# attachment[].name
man leaning on a concrete rectangular column

# content
There’s an argument I keep running into lately, usually framed as a kind of gotcha, that goes something like this: you can’t be alt and conservative. The logic seems airtight to the people saying it. Alt culture, whatever specific flavor of it you’re talking about, has historically leaned progressive, countercultural, anti-establishment in a particular direction, so the thinking goes that if you hold conservative political beliefs, you simply don’t qualify. You’re an impostor. A poser. Someone playing dress-up in a culture that was never built for you and, by extension, never meant to include you. I want to push back on that, not because I share the politics of the people being excluded, but because I think the argument itself doesn’t hold up once you actually look at how subcultures and fandoms work.

I’ll be upfront about where I’m coming from. I’m progressive. I don’t personally understand a lot of what gets filed under “alt” as an identity, and I’m not trying to pretend I have some deep insider knowledge of that world. But I do know a thing or two about how subcultures and fandoms function in general, because that’s a pattern that repeats across basically every scene, every genre, every community built around shared aesthetics or shared interests. And the pattern is pretty consistent. If you have an interest in something, if you engage with it, if you participate in it, if you enjoy it and identify with it, you are part of it. That’s the whole test. Nothing about political affiliation enters into that equation unless the subculture itself has explicitly built its identity around a specific politics from the ground up, and even then, plenty of people still drift in who don’t fit the mold.

So when someone says you can’t be alt and conservative, what they’re really doing is adding a qualifier that doesn’t exist anywhere else in how we talk about belonging to a scene. Nobody tells a metalhead they’re not a real metalhead because of who they voted for. Nobody tells a goth they don’t count because of their stance on tax policy. We don’t usually gatekeep subcultures along political lines, because subcultures form around aesthetics, sounds, values about self-expression, ways of dressing, ways of seeing the world that don’t map cleanly onto a left-right axis. And yet for whatever reason, “alt” has become one of the few spaces where people insist that political belief is the deciding factor in whether you belong. That’s not how identity within a subculture has ever worked, and trying to retrofit that rule onto this one specific case feels less like a principled stance and more like a way of avoiding something uncomfortable.

Here’s what I mean by uncomfortable. If you identify as alt, and you also identify as conservative, then by definition you are an alt conservative. I know that sounds paradoxical. I know it sounds like it shouldn’t be possible, like there’s some contradiction baked into the phrase itself. But contradictions like that exist all over the place once you start looking at how people actually live their lives and hold their identities. People are messy. People hold beliefs that don’t fit together neatly on paper, and they hold them anyway, because humans aren’t logical syllogisms walking around test driving consistent worldviews. They’re people, with all manner of overlapping interests and beliefs that don’t always reconcile cleanly. Does it make sense, intellectually, that someone could embrace an aesthetic and a culture historically associated with one set of values while holding political beliefs that seem to run counter to it? Not really. Does it have to make sense for it to be real? No. And that gap, between what we think should be logically consistent and what actually exists in the world, is exactly where this argument falls apart for the people making it.

I think this is the part folks really struggle with. There’s a strong pull toward saying you can’t be part of a subculture or a fandom unless you check certain boxes first, unless you’ve proven your loyalty along some other axis before you’re allowed to claim the identity. And on the surface, that might look like someone protecting the integrity of their community. But functionally, what it actually does is let people deflect from a much harder, much less comfortable reality. It’s a way of pretending the problem doesn’t exist rather than dealing with the fact that it does. If you say “those people aren’t really alt,” you don’t have to sit with the discomfort of knowing that people with radically different political views than you are out there, genuinely enjoying the same music, the same fashion, the same media, the same spaces you consider yours. It’s much easier to redefine the boundaries of the group than to accept that the group was never as ideologically uniform as you assumed it was.

And look, I want to be careful here, because I’m not saying every fandom or subculture is obligated to welcome everyone regardless of belief. Communities get to decide who they want around and who they don’t. If a group wants to draw a line and say certain people aren’t welcome in their specific spaces, online or offline, that’s within their right to do. Exclusion based on values is a real tool that communities use, and sometimes for good reason. What I’m pushing back on isn’t the right to exclude. It’s the claim that exclusion erases the underlying reality. Because here’s what actually happens when you kick people out of a fandom, when you tell them they don’t count, when you declare them not true members of whatever subculture they claim to be part of. You don’t make those people disappear. You don’t change their interests. You don’t strip away the part of them that genuinely connects with the music or the aesthetic or the community in question. All you do is push them out of the main group and into each other’s company. The outcasts find each other. That’s it. That’s the entire effect. The “purity” of the original group might feel preserved for a moment, but the people who got pushed out just regroup somewhere else, often more entrenched in their identity than before, because now they’ve got a shared experience of rejection binding them together on top of whatever shared interest brought them there in the first place.

This is a pattern that shows up again and again whenever a community tries to police belief as a condition of belonging. Tell someone they’re not a real fan, not a real member, not a real anything, and you don’t usually change their mind or their behavior. You just give them a new reason to dig in. Rejection is rarely the thing that makes someone reconsider their place in a community. More often it’s the thing that cements their identity even further, because now there’s a narrative of being an outsider, of being unfairly judged, of having to prove something to people who never wanted to hear it in the first place. If anything, drawing a hard line and excluding people tends to create exactly the kind of solidarity among outcasts that the original gatekeeping was trying to prevent.

So what I’m really getting at here is something a little more uncomfortable than just “let people identify how they want.” What I’m getting at is that there’s a basic truth a lot of people don’t want to sit with, which is that there will always be people who hold radically different political beliefs than you, who are still going to show up in the spaces you consider yours. They’re going to listen to the same music. They’re going to dress the same way. They’re going to watch the same shows, play the same games, attend the same events. And there is nothing you can do, structurally or rhetorically, that will change those people’s underlying political beliefs by denying them entry into a subculture. You can refuse to call them part of the group. You can tell them to leave. You can build whatever social walls you want around your specific corner of that subculture. But none of that does anything to the beliefs themselves. The beliefs persist whether or not you grant the person the label they’re claiming. All exclusion does is determine where those people end up congregating, not whether they exist or whether their interest in the subculture is genuine.

I think a lot of the resistance to this idea comes from wanting there to be a tighter connection between aesthetic and ethics than actually exists in practice. People want to believe that if you embrace a certain look, a certain sound, a certain set of cultural signifiers, that this somehow implies or requires a particular politics underneath it. And for some subcultures, especially ones that were explicitly born out of political movements, that connection is real and intentional. But for a lot of subcultures, especially ones that have ballooned out from their roots into something much broader and more diffuse, the aesthetic has become detachable from whatever politics it originally carried. People pick up the aesthetic because they like it, because it resonates with something in them, because it feels like an authentic expression of who they are, completely independent of where they land on unrelated political questions. That detachment isn’t a flaw or a corruption of the subculture. It’s just what happens when something grows large enough and lasts long enough to attract people for reasons beyond its original founding context.

None of this is me saying people should be comfortable with the fact that folks with opposing political views are in their spaces. Discomfort is a completely reasonable reaction, and I’m not telling anyone to suppress it or pretend it isn’t there. What I am saying is that the discomfort doesn’t disappear just because you redefine who counts as a real member of the group. You can refuse the label, sure, but the underlying situation, people with very different beliefs sharing the same subculture, sharing the same fandom, sharing the same identity marker, remains exactly the same. Reckoning with that reality honestly, rather than trying to define it out of existence through gatekeeping, seems like the more useful path forward, even if it’s a much less satisfying one in the moment. It doesn’t give you the clean resolution of saying “they were never really one of us.” It just asks you to accept that belonging, in the end, is mostly a matter of self-identification and participation, not ideological purity, and that the messier reality of who actually shows up in any given subculture is something every community eventually has to face, whether it wants to or not.

# contentMap.en
There’s an argument I keep running into lately, usually framed as a kind of gotcha, that goes something like this: you can’t be alt and conservative. The logic seems airtight to the people saying it. Alt culture, whatever specific flavor of it you’re talking about, has historically leaned progressive, countercultural, anti-establishment in a particular direction, so the thinking goes that if you hold conservative political beliefs, you simply don’t qualify. You’re an impostor. A poser. Someone playing dress-up in a culture that was never built for you and, by extension, never meant to include you. I want to push back on that, not because I share the politics of the people being excluded, but because I think the argument itself doesn’t hold up once you actually look at how subcultures and fandoms work.

I’ll be upfront about where I’m coming from. I’m progressive. I don’t personally understand a lot of what gets filed under “alt” as an identity, and I’m not trying to pretend I have some deep insider knowledge of that world. But I do know a thing or two about how subcultures and fandoms function in general, because that’s a pattern that repeats across basically every scene, every genre, every community built around shared aesthetics or shared interests. And the pattern is pretty consistent. If you have an interest in something, if you engage with it, if you participate in it, if you enjoy it and identify with it, you are part of it. That’s the whole test. Nothing about political affiliation enters into that equation unless the subculture itself has explicitly built its identity around a specific politics from the ground up, and even then, plenty of people still drift in who don’t fit the mold.

So when someone says you can’t be alt and conservative, what they’re really doing is adding a qualifier that doesn’t exist anywhere else in how we talk about belonging to a scene. Nobody tells a metalhead they’re not a real metalhead because of who they voted for. Nobody tells a goth they don’t count because of their stance on tax policy. We don’t usually gatekeep subcultures along political lines, because subcultures form around aesthetics, sounds, values about self-expression, ways of dressing, ways of seeing the world that don’t map cleanly onto a left-right axis. And yet for whatever reason, “alt” has become one of the few spaces where people insist that political belief is the deciding factor in whether you belong. That’s not how identity within a subculture has ever worked, and trying to retrofit that rule onto this one specific case feels less like a principled stance and more like a way of avoiding something uncomfortable.

Here’s what I mean by uncomfortable. If you identify as alt, and you also identify as conservative, then by definition you are an alt conservative. I know that sounds paradoxical. I know it sounds like it shouldn’t be possible, like there’s some contradiction baked into the phrase itself. But contradictions like that exist all over the place once you start looking at how people actually live their lives and hold their identities. People are messy. People hold beliefs that don’t fit together neatly on paper, and they hold them anyway, because humans aren’t logical syllogisms walking around test driving consistent worldviews. They’re people, with all manner of overlapping interests and beliefs that don’t always reconcile cleanly. Does it make sense, intellectually, that someone could embrace an aesthetic and a culture historically associated with one set of values while holding political beliefs that seem to run counter to it? Not really. Does it have to make sense for it to be real? No. And that gap, between what we think should be logically consistent and what actually exists in the world, is exactly where this argument falls apart for the people making it.

I think this is the part folks really struggle with. There’s a strong pull toward saying you can’t be part of a subculture or a fandom unless you check certain boxes first, unless you’ve proven your loyalty along some other axis before you’re allowed to claim the identity. And on the surface, that might look like someone protecting the integrity of their community. But functionally, what it actually does is let people deflect from a much harder, much less comfortable reality. It’s a way of pretending the problem doesn’t exist rather than dealing with the fact that it does. If you say “those people aren’t really alt,” you don’t have to sit with the discomfort of knowing that people with radically different political views than you are out there, genuinely enjoying the same music, the same fashion, the same media, the same spaces you consider yours. It’s much easier to redefine the boundaries of the group than to accept that the group was never as ideologically uniform as you assumed it was.

And look, I want to be careful here, because I’m not saying every fandom or subculture is obligated to welcome everyone regardless of belief. Communities get to decide who they want around and who they don’t. If a group wants to draw a line and say certain people aren’t welcome in their specific spaces, online or offline, that’s within their right to do. Exclusion based on values is a real tool that communities use, and sometimes for good reason. What I’m pushing back on isn’t the right to exclude. It’s the claim that exclusion erases the underlying reality. Because here’s what actually happens when you kick people out of a fandom, when you tell them they don’t count, when you declare them not true members of whatever subculture they claim to be part of. You don’t make those people disappear. You don’t change their interests. You don’t strip away the part of them that genuinely connects with the music or the aesthetic or the community in question. All you do is push them out of the main group and into each other’s company. The outcasts find each other. That’s it. That’s the entire effect. The “purity” of the original group might feel preserved for a moment, but the people who got pushed out just regroup somewhere else, often more entrenched in their identity than before, because now they’ve got a shared experience of rejection binding them together on top of whatever shared interest brought them there in the first place.

This is a pattern that shows up again and again whenever a community tries to police belief as a condition of belonging. Tell someone they’re not a real fan, not a real member, not a real anything, and you don’t usually change their mind or their behavior. You just give them a new reason to dig in. Rejection is rarely the thing that makes someone reconsider their place in a community. More often it’s the thing that cements their identity even further, because now there’s a narrative of being an outsider, of being unfairly judged, of having to prove something to people who never wanted to hear it in the first place. If anything, drawing a hard line and excluding people tends to create exactly the kind of solidarity among outcasts that the original gatekeeping was trying to prevent.

So what I’m really getting at here is something a little more uncomfortable than just “let people identify how they want.” What I’m getting at is that there’s a basic truth a lot of people don’t want to sit with, which is that there will always be people who hold radically different political beliefs than you, who are still going to show up in the spaces you consider yours. They’re going to listen to the same music. They’re going to dress the same way. They’re going to watch the same shows, play the same games, attend the same events. And there is nothing you can do, structurally or rhetorically, that will change those people’s underlying political beliefs by denying them entry into a subculture. You can refuse to call them part of the group. You can tell them to leave. You can build whatever social walls you want around your specific corner of that subculture. But none of that does anything to the beliefs themselves. The beliefs persist whether or not you grant the person the label they’re claiming. All exclusion does is determine where those people end up congregating, not whether they exist or whether their interest in the subculture is genuine.

I think a lot of the resistance to this idea comes from wanting there to be a tighter connection between aesthetic and ethics than actually exists in practice. People want to believe that if you embrace a certain look, a certain sound, a certain set of cultural signifiers, that this somehow implies or requires a particular politics underneath it. And for some subcultures, especially ones that were explicitly born out of political movements, that connection is real and intentional. But for a lot of subcultures, especially ones that have ballooned out from their roots into something much broader and more diffuse, the aesthetic has become detachable from whatever politics it originally carried. People pick up the aesthetic because they like it, because it resonates with something in them, because it feels like an authentic expression of who they are, completely independent of where they land on unrelated political questions. That detachment isn’t a flaw or a corruption of the subculture. It’s just what happens when something grows large enough and lasts long enough to attract people for reasons beyond its original founding context.

None of this is me saying people should be comfortable with the fact that folks with opposing political views are in their spaces. Discomfort is a completely reasonable reaction, and I’m not telling anyone to suppress it or pretend it isn’t there. What I am saying is that the discomfort doesn’t disappear just because you redefine who counts as a real member of the group. You can refuse the label, sure, but the underlying situation, people with very different beliefs sharing the same subculture, sharing the same fandom, sharing the same identity marker, remains exactly the same. Reckoning with that reality honestly, rather than trying to define it out of existence through gatekeeping, seems like the more useful path forward, even if it’s a much less satisfying one in the moment. It doesn’t give you the clean resolution of saying “they were never really one of us.” It just asks you to accept that belonging, in the end, is mostly a matter of self-identification and participation, not ideological purity, and that the messier reality of who actually shows up in any given subculture is something every community eventually has to face, whether it wants to or not.

# name
You Can Be Alt and Conservative, Whether That Makes Sense or Not

# nameMap.en
You Can Be Alt and Conservative, Whether That Makes Sense or Not

# icon.name
man leaning on a concrete rectangular column

# image.name
man leaning on a concrete rectangular column

# preview.content
There's an argument I keep running into lately, usually framed as a kind of gotcha, that goes something like this: you can't be alt and conservative. The logic seems airtight to the people saying it. Alt culture, whatever specific flavor of it you're talking about, has historically leaned progressive, countercultural, anti-establishment in a particular direction, so the thinking goes that if you hold conservative political beliefs, you simply don't qualify. You're an impostor. A poser. […]

# summary
There's an argument I keep running into lately, usually framed as a kind of gotcha, that goes something like this: you can't be alt and conservative. The logic seems airtight to the people saying it. Alt culture, whatever specific flavor of it you're talking about, has historically leaned progressive, countercultural, anti-establishment in a particular direction, so the thinking goes that if you hold conservative political beliefs, you simply don't qualify. You're an impostor. A poser. […]

# summaryMap.en
There's an argument I keep running into lately, usually framed as a kind of gotcha, that goes something like this: you can't be alt and conservative. The logic seems airtight to the people saying it. Alt culture, whatever specific flavor of it you're talking about, has historically leaned progressive, countercultural, anti-establishment in a particular direction, so the thinking goes that if you hold conservative political beliefs, you simply don't qualify. You're an impostor. A poser. […]