|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On January 28 2018 19:13 TheDwf wrote:
Six élections législatives were cancelled by the Conseil constitutionnel, so législatives partielles will occur. Today is the first round for two of those circonscriptions. It's a test for both the majority and the oppositions; though the abstention is usually absurdly high (between 70 to 80%) in those new elections, so it might be hard to read too much from the results. That being said, 8 months ago the abstention already ranged from 50 to 60%, so it might not differ that much...
Same duo advances as last time, so it will be macronist right vs historic right in both circonscriptions.
In the 90-01 district:
Abstention increased from 50,3% to 70,5%. Out of the 14k people who expressed a vote:
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/qVVmP4u.jpg) LR = right FN = far-right FI = left PS = social-democrats
War of the rights:
- The majority loses half its votes since June 2017.
- Grey Wall from the historic right, which voted like a single man for its cheater candidate, who ends up first (+1600 compared with the macronist vs -1900 in June): good to see that cheating is rewarded with 96% of vote retention, thanks right-wing baby boomers for your undying commitment to ethics in politics.
Collapse of the far-right, who loses 70% of its votes overall (split into two candidatures, because a part of the FN left since the législatives to follow the ex-number 2…). The FN lost 75% of its votes and is fourth with 7,5% (down from 17,5% in June). The far-right ''dissident'' ends up 8th with 2% of the votes.
At the left:
- Again, the FI arrives first within the left. They lost 44% of their voters, but end up third (11,6% of the votes) instead of fourth, ahead of the FN.
- Collapse of the PS, who ends up 7th with 2,6%. Part of the votes probably went to the Greens (4,5%). The MRC, a small republican left party, was also supporting the FI candidature this time instead of running for social-democrats like it did in June. The PS lost 83% of its votes.
- The overall score of the left, S&D included, goes down from 23,8% to 20,3%.
In the 95-01 district:
Abstention skyrocketed from 51,9% to 79,7%. Out of the 16k who expressed a vote:
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/QPbAj7a.jpg) EELV = Greens PCF = Communists
The majority loses 65% of its votes. In this district, the overall score of the left increased from 22,8% to 27,8%. The FI ends up third, again ahead of the FN which loses the most votes (-72%). Oddly enough, the PS is above 5%.
Conclusions…
- In the next local elections (municipales are in 2020), Macron will have troubles challenging the historic right in territories where its implantation is strong.
- The FN is in deep crisis. Those who left it to found Les Patriotes will most likely achieve nothing on their own (as shows their 2% scores).
- The FI confirms its status as the first left-wing party.
- Social-democrats are still dead, somewhere between the 5th and the 7th place.
Obviously the massive abstention (with probably 80 to 90% abstention among the youth and lower classes…) and lack of national campaign make those élections special.
|
I like how the FN just completely fell apart
|
On January 29 2018 08:47 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2018 07:54 Sent. wrote:
I meant only that our crimes get disproportionate amount of attention in international media, not that French (or any other) crimes are ignored in France or by people from other countries. I really don't think they do. This discussion is the first time i have ever heard someone talk about specifically polish crimes during WW2. German, of course. Soviet, yes. French stuff i have also heard about before, and even some romanian things. But i don't think a lot of people outside of poland really care about crimes committed by polish people during WW2.
Same here. Never seen anyone who thought Polish death camps meant the death camps were polish instead of from Nazi Germany either. This looks like a non issue to me.
|
It's hard to defend a law I don't support, but this member of Knesset makes it easier. I don't think he's talking about the location of those camps.
Yes, Poles committed crimes during ww2. Listing us as complicitors in Holocaust like that feels unfair because it makes it look like we did much more harm than good to Jews during the war or even that we (as a nation) were on the German side. Add to that the recent presentation of celebrating our independence day as an anti-semitic neo-nazi rally and you should at least understand why there are overreactions from our side too.
It would be a non issue in a calm discussion between rational people, but those are rare nowadays, so we keep getting guys from one side claiming people use "Polish death camps" on purpose and guys from the other side claiming that protesting against using that phrase means total denial of responsibility. And then the non issue stops being one and Morawiecki has to call Netanjahu to exchange courtesies.
|
As the others before me, I just never have heard someone blaming anything ww2 on the polish people. Therefore this law seems like usual populist bull...
|
Most of the negative coverage I've seen around Poland centers around the antisemitic narrative they interpret WWII through and their willingness to heap blame on Jews for the troubles of those times. That and their homebrew brand of nationalism that leads to relitigating random shit throughout the nation's history. As far as Nazi collaboration goes, Poland was not among the worst, and I don't really see anyone suggesting otherwise. I'm sure some people do it but I really doubt it's mainstream.
|
On January 29 2018 23:56 Sent. wrote:It's hard to defend a law I don't support, but this member of Knesset makes it easier. I don't think he's talking about the location of those camps. https://twitter.com/yairlapid/status/957208421794709504Yes, Poles committed crimes during ww2. Listing us as complicitors in Holocaust like that feels unfair because it makes it look like we did much more harm than good to Jews during the war or even that we (as a nation) were on the German side. Add to that the recent presentation of celebrating our independence day as an anti-semitic neo-nazi rally and you should at least understand why there are overreactions from our side too. It would be a non issue in a calm discussion between rational people, but those are rare nowadays, so we keep getting guys from one side claiming people use "Polish death camps" on purpose and guys from the other side claiming that protesting against using that phrase means total denial of responsibility. And then the non issue stops being one and Morawiecki has to call Netanjahu to exchange courtesies.
The problem with laws like this, beyond the obvious that they stifle discussion, is that they are often abused when they are enforced. The enforcement of these laws won’t be about civil discussion of WW2, but used to silence one side of that discussion.
|
Nyxisto, what's going on with the strikes in the metallurgy sector?
|
On January 30 2018 03:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2018 23:56 Sent. wrote:It's hard to defend a law I don't support, but this member of Knesset makes it easier. I don't think he's talking about the location of those camps. https://twitter.com/yairlapid/status/957208421794709504Yes, Poles committed crimes during ww2. Listing us as complicitors in Holocaust like that feels unfair because it makes it look like we did much more harm than good to Jews during the war or even that we (as a nation) were on the German side. Add to that the recent presentation of celebrating our independence day as an anti-semitic neo-nazi rally and you should at least understand why there are overreactions from our side too. It would be a non issue in a calm discussion between rational people, but those are rare nowadays, so we keep getting guys from one side claiming people use "Polish death camps" on purpose and guys from the other side claiming that protesting against using that phrase means total denial of responsibility. And then the non issue stops being one and Morawiecki has to call Netanjahu to exchange courtesies. The problem with laws like this, beyond the obvious that they stifle discussion, is that they are often abused when they are enforced. The enforcement of these laws won’t be about civil discussion of WW2, but used to silence one side of that discussion.
The law was actually targeted against shit like using frazes "polish death camps" or claims like "Poland is co-responsible for holocaust" or "Poland is guilty for deathcamps". First one at last can be "geographical shortcut", the second and third, however is the heaviest insult to a state that you can imagine (international law says that the occupying forces are responsible for lawfullness on the administered occupied territories - wich does mean that even if 1/3 of its citizens were guilty of crimes against the Jews, polish state cannot be accused).
The exact excerpt that was controversial was:
"Whoever accuses, publicly and against the facts, the Polish nation, or the Polish state, of being responsible or complicit in the Nazi crimes committed by the Third German Reich … or other crimes against peace and humanity, or war crimes, or otherwise grossly diminishes the actual perpetrators thereof, shall be subject to a fine or a penalty of imprisonment of up to three years"
According to that law, if taken practicaly and lawfully, NOBODY can be penalised for accusing polish people for pogroms (Kielce, f.e.), spontanous massacres of the civilians (like Jedwabne on jewish, Dubinki on lithuanian f.e.), writing that many jews were denoted to Nazis by so-called "szmalcownicy", controvercy on the activity of the so-called violet police or individual murders. That's because its NOT counterfactual.
So what the hell is that fuzz all about?
However, I'm not actually convinced that its corectly writen law. In my opinion, its too wide and leave too many gaps open to interpretation, and thus IT MIGHT BE ABUSED WITH MALICIOUS INTENTION. That still didn't deserve the shitstorm it started.
The more controvertial is that fragment: "or otherwise grossly diminishes the actual perpetrators thereof" - that's because its too arbitrary and the line is too blured. Is telling that it's the 4 milions jews that died from the nazi activity in WW2 instead of 6 milion a gross diminishing or not? Should the questioning of numbers of polish civilians killed in Warsaw Uprising or questioning the responsibility of individuals like Heinz Reinefarth or von dem Bach penalised or not?
Another thing is the ridiculous amount of stupidity wrote on press, internet (polish trolls and twitter attention whores)or said by politicians. While we cannot expect anything more from press and internet, somebody would thogh, that at last politicians are going to be carefull. Nah, not this time... If the citations gave here https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5076939,00.html are not out-of-context quotes, and are pretty accurate, than Nethanyahu is in fact an idiot, and it's clear he didnt even read what changes were voted.
|
Passing laws making it illegal to discuss the holocaust in specific way is always going to be a hot button issue and create a fuss. There isn’t a great history for those types of laws and holocaust denial is a constant, looming threat. Especially now that the majority of people who lived through it has passed on.
|
On January 30 2018 05:41 Plansix wrote:
Passing laws making it illegal to discuss the holocaust in specific way is always going to be a hot button issue and create a fuss. There isn’t a great history for those types of laws and holocaust denial is a constant, looming threat. Especially now that the majority of people who lived through it has passed on.
The funny thing is the holocaust denial is already penalised by polish law. + Show Spoiler +
|
On January 30 2018 05:43 hitthat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2018 05:41 Plansix wrote:
Passing laws making it illegal to discuss the holocaust in specific way is always going to be a hot button issue and create a fuss. There isn’t a great history for those types of laws and holocaust denial is a constant, looming threat. Especially now that the majority of people who lived through it has passed on. The funny thing is the holocaust denial is already penalised by polish law. + Show Spoiler +
Yeah. I think the issue might be that people are concerned the new will be aggressively enforced, while that one will not be enforced.
|
Any laws that impede discussion are unacceptable in my book. Everyone should be free to say whatever he wants, otherwise you don't really have freedom of speech.
Like WTF is this :
Whoever accuses, publicly and against the facts, the Polish nation, or the Polish state...
That reminds me of some old laws from the communist era.
If someone accuses you in something absurd, you just show him the evidence and laugh at his stupidity... But I guess putting people in jail is more satisfying. Not to mention that historical "facts" are not really a constant and depend on the political situation, so it's not smart(to say the least) to put them as the basis of your law and by proxy in your Criminal code.
|
On January 30 2018 07:13 Pr0wler wrote:Any laws that impede discussion are unacceptable in my book. Everyone should be free to say whatever he wants, otherwise you don't really have freedom of speech. Like WTF is this : Show nested quote +Whoever accuses, publicly and against the facts, the Polish nation, or the Polish state... That reminds me of some old laws from the communist era. If someone accuses you in something absurd, you just show him the evidence and laugh at his stupidity... But I guess putting people in jail is more satisfying. Not to mention that historical "facts" are not really a constant and depend on the political situation, so it's not smart(to say the least) to put them as the basis of your law and by proxy in your Criminal code.
While I actually agree on this, the freedom of speech was already impede when we apparently started penalisation of "religious sensitivity" offenders and holocaust deniers.
And yes, I'm aware that each case must be looked on separately.
|
On January 30 2018 07:13 Pr0wler wrote:
Any laws that impede discussion are unacceptable in my book. Everyone should be free to say whatever he wants, otherwise you don't really have freedom of speech.
Oh yes, I can't wait to see racists assert that Blacks, Jews, Arabs, Muslims, etc. are sub-humans because "freedom of speech". + Show Spoiler +"Freedom of speech" which is largely an illusion anyway since the access to the public debate is dramatically unequal. "Freedom of speech" in a vacuum is nothing if you don't have the material means to be heard, one way or another, which is how certain ideas are almost muted.
|
On January 30 2018 07:38 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2018 07:13 Pr0wler wrote:
Any laws that impede discussion are unacceptable in my book. Everyone should be free to say whatever he wants, otherwise you don't really have freedom of speech. Oh yes, I can't wait to see racists assert that Blacks, Jews, Arabs, Muslims, etc. are sub-humans because "freedom of speech". + Show Spoiler +"Freedom of speech" which is largely an illusion anyway since the access to the public debate is dramatically unequal. "Freedom of speech" in a vacuum is nothing if you don't have the material means to be heard, one way or another, which is how certain ideas are almost muted. Makes for extremely relevant conversations to discuss your own humanity with that kind of scum, with grand debates such as "Should they be simply despised, deported or slaughtered?"
Because having such laws fixed everything and racism doesn't exist. Nobody is saying anything against the Muslims or Arabs. The punishments are totally working. We just ban some topics and voila the issues are gone, just like sweeping thrash under the rug.
Old Russian proverb : "В споре рождается истина."(The truth is born in argument).
|
Well a proverb is all that is because very few people will change their opinion after an argument. The libertarian free speech argument is fundamentally misguided. Free speech is only possible when parties enter a discussion in good faith. There is no reason for people to tolerate racist drivel given that racists enter the discussion with the goal to use their speech rights to undermine society. Letting illiberal people exploit liberal tools just for some idealistic end is naive.
|
I personally can't recall a case when discussion undermined society. If anything some people will realize how outrageous and wrong are their beliefs, when presented with the evidence of the opposing side. Some will not, but it's still more than nothing. Right now it doesn't actually matter whether you tolerate them or not. As I said, these groups of people already are saying what they have to say and no law can stop them. You can always ignore them, but I don't agree that this is the best course of actions.
On January 30 2018 07:37 hitthat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2018 07:13 Pr0wler wrote:Any laws that impede discussion are unacceptable in my book. Everyone should be free to say whatever he wants, otherwise you don't really have freedom of speech. Like WTF is this : Whoever accuses, publicly and against the facts, the Polish nation, or the Polish state... That reminds me of some old laws from the communist era. If someone accuses you in something absurd, you just show him the evidence and laugh at his stupidity... But I guess putting people in jail is more satisfying. Not to mention that historical "facts" are not really a constant and depend on the political situation, so it's not smart(to say the least) to put them as the basis of your law and by proxy in your Criminal code. While I actually agree on this, the freedom of speech was already impede when we apparently started penalisation of "religious sensitivity" offenders and holocaust deniers. And yes, I'm aware that each case must be looked on separately.
These are dumb, too.
|
On January 30 2018 08:14 Pr0wler wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2018 07:38 TheDwf wrote:On January 30 2018 07:13 Pr0wler wrote:
Any laws that impede discussion are unacceptable in my book. Everyone should be free to say whatever he wants, otherwise you don't really have freedom of speech. Oh yes, I can't wait to see racists assert that Blacks, Jews, Arabs, Muslims, etc. are sub-humans because "freedom of speech". + Show Spoiler +"Freedom of speech" which is largely an illusion anyway since the access to the public debate is dramatically unequal. "Freedom of speech" in a vacuum is nothing if you don't have the material means to be heard, one way or another, which is how certain ideas are almost muted. Makes for extremely relevant conversations to discuss your own humanity with that kind of scum, with grand debates such as "Should they be simply despised, deported or slaughtered?" Because having such laws fixed everything and racism doesn't exist. Nobody is saying anything against the Muslims or Arabs. The punishments are totally working. We just ban some topics and voila the issues are gone, just like sweeping thrash under the rug. Old Russian proverb : "В споре рождается истина."(The truth is born in argument).
Yes, because you can totally have rational discussions with people who think that "[Group X] is made of vermins who soil our nation" or "[Group Y] is inferior because it's in their genes" or "homosexuals are an abomination which goes against God's Will".
The law cannot ban racism because you cannot "ban" an idea, you can simply prevent its expression (or rather, punish it). That's what laws against hate speeches do and I am glad that they exist.
|
On January 30 2018 19:17 Pr0wler wrote:I personally can't recall a case when discussion undermined society. If anything some people will realize how outrageous and wrong are their beliefs, when presented with the evidence of the opposing side. Some will not, but it's still more than nothing. Right now it doesn't actually matter whether you tolerate them or not. As I said, these groups of people already are saying what they have to say and no law can stop them. You can always ignore them, but I don't agree that this is the best course of actions. Show nested quote +On January 30 2018 07:37 hitthat wrote:On January 30 2018 07:13 Pr0wler wrote:Any laws that impede discussion are unacceptable in my book. Everyone should be free to say whatever he wants, otherwise you don't really have freedom of speech. Like WTF is this : Whoever accuses, publicly and against the facts, the Polish nation, or the Polish state... That reminds me of some old laws from the communist era. If someone accuses you in something absurd, you just show him the evidence and laugh at his stupidity... But I guess putting people in jail is more satisfying. Not to mention that historical "facts" are not really a constant and depend on the political situation, so it's not smart(to say the least) to put them as the basis of your law and by proxy in your Criminal code. While I actually agree on this, the freedom of speech was already impede when we apparently started penalisation of "religious sensitivity" offenders and holocaust deniers. And yes, I'm aware that each case must be looked on separately. These are dumb, too.
Arguments from "I personally can't recall" aren't very convincing... it's very close to the appeal to personal incredulity. Saying "discussion has never undermined society" is basically reframing the problem so as to avoid saying "discussion never influences harmful actions", which is bogus (and explains why you'd frame it this way).
It's been well studied that people don't change their beliefs when confronted with evidence that opposes their beliefs. They actually get reinforced. We even have a name to call it now: the backfire effect.
The threat of punishment (whether it is by law or social ostracization) does prevent people from spouting hateful things. We are social animals. If you're really committed to it, you'll likely join an activist type group. And if you do, you'll soon get on a 'hateful group' list and you'll struggle more to push your hateful ideas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
