Are you alt-right?

Standard

So a couple of days ago, I came across a short discussion in the comment section of a Reddit post, where one of the two participants was a member of the Alternative Right (Alt-Right for short). For the benefit of those who are not in the know, the Alt-Right is a political movement/philosophy that originated in the US in 2010. The very core of the movement is its rejection of mainstream conservatism, because mainstream conservatism is not radical enough for them. I think that should give you an idea about the sort of things they believe in when it comes to various societal and political issues.

     I can’t confidently tell you whether the Alt-Righter in the above-mentioned comment section discussion is a fellow or a lady, but I think it’s safe to assume the former, for the following reason: The overwhelming majority of Alt-Righters are men; men who want to see feminism die. Bearing that in mind, being a female Alt-Righter would be political masochism to say the least (which is not to say there can be no female Alt-Righters, of course). Now let’s get to the actual discussion (the Alt-Righter made only three comments, but each of them is a gold mine).

     Firstly, our fellow writes: „Debate me anytime. I’ll be studying philosophy with a minor in economics (Honours program), so I’ve got a strong understanding of this stuff.“ Sorry to tell you, but that’s not really how it works. The fact that you’re going to study philosophy and economics some time in the future does not automatically give you all the knowledge you might acquire at university. It’s very well possible that you have a decent understanding of philosophical and economic matters, but those would in no way be linked to higher education. Sorry if I’m pernickety, but that’s sort of what philosophy is about.

     The other commenter replies to the Alt-Righter by saying he’s not going to meet up with some „self-described high-school kid from the internet“, to which he then replies: „I’m not in Highschool. While I’ve yet to attend a University (liberal brain-washing camp), I’ve got a Masters level education.“ Well, his first comment definitely makes more sense now, though there are two things I’m rather intrigued by.

     For starters, if you’re delusional enough to believe you basically have a degree without having been to university, why only attribute yourself a Master’s? Why not treat yourself to a PhD? All it takes is a few more false inferences and a tad of wishful thinking, and there you go! You can now consider yourself a Philosophiae Doctor!

     The second thing I’m curious about is that, since you know that all universities are nothing but liberal brainwash camps, why are you going, mate? You’ve found us out. It’s all absolutely one hundred per cent true. Every single university on the entire planet is secretly united with all others by one ultimate mission, which is to liberalise every single student that sets foot on a university campus using whatever means prove most effective. If a student displays even the most hesitant sympathy for any conservative or libertarian view, we simply have to intervene. And sometimes there is little choice but to resort to brainwashing. And we’re pretty damn good at it, let me tell you. We’re like Scientology, but better. Wanna know why? Because no one even knows about all the messed up things we do to win people over. Well, I guess you know, which brings me back to my initial question: why the hell are you going to university? No matter what institution you’re going to attend, me and my fellow liberals will look for you, we will find you, and we will convert you. I want you to know there is absolutely no way for you to escape our brainwashing. You may feel completely safe on your first night on campus, but I can assure you that as soon as you’ve dozed off, a couple of my comrades will have sneaked into your room, tied your arms and legs to the bed posts, stuffed your mouth with a dirty, old rag, and before you know it, someone’s reading Marx to you, over and over again, and there’s nothing you can do. Muhahaha!

      Now to his last comment, where in response to being questioned about his education, he writes: „Needless to say, I don’t possess a Masters Degree (I didn’t mean for it to come across that way). However, with my intelligence and research in economics and philosophy (specifically, Metaphysics), I’ve got a Masters Level education/understanding of these things. Also, for what it’s worth, I’m in an INTJ on the MBTI (Myers briggs Type Indicator), which concludes that I’m adept at logic and reasoning; Hence why I’m a member of the alt-right.“

     Alt-Right. Alt-Right. Is it just me or is our political landscape increasingly hard to distinguish from the world of niche music genres? You’ve got Alt-Right, you’ve got Prog-Liberalism, you’ve got Classical Liberalism. What’s next, Fourth-Rave Feminism? Come to think of it, the music-genre analogy actually makes a lot of sense, because the people who are so enamoured with a particular political philosophy as to perceive it as part of their identity are probably the same people who will categorically refuse to hear any music that transgresses their personal preference. But let’s get back to the main issue.

     I’m not so sure that becoming an Alt-Righter is a valid conclusion to draw here. It’s hard to tell given the sheer number of implicit premises in your argument. Actually, your argument isn’t even technically an argument. What you’ve provided here is one premise and a conclusion. Unfortunately, in an argument you need two premises to be able to draw a conclusion. Then again, it looks like these technicalities need not concern you. Why bother with drawing conclusions when you can just jump to them, amirite?

     What upsets me the most about the Alt-Right movement is its rejection of the pursuit of equality on the basis that it’s an ideology, and, of course, all ideologies are bad and harmful. All I can say here is: have a look in the fucking mirror, people! You tell me which of the two following views is more ideological: the view a good society is one where all human beings are to be seen and treated as equals, and inequalities of opportunity between human beings should be addressed, or the view that a good world is one in which, among other things, white people are superior to people of a different skin colour, men are intrinsically superior to women, and women are the property of men.

      To all Alternative Right members who hold abhorrent views like the one outlined just above, if you’re such experts in philosophy—a lot of them unfortunately claim to be—, then you’ll definitely be familiar with Occam’s razor. Now I don’t want to be too graphic here, so suffice it to say I can think of an alternative way for you to make use of it.


If you liked this article, remember to share it with your friends on social media! You can also follow me on Instagram, where among other things I will keep you posted on all my writing. Cheers!

Meet the functional sceptic

Standard

Let’s get one thing out of the way: I am not the functional sceptic. I am neither particularly functional nor very sceptical. In fact, if I had to describe myself in two words, it’d probably just be the word ‘puerile’ twice.

     The functional sceptic was a fellow philosophy student at the university of Tübingen who one day after class, apropos of nothing, felt the need to stand up and make an announcement to his fellow students and the professor, proclaiming himself to be, indeed, a functional sceptic. He then went on to explain why he refers to himself in this way, completely ignoring the fact that absolutely no one had given even the faintest indication of interest in the matter whatsoever. Apparently, in the same manner that functional autists manage to function more or less normally in society in spite of their mental condition, he, despite being a natural sceptic who questions absolutely everything, manages to function as a normal member of society. It took an unprecedented amount of willpower for me not to interject “I don’t think so, mate”.

     We philosophy students are an odd sort. Everyone knows that. However, the situation in Tübingen was exceptionally peculiar. Whenever I was in the classroom, I felt as if I was surrounded by bare-footed Johnny Depp lookalikes with hipster-ish haircuts proudly displaying their excessive and poorly maintained facial hair. And the male students looked even worse.

     Leaving physical characteristics aside, the most unnerving thing were the class discussions. Basically, when the discussions kicked off, it all devolved very quickly into an exercise of intellectual masturbation. Now I don’t know about you, but I much prefer good, old-fashioned, regular masturbation, though I tend to indulge in that at home rather than in the classroom. While the ‘official’ goal in a group discussion is to collectively try and solve the particular problem at hand, what usually took place was some kind of unbearably dull ‘intelligence’ contest in which students tried to fit as many Latin and Ancient Greek words into their one-minute vocal contribution to the discussion as possible. That’s not what a masturbate mass debate is supposed to be like, is it?

     As a good (by which I mean twattish) philosophy student, instead of saying that a concept is defined negatively, you say it’s defined ex negativum. Instead of saying ‘all other factors remaining the same’ you say ceteris paribus. Actually, I guess using these Latinisms as part of the jargon of academic philosophy isn’t that bad. It’s just the way they say it; they raise their voice and nose in equal measure. It doesn’t matter what the words that come out of their stupid philosopher’s mouths are, be it mutatis mutandis, or pectus excavatum, all I can hear is “Worship me, peasants! For I am of a higher intellect than you.”

     A hoard of pretentious wankers, but there was one to trump them all. That’s right, we’re back to the functional sceptic. What a funny looking fellow he was: short, chubby, ginger, a LOT of hair, generally a very hobbit-like figure. He had a beard like Socrates and I’m sure his body odour can’t have been too far off either. But as for all the other philosophy students, the worst thing about him had little to do with his appearance. As you’ve probably anticipated by now, he was a bit of a c…

     haracter. He lacked basic manners, and let’s not even bring up etiquette. For example, he was incapable of gauging when he was entitled to speak up and when he should have shut up and listened. And whenever he spoke, which was pretty much all the flippin’ time, he did so far too loudly, no matter whether he was addressing the whole room or just his neighbours. He was the most complete manifestation of self-unawareness I have ever witnessed. As a functional sceptic, he may have questioned every epistemological theory in the history of philosophy, but questioned himself he has not. One time, in a lecture, he sat in the front row and kept chatting at a respectably disrespectful volume with his neighbour about who knows what until after a while everyone in the class including the professor and the person he was talking to was dead silent and just looked at him in astonishment, because he still was not aware of the disruption he was causing. It took an awkward thirty more seconds before he finally realised that everyone wanted him to refrain from speaking so that the lecture could continue. Another time, in a seminar, he kept interrupting the very patient professor during our discussion, and later on, when the professor and he happened to start a sentence at the same time, even said the following: “I don’t think this is going to work if we keep interrupting each other.” I find this kind of entitlement fascinating.

     The cherry on the cake of weirdness that is the Functional Sceptic is his key ring. Hey! Why not turn this into a quick game of cherchez l’intrus? Cross out the object that you think should not belong on a key ring.

keys — USB drive — nail clippers — bottle opener

Apart from being seriously odd, how important can nail clippers possibly be for them to have to be instantly accessible at all times? Grooming really didn’t really seem to be one of the philosophobbit’s main concerns in life (judging by looks and smells). Plus, I have never heard of an emergency where the immediate clipping of one’s nails was literally vital to the survival of a person.

Assistant doctor: Defibrillation unsuccessful.

Doctor: Don’t you die on me!!!

Assistant doctor: What are we supposed to do now, doctor?

Doctor: I don’t know… I guess there’s only one more thing we can try. This’ll be our last hope.

Assistant doctor: What is it?!

Doctor (sighs, hesitates): Clip his nails.

Assistant doctor (doubtful, but the softness of his voice still suggesting subservience):       Clip his nails?… Are you sure, doctor? With all due respect, it seems like the chances of him surviving are minusc…

Doctor (interrupting the assistant): …have you got a better idea? No, you don’t. So, do it…Do it! For Christ’s sake!

Assistant doctor (nervously grabs the nail clippers): Wait, fingers or toes?… Doctor?

Doctor: I don’t know!!! This is unprecedented… Just do both. And you better do it quick!

Assistant doctor (begins the delicate procedure. He is much more resolute now, having appreciated the urgency of the situation): Jesus Christ…

TO BE CONTINUED

By the way, the reason why I know about all the objects on his key ring is because I had the pleasure of sitting next to him once, which wasn’t particularly easy on my ears… or my nose… or my eyes… Anyhow, he stored all the texts from the syllabus on his USB drive, which he—thanks to the jangling keys—very noisily inserted into the side slot of his laptop, catching my attention and making me look over. There’s one more thing that might be worth highlighting. As far as I’m aware there’s two types of nail clippers. You get the big ones for your fingernails, and the smaller ones for the toenails. His looked suspiciously small. I definitely wouldn’t put it past him.

     I never confronted him about the nail clippers, if only because I think what would most likely have ensued is him launching into an impromptu thirty minute monologue about the ethical and anthropological implications of clipping one’s nails in public. And to be perfectly honest, I can really do without that on a Monday morning, thank you very much.

     Before I go, I want you to know that if you assumed the doctor in my imaginary little film scene was a man, you’re a sexist and you should be ashamed of yourself.


If you enjoyed this article, please remember to share it on your preferred social media platform!