|
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. |
It's actually not hard at all to make people care for eachother. It's the basis of human history. The only way to make your civilisation bigger is to expand the group people feel they belong to. And above small village (200-300 people) you have to do it artificially because we don't have more capacity for connections than that.
It goes from family, tribe, village, town, city, clan, religion, currency, nationstate, CULTURE etc.
Continent and humanity are to high up for most.
People like to belong and are hardwired to not care as much for other groups.
We built civilisation around constantly building larger social constructs that we can belong to.
Untill about 50 years ago when we reversed course, stopped the indoctrination into proven concepts and started new ones.
People don't like it, and the reaction is to vote against it.
But keep seeing them as poor plebs that don't understand any better, I'm sure it will go well (hint; it won't).
Realise that democracy means the will of the people and either give them what they want or come up with something better.
One thing Trump has nailed down is that it's the feeling that matters.
For example if the EU was reframed as nation states cooperating with each other in a fair way nothing would have to change and people would be happiet.
|
On February 27 2025 03:32 r00ty wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2025 00:20 Broetchenholer wrote:
I feel you. Despite living in of the cheapest flat in my high income city and being firmly in the top 10% of income per household with my wife, we have just enough saved up that i am not too concerned with my wife currently not working due to our offspring spawning 2 months ago. Next step will probably be to find another home as the 3 room appartment wil get very small as soon as the offspring is starting to get mobile, if that happens i am royally fucked cause my fix costs, if i find something new, will go up by 1000€ per month.
I have no clue how the families with half or less of what i am making survive in my city. I am living a good life, don't get me wrong, but considering i am supposed to be upper middle class by sheer luck of being born to intelligent parents and finding a lucrative job i don't really deserve, i am wildly perplexed how parties like CDU and FDP still have people voting for them if their message is "just work harder".
The difference between the middle class now and 2 generation ago is staggering. If the people below that amount of wealth are unhappy with the status quo i get that completely.
My dad, born in 1939 retired at 52 in a factory job not requiring an education and he has 3000€/month with the pension and extra payments because he received a settlement for having been exposed to chemicals, that destroyed his health. That's the money that allows us to keep the house. I couldn't afford it otherwise, doesn't feel good. No one is ever going to attack the pensioneers because they are the most important voting block but they really don't understand how good they had it. Somehow they didn't get robbed as a hard as we are getting atm.
I think the single most important factor of reducing living costs in Germany is Energy. Electricity and heating are just too damn expensive. Not only would it directly become cheaper but produced stuff (food, other goods) would also be cheaper.
I can somewhat understand why Germany steered away from nuclear energy back in the day. I cannot understand why we didn't reinvest in more modern and saver nuclear energy like ones Bill Gates does or the likes. Fusion is too far off and we need something to fill the holes that solar and wind energy will always have.
|
On February 27 2025 16:02 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
It's actually not hard at all to make people care for eachother. It's the basis of human history. The only way to make your civilisation bigger is to expand the group people feel they belong to. And above small village (200-300 people) you have to do it artificially because we don't have more capacity for connections than that.
It goes from family, tribe, village, town, city, clan, religion, currency, nationstate, CULTURE etc.
Continent and humanity are to high up for most.
People like to belong and are hardwired to not care as much for other groups.
We built civilisation around constantly building larger social constructs that we can belong to.
Untill about 50 years ago when we reversed course, stopped the indoctrination into proven concepts and started new ones.
People don't like it, and the reaction is to vote against it.
But keep seeing them as poor plebs that don't understand any better, I'm sure it will go well (hint; it won't).
Realise that democracy means the will of the people and either give them what they want or come up with something better.
One thing Trump has nailed down is that it's the feeling that matters.
For example if the EU was reframed as nation states cooperating with each other in a fair way nothing would have to change and people would be happiet.
That is not true. The EU is aways a scapegoat and almost never the cause for trouble. The people don't know what they want, me included. We yell for solutions that sound fancy in our brain, either because we thought we were smort ourselves or because telegram told us and then someone more clever tells us why this is a stupid idea. You have to solve the issues that spark someone to yell what they want. For me, more effort to combat climate change and a strngthening of the bottom 90% in society. For my brother-in-law, better infrstructure and job opportunity in his town in the middle of nowhere i north east germany. That man was furious whenever he heard or saw about last generation blocking streets, but when his wife cam home 3 hours late because of the farmers protest against the same government but with support from his party AfD, he was exstatic that she was part of the protest movement. Despite AfD being the least farmer friendly party in the country.
People want unreasonable things. People want hateful things. You cannot give in to stupidity. If The party he elected would get into office and leave the EU, our society would leóse an unimaginable amount of wealth which is directly opposed to what he really wants.
I agree, we need to invest resources, ideally after we take them from people with too many resources and invest them into areas that hurt the most in our society. But just doing what the public "wants" in a time where opinion is formed by fake news and hyper partisan bubbles is just suicide on Brexit level.
|
On February 27 2025 17:51 Harris1st wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2025 03:32 r00ty wrote:On February 27 2025 00:20 Broetchenholer wrote:
I feel you. Despite living in of the cheapest flat in my high income city and being firmly in the top 10% of income per household with my wife, we have just enough saved up that i am not too concerned with my wife currently not working due to our offspring spawning 2 months ago. Next step will probably be to find another home as the 3 room appartment wil get very small as soon as the offspring is starting to get mobile, if that happens i am royally fucked cause my fix costs, if i find something new, will go up by 1000€ per month.
I have no clue how the families with half or less of what i am making survive in my city. I am living a good life, don't get me wrong, but considering i am supposed to be upper middle class by sheer luck of being born to intelligent parents and finding a lucrative job i don't really deserve, i am wildly perplexed how parties like CDU and FDP still have people voting for them if their message is "just work harder".
The difference between the middle class now and 2 generation ago is staggering. If the people below that amount of wealth are unhappy with the status quo i get that completely.
My dad, born in 1939 retired at 52 in a factory job not requiring an education and he has 3000€/month with the pension and extra payments because he received a settlement for having been exposed to chemicals, that destroyed his health. That's the money that allows us to keep the house. I couldn't afford it otherwise, doesn't feel good. No one is ever going to attack the pensioneers because they are the most important voting block but they really don't understand how good they had it. Somehow they didn't get robbed as a hard as we are getting atm. I think the single most important factor of reducing living costs in Germany is Energy. Electricity and heating are just too damn expensive. Not only would it directly become cheaper but produced stuff (food, other goods) would also be cheaper. I can somewhat understand why Germany steered away from nuclear energy back in the day. I cannot understand why we didn't reinvest in more modern and saver nuclear energy like ones Bill Gates does or the likes. Fusion is too far off and we need something to fill the holes that solar and wind energy will always have.
I agree. Nuclear power is the best transition source, till we have something better and also would be the best source to cover downtimes of renewables. We're basically using coal to power electric vehicles atm. One earthquake in Japan and we threw the safest nuclear power plants in the world away. For what? If the ones of other countries bordering us would have an incident, what does it matter?
But that ship has sailed. You just don't reactivate a nuclear power plant with a political decision, first of all not in Germany. Building new ones would take 20 years optimistically. That's 5 election cycles.
Edit: What we got for being able to quit nuclear power was a reliance on Russian natural gas. And you know how that went.
|
On February 27 2025 18:18 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2025 16:02 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
It's actually not hard at all to make people care for eachother. It's the basis of human history. The only way to make your civilisation bigger is to expand the group people feel they belong to. And above small village (200-300 people) you have to do it artificially because we don't have more capacity for connections than that.
It goes from family, tribe, village, town, city, clan, religion, currency, nationstate, CULTURE etc.
Continent and humanity are to high up for most.
People like to belong and are hardwired to not care as much for other groups.
We built civilisation around constantly building larger social constructs that we can belong to.
Untill about 50 years ago when we reversed course, stopped the indoctrination into proven concepts and started new ones.
People don't like it, and the reaction is to vote against it.
But keep seeing them as poor plebs that don't understand any better, I'm sure it will go well (hint; it won't).
Realise that democracy means the will of the people and either give them what they want or come up with something better.
One thing Trump has nailed down is that it's the feeling that matters.
For example if the EU was reframed as nation states cooperating with each other in a fair way nothing would have to change and people would be happiet. That is not true. The EU is aways a scapegoat and almost never the cause for trouble. The people don't know what they want, me included. We yell for solutions that sound fancy in our brain, either because we thought we were smort ourselves or because telegram told us and then someone more clever tells us why this is a stupid idea. You have to solve the issues that spark someone to yell what they want. For me, more effort to combat climate change and a strngthening of the bottom 90% in society. For my brother-in-law, better infrstructure and job opportunity in his town in the middle of nowhere i north east germany. That man was furious whenever he heard or saw about last generation blocking streets, but when his wife cam home 3 hours late because of the farmers protest against the same government but with support from his party AfD, he was exstatic that she was part of the protest movement. Despite AfD being the least farmer friendly party in the country. People want unreasonable things. People want hateful things. You cannot give in to stupidity. If The party he elected would get into office and leave the EU, our society would leóse an unimaginable amount of wealth which is directly opposed to what he really wants. I agree, we need to invest resources, ideally after we take them from people with too many resources and invest them into areas that hurt the most in our society. But just doing what the public "wants" in a time where opinion is formed by fake news and hyper partisan bubbles is just suicide on Brexit level.
LOL, if you say so. Every single nordic country is ahead of Germany on the far right party curve.
In all cases refusing to deal with them or their issues and talking about how their stupid supporters are and how they only want X because of Y has lead to one thing.
They double up the next election.
However working with them and/or taking on some of their core issues. Then suddenly something magical happens. They stop growing, sometimes they even deflate.
Germany can choose to deal with some of AfDs issues now or keep calling them idiots and then deal with them when they are the largest party next election.
|
On February 27 2025 22:11 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2025 18:18 Broetchenholer wrote:On February 27 2025 16:02 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
It's actually not hard at all to make people care for eachother. It's the basis of human history. The only way to make your civilisation bigger is to expand the group people feel they belong to. And above small village (200-300 people) you have to do it artificially because we don't have more capacity for connections than that.
It goes from family, tribe, village, town, city, clan, religion, currency, nationstate, CULTURE etc.
Continent and humanity are to high up for most.
People like to belong and are hardwired to not care as much for other groups.
We built civilisation around constantly building larger social constructs that we can belong to.
Untill about 50 years ago when we reversed course, stopped the indoctrination into proven concepts and started new ones.
People don't like it, and the reaction is to vote against it.
But keep seeing them as poor plebs that don't understand any better, I'm sure it will go well (hint; it won't).
Realise that democracy means the will of the people and either give them what they want or come up with something better.
One thing Trump has nailed down is that it's the feeling that matters.
For example if the EU was reframed as nation states cooperating with each other in a fair way nothing would have to change and people would be happiet. That is not true. The EU is aways a scapegoat and almost never the cause for trouble. The people don't know what they want, me included. We yell for solutions that sound fancy in our brain, either because we thought we were smort ourselves or because telegram told us and then someone more clever tells us why this is a stupid idea. You have to solve the issues that spark someone to yell what they want. For me, more effort to combat climate change and a strngthening of the bottom 90% in society. For my brother-in-law, better infrstructure and job opportunity in his town in the middle of nowhere i north east germany. That man was furious whenever he heard or saw about last generation blocking streets, but when his wife cam home 3 hours late because of the farmers protest against the same government but with support from his party AfD, he was exstatic that she was part of the protest movement. Despite AfD being the least farmer friendly party in the country. People want unreasonable things. People want hateful things. You cannot give in to stupidity. If The party he elected would get into office and leave the EU, our society would leóse an unimaginable amount of wealth which is directly opposed to what he really wants. I agree, we need to invest resources, ideally after we take them from people with too many resources and invest them into areas that hurt the most in our society. But just doing what the public "wants" in a time where opinion is formed by fake news and hyper partisan bubbles is just suicide on Brexit level. In all cases refusing to deal with them or their issues and talking about how their stupid supporters are and how they only want X because of Y has lead to one thing. They double up the next election.
Doubt you could prove they double because of that. People tend to have different reasons for what they're doing, and none of those reasons are usually what you're referencing. Otherwise the left would be killing it right now.
|
On February 27 2025 22:11 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2025 18:18 Broetchenholer wrote:On February 27 2025 16:02 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
It's actually not hard at all to make people care for eachother. It's the basis of human history. The only way to make your civilisation bigger is to expand the group people feel they belong to. And above small village (200-300 people) you have to do it artificially because we don't have more capacity for connections than that.
It goes from family, tribe, village, town, city, clan, religion, currency, nationstate, CULTURE etc.
Continent and humanity are to high up for most.
People like to belong and are hardwired to not care as much for other groups.
We built civilisation around constantly building larger social constructs that we can belong to.
Untill about 50 years ago when we reversed course, stopped the indoctrination into proven concepts and started new ones.
People don't like it, and the reaction is to vote against it.
But keep seeing them as poor plebs that don't understand any better, I'm sure it will go well (hint; it won't).
Realise that democracy means the will of the people and either give them what they want or come up with something better.
One thing Trump has nailed down is that it's the feeling that matters.
For example if the EU was reframed as nation states cooperating with each other in a fair way nothing would have to change and people would be happiet. That is not true. The EU is aways a scapegoat and almost never the cause for trouble. The people don't know what they want, me included. We yell for solutions that sound fancy in our brain, either because we thought we were smort ourselves or because telegram told us and then someone more clever tells us why this is a stupid idea. You have to solve the issues that spark someone to yell what they want. For me, more effort to combat climate change and a strngthening of the bottom 90% in society. For my brother-in-law, better infrstructure and job opportunity in his town in the middle of nowhere i north east germany. That man was furious whenever he heard or saw about last generation blocking streets, but when his wife cam home 3 hours late because of the farmers protest against the same government but with support from his party AfD, he was exstatic that she was part of the protest movement. Despite AfD being the least farmer friendly party in the country. People want unreasonable things. People want hateful things. You cannot give in to stupidity. If The party he elected would get into office and leave the EU, our society would leóse an unimaginable amount of wealth which is directly opposed to what he really wants. I agree, we need to invest resources, ideally after we take them from people with too many resources and invest them into areas that hurt the most in our society. But just doing what the public "wants" in a time where opinion is formed by fake news and hyper partisan bubbles is just suicide on Brexit level. LOL, if you say so. Every single nordic country is ahead of Germany on the far right party curve. In all cases refusing to deal with them or their issues and talking about how their stupid supporters are and how they only want X because of Y has lead to one thing. They double up the next election. However working with them and/or taking on some of their core issues. Then suddenly something magical happens. They stop growing, sometimes they even deflate. Germany can choose to deal with some of AfDs issues now or keep calling them idiots and then deal with them when they are the largest party next election.
There are basically two main talking points of the AfD:
1. Immigration
2. It's a new party which will bring change! All the other parties are stupid and old! Also profit and money for everyone!
The newly elected government has promised to look into 1.
The second point is kinda hard to deflate cause people are buying into that shit with zero evidence and on a basis of fake news
|
On February 27 2025 22:11 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2025 18:18 Broetchenholer wrote:On February 27 2025 16:02 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
It's actually not hard at all to make people care for eachother. It's the basis of human history. The only way to make your civilisation bigger is to expand the group people feel they belong to. And above small village (200-300 people) you have to do it artificially because we don't have more capacity for connections than that.
It goes from family, tribe, village, town, city, clan, religion, currency, nationstate, CULTURE etc.
Continent and humanity are to high up for most.
People like to belong and are hardwired to not care as much for other groups.
We built civilisation around constantly building larger social constructs that we can belong to.
Untill about 50 years ago when we reversed course, stopped the indoctrination into proven concepts and started new ones.
People don't like it, and the reaction is to vote against it.
But keep seeing them as poor plebs that don't understand any better, I'm sure it will go well (hint; it won't).
Realise that democracy means the will of the people and either give them what they want or come up with something better.
One thing Trump has nailed down is that it's the feeling that matters.
For example if the EU was reframed as nation states cooperating with each other in a fair way nothing would have to change and people would be happiet. That is not true. The EU is aways a scapegoat and almost never the cause for trouble. The people don't know what they want, me included. We yell for solutions that sound fancy in our brain, either because we thought we were smort ourselves or because telegram told us and then someone more clever tells us why this is a stupid idea. You have to solve the issues that spark someone to yell what they want. For me, more effort to combat climate change and a strngthening of the bottom 90% in society. For my brother-in-law, better infrstructure and job opportunity in his town in the middle of nowhere i north east germany. That man was furious whenever he heard or saw about last generation blocking streets, but when his wife cam home 3 hours late because of the farmers protest against the same government but with support from his party AfD, he was exstatic that she was part of the protest movement. Despite AfD being the least farmer friendly party in the country. People want unreasonable things. People want hateful things. You cannot give in to stupidity. If The party he elected would get into office and leave the EU, our society would leóse an unimaginable amount of wealth which is directly opposed to what he really wants. I agree, we need to invest resources, ideally after we take them from people with too many resources and invest them into areas that hurt the most in our society. But just doing what the public "wants" in a time where opinion is formed by fake news and hyper partisan bubbles is just suicide on Brexit level. LOL, if you say so. Every single nordic country is ahead of Germany on the far right party curve. In all cases refusing to deal with them or their issues and talking about how their stupid supporters are and how they only want X because of Y has lead to one thing. They double up the next election. However working with them and/or taking on some of their core issues. Then suddenly something magical happens. They stop growing, sometimes they even deflate. Germany can choose to deal with some of AfDs issues now or keep calling them idiots and then deal with them when they are the largest party next election.
what are you suggesting? That we burn down some migrant homes as a compromise? Look, the core of AfD is pure NeoNazi and NeoLiberal. People that subscribe to their ideology are lost to society. There is no upside to "let's deport a few million people, 80% of which are german citizens".
There is also no upside to "let's leave the EU". People that do not operate under the rules of our Grundgesetz or basic math should not affect policy, same as that i do not get my career plns from a toddler. Being a unicorn handler sounds nice, but pays really bad and unicorn poop is super hard to get our of your hair.
If someone says "the immigrants are destroying my chances for a job" i ask them about their economic situation and try to give them advise/policy for a better chance at a more fulfilling life. If they continue with okay, now i am better off but i still want to sink a boat of african refugees, that person loses the chance to contribute to society politically.
As long as the vast majority of people is still okay with the rules that outlaw the opinion of the far right as inhumane, dangerous and stupid, we have to accept that 20% of people feel left out when we tell them that their bigotry is not okay. You do not want Germany with bigotry allowed in the middle of Europe.
|
I think its not just a far right thing but an opposition party thing in general.
Parties grow while in the opposition and shrink while in power. Because kicking, complaining and offering unicorns without having to actually follow through is a whole lot easier then actually having the power to try and fix problems.
|
On February 27 2025 23:29 Gorsameth wrote:
I think its not just a far right thing but an opposition party thing in general.
Parties grow while in the opposition and shrink while in power. Because kicking, complaining and offering unicorns without having to actually follow through is a whole lot easier then actually having the power to try and fix problems.
Strongly agree with that framing.
|
Northern Ireland25073 Posts
On February 27 2025 22:11 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2025 18:18 Broetchenholer wrote:On February 27 2025 16:02 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
It's actually not hard at all to make people care for eachother. It's the basis of human history. The only way to make your civilisation bigger is to expand the group people feel they belong to. And above small village (200-300 people) you have to do it artificially because we don't have more capacity for connections than that.
It goes from family, tribe, village, town, city, clan, religion, currency, nationstate, CULTURE etc.
Continent and humanity are to high up for most.
People like to belong and are hardwired to not care as much for other groups.
We built civilisation around constantly building larger social constructs that we can belong to.
Untill about 50 years ago when we reversed course, stopped the indoctrination into proven concepts and started new ones.
People don't like it, and the reaction is to vote against it.
But keep seeing them as poor plebs that don't understand any better, I'm sure it will go well (hint; it won't).
Realise that democracy means the will of the people and either give them what they want or come up with something better.
One thing Trump has nailed down is that it's the feeling that matters.
For example if the EU was reframed as nation states cooperating with each other in a fair way nothing would have to change and people would be happiet. That is not true. The EU is aways a scapegoat and almost never the cause for trouble. The people don't know what they want, me included. We yell for solutions that sound fancy in our brain, either because we thought we were smort ourselves or because telegram told us and then someone more clever tells us why this is a stupid idea. You have to solve the issues that spark someone to yell what they want. For me, more effort to combat climate change and a strngthening of the bottom 90% in society. For my brother-in-law, better infrstructure and job opportunity in his town in the middle of nowhere i north east germany. That man was furious whenever he heard or saw about last generation blocking streets, but when his wife cam home 3 hours late because of the farmers protest against the same government but with support from his party AfD, he was exstatic that she was part of the protest movement. Despite AfD being the least farmer friendly party in the country. People want unreasonable things. People want hateful things. You cannot give in to stupidity. If The party he elected would get into office and leave the EU, our society would leóse an unimaginable amount of wealth which is directly opposed to what he really wants. I agree, we need to invest resources, ideally after we take them from people with too many resources and invest them into areas that hurt the most in our society. But just doing what the public "wants" in a time where opinion is formed by fake news and hyper partisan bubbles is just suicide on Brexit level. LOL, if you say so. Every single nordic country is ahead of Germany on the far right party curve. In all cases refusing to deal with them or their issues and talking about how their stupid supporters are and how they only want X because of Y has lead to one thing. They double up the next election. However working with them and/or taking on some of their core issues. Then suddenly something magical happens. They stop growing, sometimes they even deflate. Germany can choose to deal with some of AfDs issues now or keep calling them idiots and then deal with them when they are the largest party next election.
Can you show me some success stories in this regard in recent years? I’m earnestly curious.
Treating people like errant children doesn’t work, yeah absolutely. The problem is there’s many you also can’t treat like rational adults either.
*WombaT travels back through a rip in space-time*
‘Ok you can want Brexit for x, y or z reasons, but it’s gonna hit hard economically, at least in the short thru medium term’
‘No it won’t, we’re the UK you bloody mug, people will be queuing up to make trade deals with us!’
‘Sure, but you’re in the biggest trade bloc in the world already. Also didn’t Obama just go on record saying that the US on his watch wouldn’t be making a preferential bilateral trade deal?’
‘Ah but he’s just bluffing innit?’
*WombaT dives back through a rip in space-time back to the Clown Age*
Hm, I’m back, shit. I was hoping to stumble upon a better timeline. Hm, the UK has still lost billions every year as predicted, quel surprise.
The problem is that complex problems usually require complex solutions. There’s usually some sort of cost-benefit, sometimes one may deem a cost worthwhile. Some Brexiters made the call that being untethered from the EU was worth the associated cost, I don’t personally disagree, but they have factored it in.
The problem you’re seeing all over the place is many people want the benefit, but don’t consider the cost. Or if the cost that they were warned about happening, they’ll blame anything but the policy they advocated for.
It’s this mentality that basically shuts down any effort to treat people as adults.
Look at the US tariff situation. I’m sure on Reddit or whatever people are calling advocates idiots, but I mean such is the political internet.
In terms of mainstream reportage, what economists are saying it’s so overwhelmingly neutral in tone. It’s not sanctimonious, it’s not saying people who advocate for them are idiots, at times it concedes why the idea appeals.
But ultimately it lays the arguments out, and almost overwhelmingly concludes it’s a bad policy for all sorts of reasons.
Which people just reject out of hand anyway.
Now I’m not saying a belief in tariffs is a far right policy, merely that the mechanisms are generally applicable to all sorts of far right policy, and how the far right base behave.
They might have legitimate concerns in whatever area, they’ll gravitate to people promising the undeliverable, and instead of blaming the people promising they’ll blame everyone else.
There’s still plenty over here who’ll blame the EU for not being nice enough to the UK for our overall economic performance. Despite voting to leave it, and despite being warned that this would be the consequence, and despite being warned ‘why would the EU do us favours?’
|
On February 28 2025 00:04 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2025 22:11 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On February 27 2025 18:18 Broetchenholer wrote:On February 27 2025 16:02 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
It's actually not hard at all to make people care for eachother. It's the basis of human history. The only way to make your civilisation bigger is to expand the group people feel they belong to. And above small village (200-300 people) you have to do it artificially because we don't have more capacity for connections than that.
It goes from family, tribe, village, town, city, clan, religion, currency, nationstate, CULTURE etc.
Continent and humanity are to high up for most.
People like to belong and are hardwired to not care as much for other groups.
We built civilisation around constantly building larger social constructs that we can belong to.
Untill about 50 years ago when we reversed course, stopped the indoctrination into proven concepts and started new ones.
People don't like it, and the reaction is to vote against it.
But keep seeing them as poor plebs that don't understand any better, I'm sure it will go well (hint; it won't).
Realise that democracy means the will of the people and either give them what they want or come up with something better.
One thing Trump has nailed down is that it's the feeling that matters.
For example if the EU was reframed as nation states cooperating with each other in a fair way nothing would have to change and people would be happiet. That is not true. The EU is aways a scapegoat and almost never the cause for trouble. The people don't know what they want, me included. We yell for solutions that sound fancy in our brain, either because we thought we were smort ourselves or because telegram told us and then someone more clever tells us why this is a stupid idea. You have to solve the issues that spark someone to yell what they want. For me, more effort to combat climate change and a strngthening of the bottom 90% in society. For my brother-in-law, better infrstructure and job opportunity in his town in the middle of nowhere i north east germany. That man was furious whenever he heard or saw about last generation blocking streets, but when his wife cam home 3 hours late because of the farmers protest against the same government but with support from his party AfD, he was exstatic that she was part of the protest movement. Despite AfD being the least farmer friendly party in the country. People want unreasonable things. People want hateful things. You cannot give in to stupidity. If The party he elected would get into office and leave the EU, our society would leóse an unimaginable amount of wealth which is directly opposed to what he really wants. I agree, we need to invest resources, ideally after we take them from people with too many resources and invest them into areas that hurt the most in our society. But just doing what the public "wants" in a time where opinion is formed by fake news and hyper partisan bubbles is just suicide on Brexit level. LOL, if you say so. Every single nordic country is ahead of Germany on the far right party curve. In all cases refusing to deal with them or their issues and talking about how their stupid supporters are and how they only want X because of Y has lead to one thing. They double up the next election. However working with them and/or taking on some of their core issues. Then suddenly something magical happens. They stop growing, sometimes they even deflate. Germany can choose to deal with some of AfDs issues now or keep calling them idiots and then deal with them when they are the largest party next election. Can you show me some success stories in this regard in recent years? I’m earnestly curious. Treating people like errant children doesn’t work, yeah absolutely. The problem is there’s many you also can’t treat like rational adults either. *WombaT travels back through a rip in space-time* ‘Ok you can want Brexit for x, y or z reasons, but it’s gonna hit hard economically, at least in the short thru medium term’ ‘No it won’t, we’re the UK you bloody mug, people will be queuing up to make trade deals with us!’ ‘Sure, but you’re in the biggest trade bloc in the world already. Also didn’t Obama just go on record saying that the US on his watch wouldn’t be making a preferential bilateral trade deal?’ ‘Ah but he’s just bluffing innit?’ *WombaT dives back through a rip in space-time back to the Clown Age* Hm, I’m back, shit. I was hoping to stumble upon a better timeline. Hm, the UK has still lost billions every year as predicted, quel surprise. The problem is that complex problems usually require complex solutions. There’s usually some sort of cost-benefit, sometimes one may deem a cost worthwhile. Some Brexiters made the call that being untethered from the EU was worth the associated cost, I don’t personally disagree, but they have factored it in. The problem you’re seeing all over the place is many people want the benefit, but don’t consider the cost. Or if the cost that they were warned about happening, they’ll blame anything but the policy they advocated for. It’s this mentality that basically shuts down any effort to treat people as adults. Look at the US tariff situation. I’m sure on Reddit or whatever people are calling advocates idiots, but I mean such is the political internet. In terms of mainstream reportage, what economists are saying it’s so overwhelmingly neutral in tone. It’s not sanctimonious, it’s not saying people who advocate for them are idiots, at times it concedes why the idea appeals. But ultimately it lays the arguments out, and almost overwhelmingly concludes it’s a bad policy for all sorts of reasons. Which people just reject out of hand anyway. Now I’m not saying a belief in tariffs is a far right policy, merely that the mechanisms are generally applicable to all sorts of far right policy, and how the far right base behave. They might have legitimate concerns in whatever area, they’ll gravitate to people promising the undeliverable, and instead of blaming the people promising they’ll blame everyone else. There’s still plenty over here who’ll blame the EU for not being nice enough to the UK for our overall economic performance. Despite voting to leave it, and despite being warned that this would be the consequence, and despite being warned ‘why would the EU do us favours?’
I think he has a fair point. Certain topics became too big and relevant, you can't leave the solution to the extremists. The Danish social democrats changing their immigration laws comes to mind as an example.
|
On February 28 2025 01:35 r00ty wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2025 00:04 WombaT wrote:On February 27 2025 22:11 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On February 27 2025 18:18 Broetchenholer wrote:On February 27 2025 16:02 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
It's actually not hard at all to make people care for eachother. It's the basis of human history. The only way to make your civilisation bigger is to expand the group people feel they belong to. And above small village (200-300 people) you have to do it artificially because we don't have more capacity for connections than that.
It goes from family, tribe, village, town, city, clan, religion, currency, nationstate, CULTURE etc.
Continent and humanity are to high up for most.
People like to belong and are hardwired to not care as much for other groups.
We built civilisation around constantly building larger social constructs that we can belong to.
Untill about 50 years ago when we reversed course, stopped the indoctrination into proven concepts and started new ones.
People don't like it, and the reaction is to vote against it.
But keep seeing them as poor plebs that don't understand any better, I'm sure it will go well (hint; it won't).
Realise that democracy means the will of the people and either give them what they want or come up with something better.
One thing Trump has nailed down is that it's the feeling that matters.
For example if the EU was reframed as nation states cooperating with each other in a fair way nothing would have to change and people would be happiet. That is not true. The EU is aways a scapegoat and almost never the cause for trouble. The people don't know what they want, me included. We yell for solutions that sound fancy in our brain, either because we thought we were smort ourselves or because telegram told us and then someone more clever tells us why this is a stupid idea. You have to solve the issues that spark someone to yell what they want. For me, more effort to combat climate change and a strngthening of the bottom 90% in society. For my brother-in-law, better infrstructure and job opportunity in his town in the middle of nowhere i north east germany. That man was furious whenever he heard or saw about last generation blocking streets, but when his wife cam home 3 hours late because of the farmers protest against the same government but with support from his party AfD, he was exstatic that she was part of the protest movement. Despite AfD being the least farmer friendly party in the country. People want unreasonable things. People want hateful things. You cannot give in to stupidity. If The party he elected would get into office and leave the EU, our society would leóse an unimaginable amount of wealth which is directly opposed to what he really wants. I agree, we need to invest resources, ideally after we take them from people with too many resources and invest them into areas that hurt the most in our society. But just doing what the public "wants" in a time where opinion is formed by fake news and hyper partisan bubbles is just suicide on Brexit level. LOL, if you say so. Every single nordic country is ahead of Germany on the far right party curve. In all cases refusing to deal with them or their issues and talking about how their stupid supporters are and how they only want X because of Y has lead to one thing. They double up the next election. However working with them and/or taking on some of their core issues. Then suddenly something magical happens. They stop growing, sometimes they even deflate. Germany can choose to deal with some of AfDs issues now or keep calling them idiots and then deal with them when they are the largest party next election. Can you show me some success stories in this regard in recent years? I’m earnestly curious. Treating people like errant children doesn’t work, yeah absolutely. The problem is there’s many you also can’t treat like rational adults either. *WombaT travels back through a rip in space-time* ‘Ok you can want Brexit for x, y or z reasons, but it’s gonna hit hard economically, at least in the short thru medium term’ ‘No it won’t, we’re the UK you bloody mug, people will be queuing up to make trade deals with us!’ ‘Sure, but you’re in the biggest trade bloc in the world already. Also didn’t Obama just go on record saying that the US on his watch wouldn’t be making a preferential bilateral trade deal?’ ‘Ah but he’s just bluffing innit?’ *WombaT dives back through a rip in space-time back to the Clown Age* Hm, I’m back, shit. I was hoping to stumble upon a better timeline. Hm, the UK has still lost billions every year as predicted, quel surprise. The problem is that complex problems usually require complex solutions. There’s usually some sort of cost-benefit, sometimes one may deem a cost worthwhile. Some Brexiters made the call that being untethered from the EU was worth the associated cost, I don’t personally disagree, but they have factored it in. The problem you’re seeing all over the place is many people want the benefit, but don’t consider the cost. Or if the cost that they were warned about happening, they’ll blame anything but the policy they advocated for. It’s this mentality that basically shuts down any effort to treat people as adults. Look at the US tariff situation. I’m sure on Reddit or whatever people are calling advocates idiots, but I mean such is the political internet. In terms of mainstream reportage, what economists are saying it’s so overwhelmingly neutral in tone. It’s not sanctimonious, it’s not saying people who advocate for them are idiots, at times it concedes why the idea appeals. But ultimately it lays the arguments out, and almost overwhelmingly concludes it’s a bad policy for all sorts of reasons. Which people just reject out of hand anyway. Now I’m not saying a belief in tariffs is a far right policy, merely that the mechanisms are generally applicable to all sorts of far right policy, and how the far right base behave. They might have legitimate concerns in whatever area, they’ll gravitate to people promising the undeliverable, and instead of blaming the people promising they’ll blame everyone else. There’s still plenty over here who’ll blame the EU for not being nice enough to the UK for our overall economic performance. Despite voting to leave it, and despite being warned that this would be the consequence, and despite being warned ‘why would the EU do us favours?’ I think he has a fair point. Certain topics became too big and relevant, you can't leave the solution to the extremists. The Danish social democrats changing their immigration laws comes to mind as an example.
His framing can't be correct because we have many examples of problems being ignored and it not leading to the success of the party running on fixing them. We also have examples of those parties getting in power, not fixing the problems, and then getting voted out at the next elections even though the problems are still there, happens in the US every four years. You require something a little more specific than the will of the people to explain what's happening here, and that specific thing is (obviously, imo) that powerful people would much rather have us fight on those issues than on the limits of their power like we had been doing in social democracies.
|
On February 27 2025 07:01 Uldridge wrote:
For democracy, everyone surely is looking out for their own still way too much. That's the actual problem. People try to secure themselves and their family by extension if they're like a particularly good person.
The effort to elevate a random stranger (or your neighbor or their next of kin, what!?) is so difficult it seems.
It's part of the problem because looking out for yourself is so difficult. Still you have all these organisations that look out for other people, I'm very glad they exist. They exist for children, disabled people, less fortunate people, addicted people, but somehow that sentiment is not permeating in day to day society. They are more like things to use, instead of models to humble and incorporate. Yet, the only reason they can exist is because of how our society is structured and because there are people that do give a damn. I guess the vast majority of people legit doesn't care. But they do yearn for some social cohesion.
It's a weird conundrum we're facing for sure.
This and so much this. It is incredibly frustrating to me as someone who has almost consistently voted against his own interests out of belief that it was the right move. It is the thing I find the most teeth grinding whenever I make the mistake of listening in on anything politics at work or with parts of my family. I don't mean this as a general endorsement for die Linke(far left german party), there are plenty of things one can object to and it would be totally fine, be it their idea for the economy, foreign policy or whatever you want. But the thing I always hear is basically "they will come for my money waaah", or comes from a "but what if I suddenly get rich? T_T". Around elections you will always have these sites pop up where they go over the various tax reforms and economy plans of the parties, and give you a rough estimate for how much you will benefit / lose from their reforms based on your income, family situation etc. Long story short, I maxed out the income parameter (a value that was a good deal away from what I am making), set family to single, no children (aka the people that will get screwed the most by their tax plans) - and I ended up with a number where I was like "well... I would not be happy about losing out that much per month with my current income, but I could stomach that yeah. I would still be fine". And when I set it down to what I actually make, its whatever and I can't imagine thinking "that money sure could help fix a lot of issues and make the country generally a lot better... but naaaaah screw them, I got mine".
And this is why I have utter contempt for the opinions of said people and think they are an utter detriment to society. I know they make around the same money as I do, or a good deal more, many of them with fiances that also work in good paying jobs.
Also at the same time they bitch and moan about the ruling parties, acknowledge social issues (aaaawww that is so sad... but we won't do anything about it  ), or complain that their kids schools have overcrowded classes, quality of the school in general...
|
Northern Ireland25073 Posts
On February 28 2025 01:35 r00ty wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2025 00:04 WombaT wrote:On February 27 2025 22:11 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On February 27 2025 18:18 Broetchenholer wrote:On February 27 2025 16:02 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
It's actually not hard at all to make people care for eachother. It's the basis of human history. The only way to make your civilisation bigger is to expand the group people feel they belong to. And above small village (200-300 people) you have to do it artificially because we don't have more capacity for connections than that.
It goes from family, tribe, village, town, city, clan, religion, currency, nationstate, CULTURE etc.
Continent and humanity are to high up for most.
People like to belong and are hardwired to not care as much for other groups.
We built civilisation around constantly building larger social constructs that we can belong to.
Untill about 50 years ago when we reversed course, stopped the indoctrination into proven concepts and started new ones.
People don't like it, and the reaction is to vote against it.
But keep seeing them as poor plebs that don't understand any better, I'm sure it will go well (hint; it won't).
Realise that democracy means the will of the people and either give them what they want or come up with something better.
One thing Trump has nailed down is that it's the feeling that matters.
For example if the EU was reframed as nation states cooperating with each other in a fair way nothing would have to change and people would be happiet. That is not true. The EU is aways a scapegoat and almost never the cause for trouble. The people don't know what they want, me included. We yell for solutions that sound fancy in our brain, either because we thought we were smort ourselves or because telegram told us and then someone more clever tells us why this is a stupid idea. You have to solve the issues that spark someone to yell what they want. For me, more effort to combat climate change and a strngthening of the bottom 90% in society. For my brother-in-law, better infrstructure and job opportunity in his town in the middle of nowhere i north east germany. That man was furious whenever he heard or saw about last generation blocking streets, but when his wife cam home 3 hours late because of the farmers protest against the same government but with support from his party AfD, he was exstatic that she was part of the protest movement. Despite AfD being the least farmer friendly party in the country. People want unreasonable things. People want hateful things. You cannot give in to stupidity. If The party he elected would get into office and leave the EU, our society would leóse an unimaginable amount of wealth which is directly opposed to what he really wants. I agree, we need to invest resources, ideally after we take them from people with too many resources and invest them into areas that hurt the most in our society. But just doing what the public "wants" in a time where opinion is formed by fake news and hyper partisan bubbles is just suicide on Brexit level. LOL, if you say so. Every single nordic country is ahead of Germany on the far right party curve. In all cases refusing to deal with them or their issues and talking about how their stupid supporters are and how they only want X because of Y has lead to one thing. They double up the next election. However working with them and/or taking on some of their core issues. Then suddenly something magical happens. They stop growing, sometimes they even deflate. Germany can choose to deal with some of AfDs issues now or keep calling them idiots and then deal with them when they are the largest party next election. Can you show me some success stories in this regard in recent years? I’m earnestly curious. Treating people like errant children doesn’t work, yeah absolutely. The problem is there’s many you also can’t treat like rational adults either. *WombaT travels back through a rip in space-time* ‘Ok you can want Brexit for x, y or z reasons, but it’s gonna hit hard economically, at least in the short thru medium term’ ‘No it won’t, we’re the UK you bloody mug, people will be queuing up to make trade deals with us!’ ‘Sure, but you’re in the biggest trade bloc in the world already. Also didn’t Obama just go on record saying that the US on his watch wouldn’t be making a preferential bilateral trade deal?’ ‘Ah but he’s just bluffing innit?’ *WombaT dives back through a rip in space-time back to the Clown Age* Hm, I’m back, shit. I was hoping to stumble upon a better timeline. Hm, the UK has still lost billions every year as predicted, quel surprise. The problem is that complex problems usually require complex solutions. There’s usually some sort of cost-benefit, sometimes one may deem a cost worthwhile. Some Brexiters made the call that being untethered from the EU was worth the associated cost, I don’t personally disagree, but they have factored it in. The problem you’re seeing all over the place is many people want the benefit, but don’t consider the cost. Or if the cost that they were warned about happening, they’ll blame anything but the policy they advocated for. It’s this mentality that basically shuts down any effort to treat people as adults. Look at the US tariff situation. I’m sure on Reddit or whatever people are calling advocates idiots, but I mean such is the political internet. In terms of mainstream reportage, what economists are saying it’s so overwhelmingly neutral in tone. It’s not sanctimonious, it’s not saying people who advocate for them are idiots, at times it concedes why the idea appeals. But ultimately it lays the arguments out, and almost overwhelmingly concludes it’s a bad policy for all sorts of reasons. Which people just reject out of hand anyway. Now I’m not saying a belief in tariffs is a far right policy, merely that the mechanisms are generally applicable to all sorts of far right policy, and how the far right base behave. They might have legitimate concerns in whatever area, they’ll gravitate to people promising the undeliverable, and instead of blaming the people promising they’ll blame everyone else. There’s still plenty over here who’ll blame the EU for not being nice enough to the UK for our overall economic performance. Despite voting to leave it, and despite being warned that this would be the consequence, and despite being warned ‘why would the EU do us favours?’ I think he has a fair point. Certain topics became too big and relevant, you can't leave the solution to the extremists. The Danish social democrats changing their immigration laws comes to mind as an example.
Care to expand? Not a topic I have encountered on my travels
|
Northern Ireland25073 Posts
On February 28 2025 01:51 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2025 07:01 Uldridge wrote:
For democracy, everyone surely is looking out for their own still way too much. That's the actual problem. People try to secure themselves and their family by extension if they're like a particularly good person.
The effort to elevate a random stranger (or your neighbor or their next of kin, what!?) is so difficult it seems.
It's part of the problem because looking out for yourself is so difficult. Still you have all these organisations that look out for other people, I'm very glad they exist. They exist for children, disabled people, less fortunate people, addicted people, but somehow that sentiment is not permeating in day to day society. They are more like things to use, instead of models to humble and incorporate. Yet, the only reason they can exist is because of how our society is structured and because there are people that do give a damn. I guess the vast majority of people legit doesn't care. But they do yearn for some social cohesion.
It's a weird conundrum we're facing for sure. This and so much this. It is incredibly frustrating to me as someone who has almost consistently voted against his own interests out of belief that it was the right move. It is the thing I find the most teeth grinding whenever I make the mistake of listening in on anything politics at work or with parts of my family. I don't mean this as a general endorsement for die Linke(far left german party), there are plenty of things one can object to and it would be totally fine, be it their idea for the economy, foreign policy or whatever you want. But the thing I always hear is basically "they will come for my money waaah", or comes from a "but what if I suddenly get rich? T_T". Around elections you will always have these sites pop up where they go over the various tax reforms and economy plans of the parties, and give you a rough estimate for how much you will benefit / lose from their reforms based on your income, family situation etc. Long story short, I maxed out the income parameter (a value that was a good deal away from what I am making), set family to single, no children (aka the people that will get screwed the most by their tax plans) - and I ended up with a number where I was like "well... I would not be happy about losing out that much per month with my current income, but I could stomach that yeah. I would still be fine". And when I set it down to what I actually make, its whatever and I can't imagine thinking "that money sure could help fix a lot of issues and make the country generally a lot better... but naaaaah screw them, I got mine". And this is why I have utter contempt for the opinions of said people and think they are an utter detriment to society. I know they make around the same money as I do, or a good deal more, many of them with fiances that also work in good paying jobs. Also at the same time they bitch and moan about the ruling parties, acknowledge social issues (aaaawww that is so sad... but we won't do anything about it ), or complain that their kids schools have overcrowded classes, quality of the school in general...
Exactly.
Grab someone they know intimately who’s ill, or fallen on hard times , and get them to tell that person they don’t deserve well-funded services as they’d rather pay less tax.
It’ll not happen, they only have the balls when it’s abstracted out so they don’t have to think about such things, or alternatively get cornered into such an admission.
I’m pretty damn poor, many of my friends aren’t but basically my entire circle, including those making a decent damn wedge, if ya got a house sorted, you’ve got some disposable income for both leisure and security in case of some boiler explosion or needing to replace a car, most of us are grand enough. We’d rather our tax go, hell even increases if it goes to the needy, than pay less to fuck em and give even richer people than us more money in hand.
I imagined many of you have similar friend groups. It’s quite a strange one as it’s most people I interact with, and I’ve good friends in their 50s and 60s too, but the overall tenor of politics seems almost the opposite.
|
On February 28 2025 01:52 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2025 01:35 r00ty wrote:On February 28 2025 00:04 WombaT wrote:On February 27 2025 22:11 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On February 27 2025 18:18 Broetchenholer wrote:On February 27 2025 16:02 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
It's actually not hard at all to make people care for eachother. It's the basis of human history. The only way to make your civilisation bigger is to expand the group people feel they belong to. And above small village (200-300 people) you have to do it artificially because we don't have more capacity for connections than that.
It goes from family, tribe, village, town, city, clan, religion, currency, nationstate, CULTURE etc.
Continent and humanity are to high up for most.
People like to belong and are hardwired to not care as much for other groups.
We built civilisation around constantly building larger social constructs that we can belong to.
Untill about 50 years ago when we reversed course, stopped the indoctrination into proven concepts and started new ones.
People don't like it, and the reaction is to vote against it.
But keep seeing them as poor plebs that don't understand any better, I'm sure it will go well (hint; it won't).
Realise that democracy means the will of the people and either give them what they want or come up with something better.
One thing Trump has nailed down is that it's the feeling that matters.
For example if the EU was reframed as nation states cooperating with each other in a fair way nothing would have to change and people would be happiet. That is not true. The EU is aways a scapegoat and almost never the cause for trouble. The people don't know what they want, me included. We yell for solutions that sound fancy in our brain, either because we thought we were smort ourselves or because telegram told us and then someone more clever tells us why this is a stupid idea. You have to solve the issues that spark someone to yell what they want. For me, more effort to combat climate change and a strngthening of the bottom 90% in society. For my brother-in-law, better infrstructure and job opportunity in his town in the middle of nowhere i north east germany. That man was furious whenever he heard or saw about last generation blocking streets, but when his wife cam home 3 hours late because of the farmers protest against the same government but with support from his party AfD, he was exstatic that she was part of the protest movement. Despite AfD being the least farmer friendly party in the country. People want unreasonable things. People want hateful things. You cannot give in to stupidity. If The party he elected would get into office and leave the EU, our society would leóse an unimaginable amount of wealth which is directly opposed to what he really wants. I agree, we need to invest resources, ideally after we take them from people with too many resources and invest them into areas that hurt the most in our society. But just doing what the public "wants" in a time where opinion is formed by fake news and hyper partisan bubbles is just suicide on Brexit level. LOL, if you say so. Every single nordic country is ahead of Germany on the far right party curve. In all cases refusing to deal with them or their issues and talking about how their stupid supporters are and how they only want X because of Y has lead to one thing. They double up the next election. However working with them and/or taking on some of their core issues. Then suddenly something magical happens. They stop growing, sometimes they even deflate. Germany can choose to deal with some of AfDs issues now or keep calling them idiots and then deal with them when they are the largest party next election. Can you show me some success stories in this regard in recent years? I’m earnestly curious. Treating people like errant children doesn’t work, yeah absolutely. The problem is there’s many you also can’t treat like rational adults either. *WombaT travels back through a rip in space-time* ‘Ok you can want Brexit for x, y or z reasons, but it’s gonna hit hard economically, at least in the short thru medium term’ ‘No it won’t, we’re the UK you bloody mug, people will be queuing up to make trade deals with us!’ ‘Sure, but you’re in the biggest trade bloc in the world already. Also didn’t Obama just go on record saying that the US on his watch wouldn’t be making a preferential bilateral trade deal?’ ‘Ah but he’s just bluffing innit?’ *WombaT dives back through a rip in space-time back to the Clown Age* Hm, I’m back, shit. I was hoping to stumble upon a better timeline. Hm, the UK has still lost billions every year as predicted, quel surprise. The problem is that complex problems usually require complex solutions. There’s usually some sort of cost-benefit, sometimes one may deem a cost worthwhile. Some Brexiters made the call that being untethered from the EU was worth the associated cost, I don’t personally disagree, but they have factored it in. The problem you’re seeing all over the place is many people want the benefit, but don’t consider the cost. Or if the cost that they were warned about happening, they’ll blame anything but the policy they advocated for. It’s this mentality that basically shuts down any effort to treat people as adults. Look at the US tariff situation. I’m sure on Reddit or whatever people are calling advocates idiots, but I mean such is the political internet. In terms of mainstream reportage, what economists are saying it’s so overwhelmingly neutral in tone. It’s not sanctimonious, it’s not saying people who advocate for them are idiots, at times it concedes why the idea appeals. But ultimately it lays the arguments out, and almost overwhelmingly concludes it’s a bad policy for all sorts of reasons. Which people just reject out of hand anyway. Now I’m not saying a belief in tariffs is a far right policy, merely that the mechanisms are generally applicable to all sorts of far right policy, and how the far right base behave. They might have legitimate concerns in whatever area, they’ll gravitate to people promising the undeliverable, and instead of blaming the people promising they’ll blame everyone else. There’s still plenty over here who’ll blame the EU for not being nice enough to the UK for our overall economic performance. Despite voting to leave it, and despite being warned that this would be the consequence, and despite being warned ‘why would the EU do us favours?’ I think he has a fair point. Certain topics became too big and relevant, you can't leave the solution to the extremists. The Danish social democrats changing their immigration laws comes to mind as an example. Care to expand? Not a topic I have encountered on my travels
The Danish social democrats ran on a hardcore immigration policy arguing that the social peace and cohesion is endangered by too much influx of primarily muslim immigrants and creation of parallel societies.
+ Show Spoiler +en.wikipedia.orgParadigm shift
In the period 2019-2023, the government led by Social Democratic Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen made migration policy still stricter.[22][23] This change of direction is known in Denmark as the 'Paradigm shift'.[24] The focus was shifted from integration to return to the countries of origin. In March 2021, the Danish government stated that it would revoke the residency permits for Syrian refugees and deport them back to Syria,[25] becoming the first European country and EU member state to initiate the transition as they revoked 94 Syrians of residency permits.[25][26] In 2022, the then Minister of Integration, Mattias Tesfaye, himself the son of an Ethiopian refugee, said the following: "If you look at the historical background, it is completely normal that left-wing politicians like me are not against migration, but want it to be under control. If it isn't - and it wasn't since the 1980s - low-income and low-educated people pay the highest price for poor integration. It is not the wealthy neighborhoods that have to integrate most of the children. On the contrary, the areas where the traditional social democratic voters and trade unionists live face the greatest problems."[27][28]
In January 2021, prime minister Mette Frederiksen announced that immigration should be limited so it would not threaten the social cohesion of Danish society, which was already under strain, and added that the number of migrants had a strong impact on achieving integration of immigrants. In practice, this meant that the government would actively oppose what it considered the anti-democratic values practiced in Denmark by migrants from Muslim countries.[29]
Features of the present Danish asylum system (2023)
Residence permits in Denmark are almost always temporary: for one or two years and can then be extended for a specified period. The duration of the initial protection and renewal periods depend on the level of protection (see next point). A permanent residence permit is only possible after eight years (or after 4 years of continuous employment and language and residency tests). And even then strict criteria apply. Family reunification is only possible after two years.[30]
Denmark has three different levels of refugee protection. The highest form of protection applies to people who are taken into Denmark under the annual refugee quota, as agreed with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). These are refugees who are seriously ill or disabled. The second level of protection applies to people who are personally persecuted in their country of origin. The third and lowest level of protection concerns people who are not personally persecuted in their country of origin, but who are at risk of becoming victims of violence due to instability there.[31]
To assess an asylum application, the circumstances in the home country of the asylum seeker is taken into account per region. It is therefore possible that an applicant from a country suffering from instability and violence does not receive a residence permit, if the situation in his part of the country is relatively stable.[32]
Asylum seekers with cash or other valuables worth more than 10,000 Danish kroner (converted about 1,344 euros) contribute to the costs of their stay.
Every asylum seeker in Denmark is entitled to meals and shelter in an asylum centre. An asylum seeker may enter into a contract with the asylum center to participate in certain activities, attend classes and/or perform work. Signing this contract entitles him to an additional allowance. In the event of non-compliance with the contract, the allowance will be reduced or withdrawn. Those who are still awaiting a decision on whether their asylum application will be processed in Denmark receive a lower allowance. Asylum seekers with a minimal risk of persecution in the country of origin receive free meals and shelter, but no allowance.[33]
Centers for asylum are mainly aimed at remigration to the country of origin. People whose asylum applications have been rejected are transferred to austere centers, where they are accompanied on their return.
Asylum seekers, immigrants and people with dual nationality (Danish and from a non-EU country) who voluntarily return to their country of origin or the country where their family currently resides receive a return compensation of up to DKK 150,598 (approximately EUR 20,000), excluding travel costs, medicines for a year and costs of 4 years of education for children between 5 and 16 years.[34][33]
Under Danish law, asylum seekers arriving in the country can also be offered refuge outside Europe, at the expense of the Danish government. Denmark is negotiating with Rwanda, among others, about possible locations. These have to meet European standards.[22]
The Danish government expresses in word and writing that they want to significantly reduce the number of asylum seekers. In addition to laws and measures, this has a strong dissuasive effect.[35]
Danish migration and migrant policy
The policy of the Social Democrat government of Denmark since 2019 has gradually become a model for political parties and/or governments in other European countries, especially in the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Austria, Sweden and the UK. It is often referred to as the Danish migration model or Danish immigration model.[36][37][38][39][40][41][42] In its strictness, the Danish migration model is unique in the European Union. With the backing of both sides of the political spectrum Danish policy toward migrants has implemented heavy controls on migration, culture training for the children of immigrants from age one, controls the whether people can wear traditional religious clothing, and areas with high migrant populations being designated "ghettos" are demolished.[3] Some view these policies, which often disproportionately impact racial and ethnic minorities, as motivated by racism and intolerance.[43] Notably UN human rights experts have called Denmark's mandatory cultural training "incompatible" with human rights .[44] The expert's also stressed that laws like the ones on Denmarks "ghettos" also called "parallel societies" stigmatizes and target's minority groups violating their human rights. The experts called on Denmark to "respect its obligations under human rights law based on the premise that all people, simply because they are human beings, should enjoy all human rights without discrimination on any grounds.
And they won. I don't agree with everything they did but at least reasonable people are tackling the issue instead of leaving it to actual Nazis.
|
On February 28 2025 00:04 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2025 22:11 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On February 27 2025 18:18 Broetchenholer wrote:On February 27 2025 16:02 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
It's actually not hard at all to make people care for eachother. It's the basis of human history. The only way to make your civilisation bigger is to expand the group people feel they belong to. And above small village (200-300 people) you have to do it artificially because we don't have more capacity for connections than that.
It goes from family, tribe, village, town, city, clan, religion, currency, nationstate, CULTURE etc.
Continent and humanity are to high up for most.
People like to belong and are hardwired to not care as much for other groups.
We built civilisation around constantly building larger social constructs that we can belong to.
Untill about 50 years ago when we reversed course, stopped the indoctrination into proven concepts and started new ones.
People don't like it, and the reaction is to vote against it.
But keep seeing them as poor plebs that don't understand any better, I'm sure it will go well (hint; it won't).
Realise that democracy means the will of the people and either give them what they want or come up with something better.
One thing Trump has nailed down is that it's the feeling that matters.
For example if the EU was reframed as nation states cooperating with each other in a fair way nothing would have to change and people would be happiet. That is not true. The EU is aways a scapegoat and almost never the cause for trouble. The people don't know what they want, me included. We yell for solutions that sound fancy in our brain, either because we thought we were smort ourselves or because telegram told us and then someone more clever tells us why this is a stupid idea. You have to solve the issues that spark someone to yell what they want. For me, more effort to combat climate change and a strngthening of the bottom 90% in society. For my brother-in-law, better infrstructure and job opportunity in his town in the middle of nowhere i north east germany. That man was furious whenever he heard or saw about last generation blocking streets, but when his wife cam home 3 hours late because of the farmers protest against the same government but with support from his party AfD, he was exstatic that she was part of the protest movement. Despite AfD being the least farmer friendly party in the country. People want unreasonable things. People want hateful things. You cannot give in to stupidity. If The party he elected would get into office and leave the EU, our society would leóse an unimaginable amount of wealth which is directly opposed to what he really wants. I agree, we need to invest resources, ideally after we take them from people with too many resources and invest them into areas that hurt the most in our society. But just doing what the public "wants" in a time where opinion is formed by fake news and hyper partisan bubbles is just suicide on Brexit level. LOL, if you say so. Every single nordic country is ahead of Germany on the far right party curve. In all cases refusing to deal with them or their issues and talking about how their stupid supporters are and how they only want X because of Y has lead to one thing. They double up the next election. However working with them and/or taking on some of their core issues. Then suddenly something magical happens. They stop growing, sometimes they even deflate. Germany can choose to deal with some of AfDs issues now or keep calling them idiots and then deal with them when they are the largest party next election. Can you show me some success stories in this regard in recent years? I’m earnestly curious.
Sure.
Danish peoples party
1998: 7,4%
2001: 12 % (gives parliamentary support for implementation of stricter immigration, continually has influence in politics after this)
2005: 13,2%
2007: 13,9%
2015: 21%
2019: 8,7%
2022: 2,2 %
"Some commentators attributed the losses to internal conditions within the party and conflicts with the leadership, its perceived indecisiveness in government and rival parties adopting many of its policy ideas."
Denmark is doing great. Do you hear a lot of things about the right wing taking over?
Finns party (True Finlanders)
Founded in 1995
2011: Breakthrough, 19,1%
2015: 17,7%, joins coalition government.
2023: 17,5%
Finland is doing great. Hear a lot of right wing stuff from there?
Progress party (Norway)
1985: 3,7%
1989: 13%
1993: 6,3% (leadership declares immigration a non-issue)
1997: 15,3%
2001: 14,6%
2005: 22,1%
2009: 22,9%
2013: 22,9% (first government)
2017: 16,3%
Norway is doing extremely well (but oil and gas so...). Again, lots of panic about right wing parties?
Sweden democrats
2010: 5,7%
2014: 12,9%
2018: 17,5%
2022: 19,1% (supporting the government, first time involved)
2024 (EU elections) 13% (down 2%)
Sweden is not doing particularly great. But we are very late in the curve compared to our neighbours.
People care about their issues, for example immigration. In Sweden there has been a large majority for reduced immigration for a long time (at least since 2010, probably way earlier). But there hasn't been a political majority until now.
In general when fringe parties start existing it's because their issues are being ignored. The more you tell their voters that they are dumb and state that you refuse to listen or work with them, the faster they grow. But once the issues are taken seriously, either by working with the parties themselves or other parties "absorbing" their issues. Then the growth slows, or stops. And sometimes after politics have reformed enough they push themselves to far and lose a lot of support.
Because contrary to popular (leftwing) beliefs most of their voters are not retarded racists who want deport every single immigrant.
Germany, due to their history, is very early in their curve. But trust me that starting to pivot NOW when they are a party you can still work around is much easier than doing it after next election when they are 30-40%.
|
On February 28 2025 02:58 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Danish peoples party
1998: 7,4%
2001: 12 % (gives parliamentary support for implementation of stricter immigration, continually has influence in politics after this)
2005: 13,2%
2007: 13,9%
2015: 21%
2019: 8,7%
2022: 2,2 %
We call that "Taking the wind out of the sail". That's how you deal with a single issue party. Our SPD would be predestined to take that role but they can't get their shit together.
|
The data just doesn't fit. Social democracies are less vulnerable to the far right, that's what we see here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
