board, for example. I just don't want to see prejudice against any and all 4chan users. Blanket application of "guilt by association", which seems to be advocated in neighboring threads, seems horrible to me.
I just hope people will be willing to engage with any other person up to the point that they actively prove to you in person that they are a jackass. Trying to look for signs that the other person is secretly a jackass is not a great approach.
If you’ve never been to /b/ then you really don’t understand the severity. It regularly produces some of the most vile content I’ve seen anywhere. It’s a case where you lose something just by engaging.
There was a whole series of ethnic cleanings in the USSR [1], the CCP is currently enacting at least 2 efforts to erradicate non Han minority groups, the Khmer Rouge set about the mass murder of Muslim Cham and Vietnamese in Cambodia, the Ethiopian Derg were accused of similar atrocities.
On the contrary, Leninism mandates terror and ethnic minorities are always among the first targets of terror and repression. Stalinism was synonymous with Russian chauvinism, and saw other ethnic groups as inherently counter revolutionary. Chinese communism is also an ideology of Han supremacy. These are all flavors of communism, but Naziism was a particularly German flavor of fascism, so I think the comparison is appropriate. Stalin ran death camps for ethnic minorities, and it was part an parcel with Stalinism.
I would argue that fascism and communism inevitably lead to mass murder because they tend towards totalitarianism and the use of terror. This comes with the caveat that the terror need not necessarily target an ethnic minority.
This is getting away from the original point. If you associate with a nazi then yes I believe you are guilty by association. There is no coexisting with a belief that doesn't believe you have the right to exist in the first place. If you believe that communism is in the same lane then feel free to throw them in the bin as well.
What a surprise it is that so many millions have perished under the banner of communism. I suppose as long as everyone dies equally, it's still consistent with the system...
Going back to the dinner analogy, you've stretched going to dinner with someone to happening to be in the same restaurant as that someone. It's not the same kind of association at all.
ex: "Nazis eat food, you eat food, therefore you're a Nazi."
Doing something that all people do and are expected to do, on either side of the conflict, does not actually make a difference. Being a complete and utter jackass makes the difference.
I mean, if giving the finger to pretty much everything is considered far-right, then what's considered far-left? Fundamentalism?