(Part 2) Top products from r/Fuckthealtright

Jump to the top 20

We found 22 product mentions on r/Fuckthealtright. We ranked the 41 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/Fuckthealtright:

u/nilematotle1 · 37 pointsr/Fuckthealtright

Smalls still available on Amazon, but no other sizes Original Penguin Men's The Earl Polo, Bright Aqua, S https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07L4PN8HD/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_ajVtDb42QHH5C

u/Scrumptical · 24 pointsr/Fuckthealtright

This book explains the history and thinking super concisely. But broadly, GOP needed a voter base that wouldn't question power of the state being handed over to private industry -- thus they won over the devoutly religious who wouldn't question anything beyond simple morality. Then beginning with Carter, and going full steam with Reagan, to escape 70's stagflation (rising inflation causing a stagnant economy) America rejected the economic theories of the preceding 40 years under Keynes and embraced slow but steady deregulation of all markets and public services, or at least everything they could, under the guise of "small government" and an ideal of the individual. Around the time of Clinton's presidency, Democrats could do nothing but sustain the cycle as Reagan had butchered much of what was previously under government ownership -- to turn the tide back would be far too costly and lose the election, as it would be a total U-turn of the country.

u/QuintinStone · 12 pointsr/Fuckthealtright

I heartily recommend The Black Count, the story of Thomas-Alexandre Dumas: the first person of color in the French military to become brigadier general, the first to become divisional general, and the first to become general-in-chief of a French army. His son Alexandre Dumas (author of The Three Musketeers) went on to become one of France's most widely read authors of all time.

u/SlippingStar · 7 pointsr/Fuckthealtright

For my Illustration class, we had to either do a caricature or a statement portrait of a public figure. I chose to do a statement portrait of Donald Trump and Joe McCarthy, who is famous for McCarthyism/Second Red Scare. In short, he used the labeling of people as "communists" and similar labels to not only remove their trustworthiness and patriotism, but to justify the unlawful search of themselves and homes, as well as government surveillance. I believe we are entering another Red Scare, but instead a Brown Scare, where the people portrayed as the "enemy" are brown and black people, most notably Latinx, Arabic, and Black individuals. McCarthy is not shaded in to symbolize how he doesn't feel real - a person in the past - while Trump is very present and very real, and thus shaded. The style is intended to mimic 40's-50's political cartoons. The backgrounds are how information was spread about the two people - behind McCarthy are blurred newspaper articles about him, while behind Trump are blurred tweets from his Twitter account. Their signatures are above their portraits in case people do not know who they are. Excellent reading material to go with this art is Griffin Fariello's Red Scare: Memories of the American Inquisition , which contains the accounts of people who lived during McCarthyism - both governmental targets and government workers.

Please share this art with the hashtag #brownscare, it is meant to be circulated and become a political meme.

Amusing note, it turns out Joe McCarthy looks a lot like Richard Nixon.

Art © Slipping-Star

u/ashenblade · 5 pointsr/Fuckthealtright

Not quite as fancy but it works

I used to use one of these to change the channel in the chow hall from Fox News

u/BiggerJ · 17 pointsr/Fuckthealtright

Here. Came out a couple of months ago.

u/[deleted] · 7 pointsr/Fuckthealtright

This is a scary read (or listen, if you’re partial to a bit of audible) - Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0691172420/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_UliyCb8RNEFYY

u/PorkyBodine · 11 pointsr/Fuckthealtright

Although I'm sure /u/Catcac won't believe it ever happened but once around the same time as the event I describe above. I was waiting for a bus to go to work reading a book. The neighborhood was predominately minorities, so at this stop was about five black people and me. So, I'm sitting at a bus stop with a shaved head, wearing a long coat and realize I'm reading a book titled White People. No one said anything or even noticed as far as I could tell but I put it away.

u/Ask18 · 1 pointr/Fuckthealtright

And apparently some copies have neo-nazi publishers' marks. Disgusting. You can report it here, I did:

https://www.amazon.com/Mein-Kampf-Adolf-Hitler/dp/0395925037 - Giant "Send Feedback" link at the bottom of the page.

u/MCA2142 · 148 pointsr/Fuckthealtright

Before he was a senator, Al Franken wrote a book called, "Lies: And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right".

It destroys Ann Coulter, and it's one of the most hilarious books I've ever read.

Amazon link: https://www.amazon.com/Lies-Lying-Liars-Balanced-Right/dp/0452285216

u/pinkerton_jones · 2 pointsr/Fuckthealtright

I think you should know better than to assume the Internet is a window into reality rather than a frame into the individual creators mind. People acting wildly get clicks. People being outrageous get attention. Like a car on fire in the street, we are fixated by potential threats. Your own behavior is unfortunately the result of this mediated environment, and it's more unfortunate still that somewhere it is being recorded.

May I suggest a few books?




Give those three a try and let me know when you're finished.

u/unnatural_rights · 3 pointsr/Fuckthealtright

Scholarship on what soldiers (both North and South) actually said and wrote about why they went to war, and what they thought they were defending, points to them all understanding that they were fighting to protect and expand slavery (Southerners) or, once it became clear the war would not be over quickly, fighting to destroy slavery forever Northerners). So.

u/diam0ndice9 · 1 pointr/Fuckthealtright

>Read a history book on the civil war.

I just finished reading The Battlecry For Freedom, actually, by James McPherson. Great book, and you should check it out. Sounds like you're the one who's never actually read a book about the civil war.


Regarding my idiocy, I'm not going to debate my intelligence with a stranger on the internet as I'm sure I've been called worse things by better people but below is a selection of quotes you that rebut your historical revisionism regarding the causes of the South's secession.

"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."

~ Article IV of the Confederate Constitution

"The Confederate States may acquire new territory... In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government..."

~ Article IV Confederate Consitution

"We but imitate the policy of our fathers in dissolving a union with non-slaveholding confederates, and seeking a confederation with slaveholding States."

~ South Carolina's Dissolution of Union Statement.

"African slavery, as it exists in the United States, is a moral, a social, and a political blessing."

~ Jefferson Davis, CSA President

"Our new Government is founded... upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

~ Alexander Stephens, CSA Vice President

And that's just a few.

The Civil War was a struggle over States' Rights inasmuch States had the right to enslave people and treat human beings like property. This whole "It wasn't about slavery," revisionism drives me up the wall. Gee well heck yeah the Federal Government SHOULD impugn upon your sovereignty if your soverignty is predicated upon something as immoral as slavery.

The Confederacy made clear in their very own founding documents that they wanted to enshrine human slavery as part of their society FOREVER. Anyone who wants to posit that the CSA seceded for other reasons, such as Federal tyranny, can get right TFOH with their apologetics for White Supremicism and enslavement of other human beings.

u/Yufery · 1 pointr/Fuckthealtright

Alright so sci-hub is back and I decided to address Color of Crime in a blogpost here sometime - its irrelevant to the discussion though so I won't bother. Except for one thing.

In the article, a simple correlation coefficient - by the way, I'd like to emphasize that no information was given on how it was calculated, whether it was via a regression analysis or otherwise. There's no information on statistical significance of the results, nothing. But anyway, this isn't even the proper way to calculate these things in criminology - specifically, correlation analyses don't allow us to predict relationships, making this point worthless. The better thing to do would be to do a multivariate regression and see if the % black indicator would be, say, an amalgamation of all the given results. Either way, this is a questionable analysis given it's obviously biased source.

Next is an attempted point about population density lacking significance as a predictor - the problem is, the source cited is the Handbook of Crime Correlates (which, might I add, is made by Lee Ellis - a known person attempting to say black folk have higher testosterone, ergo crime, and Kevin MacDonald, one of those 'sociobiologist' types, and a John Wright, who I don't know much about). This is a very, very terrible source to cite - for one, the paragraph he links is little more than a gish gallop of sources which they make claims of in regards to population density. It's implied to be an overview of the literature, but there's little information on how they surveyed the literature, or whether the studies that came to a certain conclusion were better or worse. If you don't believe me, here's the book - head to page 53 to view it, and page 59 for a discussion of the tables. I'm not going to bother overviewing this due to that - it'd take far too long and, quite frankly, isn't worth it. Not to mention how the studies are only from the 80s and 70s largely, which, for a book released in 2009, is laughably evident of cherry picking.

Instead, I'll link this study - which they never included - which pointed out significant caveats - such that the relationship ultimately depended on how crime functioned given its relation to the population, as well as how the FBI ultimately led to crime calculations being in jurisdictions with nonexistent data. While I disagree with the study due to the UCR's usage, as shown before, this was never cited, nor are these caveats mentioned in the review, showing its inadequacy for any sort of academic usage.

The next point is that some studies found controlling for certain variables had a weaker effect on black crime than white crime. Ironically, this would be evidence against a genetic explanation, since it strongly suggests an environmental confounding variable, as we would expect the genetic explanation to have an equivalent environmental depressant (but with there still being a large gap after adjustment). Let's evaluate the studies anyway.

The first study uses the questionable Uniform Crime Reports. But anyway, ignoring this, the point is misleading since this was only for structural disadvantage, rather than for population size and structure. Further, only residential instability and younger male population had significant differences between populations. However, admittedly, in Chicago the significance differences did change, with 'spatial lag (dealing with geography),' % Hispanic, entropy, and structural disadvantage being significant predictors.

The second also uses the questionable Uniform Crime Reports - it, hilariously in spite of this, found no effect of percent black on violent crime arrests rates, although one on offense rates, which would pretty strongly go against any genetic hypothesis they could pull out of their asses. Of course, the results do support what he says.

The next complaint is 'three cherry-picked cities,' which is a pretty ignorant way to dismiss them since they contain thousands of individuals, and likewise one would have to try to explain the low black crime rate. Ironically, viewing the cities listed in the original article's Wikipedia pages, it can be seen that they do have ties to anti-slavery movements and such in the past, although there isn't enough on them to gauge whether selection bias could result in this. It may be the case, although evidence would have to be provided for this. I'd also like to use this opportunity to point out that Bermuda, in spite of being relatively evenly split between black and white folk, has less than a thousand crimes in 2016 with the trend being for them to decrease. There is also exceedingly few people in prison there, suggesting minimal conviction (see here and here for concerns of racism in Bermuda), and with the Bermudan government pointing out that there's minimal recidivism there. Not sure exactly how this can be explained at all by selection bias.