|
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 March 04 2017 01:02 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 00:59 LightSpectra wrote:On March 04 2017 00:56 a_flayer wrote:On March 04 2017 00:39 LightSpectra wrote:On March 04 2017 00:21 a_flayer wrote:On March 04 2017 00:19 LightSpectra wrote:
I'd love to have an open debate with a FN supporter, but that's a far cry from those one-liner posts.
Saying "I hope Macron wins" is equally as useless as "I hope Le Pen wins", but it's less inflammatory and troll-ish considering Macron isn't a hatemonger. Good luck finding people to debate with if you label the person they support as hatemongers, and their opinions as inflammatory and troll-ish. Yeah, again, I don't mind having an actual debate with a FN supporter, I also don't mind having an actual debate with a Nazi or Klansman. But that's a lot different from randomly posting "Sieg Heil!"s every once in awhile. Yes, but again, while you're saying you want a debate with these people, you're basically insulting them at the same time - comparing them with nazis and fascists. How do you reckon that will go down on their end? Does that seem like something that might lead to a constructive debate? How did it go down when Hillary called the mindless racist sexist idiots that support Trump "deplorables" ? "Hi sub-human scum, do you want to hold a conversation?" In that same light, I've always found it kind of odd that the Prime Minister of the Netherlands says in advance that he won't work with Wilders in a coalition party when they both get roughly the same amount of votes, and then accuses him of dividing the country. You're doing sort of the same, by accusing that FN supporter of being inflammatory and trollish while at the same time suggesting he's a fascist or a nazi, which is quite inflammatory and trollish in my opinion. I'm sorry, why exactly is it insulting to be called a Nazi or fascist? Does that seem like something that might lead to a constructive debate with Nazis/fascists? You realize you're poisoning the well there, right? Alright man. I just think it's way overdrawn to say these people are fascists and nazis, but apparently you are absolutely certain that is the only way to describe their political views. I see we have a disagreement here, and I don't think it can be resolved.
Yeah, well there's a plurality of opinions here. Traditionally we just exclude self-identified Nazis/fascists from political discourse because their opinions are nothing new or interesting, and it's agreed that they should not be given a podium and microphone to spread their bad views.
But in modern times there's some disagreement. One view is that the folks like Le Pen/Wilders/Petry/etc. are a completely new breed, and so we should let them speak their mind like regular political parties. You're clearly of that mind.
The other view is that they're still essentially fascists, but they've learned to be a little more polite, a little more filtered, and a little more moderate so they can break through the traditional taboos against the far-right. That's the mind I'm of. Do you want to prove me wrong? Great, let's have a reasoned discussion about that. But if you're just going to pop into the forum every once in awhile with a "yay FN!", then no, I'm just going to treat you like the Diet Coke version of a fascist.
|
On March 04 2017 00:38 Artisreal wrote:
Are there any english language publications from the Netherlands that one can read in wake of the upcoming election?
I only unearthed NLtimes and dutchnews as of yet. Which side of the political spectrum are they leaning towards and is there more to take heed of out there?
What exactly are you looking for? An overview of the parties and how they're polling? I don't think the electorate is really leaning towards one side of the political spectrum. What you should know is that the political landscape is very fractured with parties ranging from hardcore socialist to an animal party.
In recent polls our prime ministers party (VVD) has been gaining on Wilders so I wouldn't be surprised if the VVD becomse the biggest after all.
I found this article to be pretty good
http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21716643-geert-wilders-dragging-all-dutch-politics-nationalist-direction-netherlands
|
On March 04 2017 01:10 LegalLord wrote:lol (if we're talking about alternate reality controlling the narrative)
Can you elaborate? Be specific.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 04 2017 01:49 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 01:10 LegalLord wrote:lol (if we're talking about alternate reality controlling the narrative) Can you elaborate? Be specific.
If we want to talk about countries that make up alternate reality depictions of their own place in the world in WWII and beyond, we can look no further than your own country of Poland. The first place to start is the Obama comment in question - an obviously sympathetic statement in an obviously sympathetic context, taken as a disingenuous claim that Poles were complicit in the Holocaust. And don't get me started on your current populist government which, for example, wanted to exhume the bodies of the people killed in the Polish plane crash in Russia out of little more than the pursuit of a conspiracy theory. You complain about biased guests being on Russian TV - well perhaps you should also consider why it is that rabid populists/nationalists are popular enough for you to have the government you currently have.
I don't particularly care if you supported this leader or not. It is true that there are more sane and less sane people in every country. But their vote count reflects on the kind of people you have there. That Jar-o-coleslaw's party has as much influence as it does suggests that his brand of populism has some sway over the national consciousness. Same as LDPR's support in Russia suggests some support for aggressive nationalism, Svoboda's/Right Sector's support in Ukraine suggests some inclination towards fascism, and Trump's support in America suggests some tendency towards being really stupid.
But don't go around claiming someone else is making an alternate reality narrative when your own country does that as good as anyone.
|
On March 04 2017 01:22 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 00:38 Artisreal wrote:
Are there any english language publications from the Netherlands that one can read in wake of the upcoming election?
I only unearthed NLtimes and dutchnews as of yet. Which side of the political spectrum are they leaning towards and is there more to take heed of out there? What exactly are you looking for? An overview of the parties and how they're polling? I don't think the electorate is really leaning towards one side of the political spectrum. What you should know is that the political landscape is very fractured with parties ranging from hardcore socialist to an animal party. In recent polls our prime ministers party (VVD) has been gaining on Wilders so I wouldn't be surprised if the VVD becomse the biggest after all. I found this article to be pretty good http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21716643-geert-wilders-dragging-all-dutch-politics-nationalist-direction-netherlands
Ayy, I should have written newspapers instead of publications, dunno what crossed my mind there.
Thanks for the link, appreciate it.
|
On March 04 2017 01:10 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 00:56 a_flayer wrote:On March 04 2017 00:39 LightSpectra wrote:On March 04 2017 00:21 a_flayer wrote:On March 04 2017 00:19 LightSpectra wrote:
I'd love to have an open debate with a FN supporter, but that's a far cry from those one-liner posts.
Saying "I hope Macron wins" is equally as useless as "I hope Le Pen wins", but it's less inflammatory and troll-ish considering Macron isn't a hatemonger. Good luck finding people to debate with if you label the person they support as hatemongers, and their opinions as inflammatory and troll-ish. Yeah, again, I don't mind having an actual debate with a FN supporter, I also don't mind having an actual debate with a Nazi or Klansman. But that's a lot different from randomly posting "Sieg Heil!"s every once in awhile. Yes, but again, while you're saying you want a debate with these people, you're basically insulting them at the same time - comparing them with nazis and fascists. How do you reckon that will go down on their end? Does that seem like something that might lead to a constructive debate? How did it go down when Hillary called the mindless racist sexist idiots that support Trump "deplorables" ? "Hi sub-human scum, do you want to hold a conversation?" In that same light, I've always found it kind of odd that the Prime Minister of the Netherlands says in advance that he won't work with Wilders in a coalition party when they both get roughly the same amount of votes, and then accuses him of dividing the country. You're doing sort of the same, by accusing that FN supporter of being inflammatory and trollish while at the same time suggesting he's a fascist or a nazi, which is quite inflammatory and trollish in my opinion. The paradox of tolerance: should a tolerant person be tolerant of intolerance? Imho, no. Wilders and his basket of deplorables can go and yell in the corner. Yes, his constituents are upset about valid concerns. No, their way for "dealing" with those concerns are not acceptable policy. And as long as that is their main (and only) concern, there doesn't seem to be any point in dealing with him. I can't see VVD agreeing to a Nexit referendum in a coalition (and if they do, it should be the end of them: they have always portrayed themselves as one of the most pro-Europe parties in the Netherlands). The VVD could probably take a harder stance on migration than they'd normally like to, but that's about it for things that the PVV cares for. It basically means that any "negotiation" about a coalition together is doomed to: 1) fail 2) succeed but be completely onesided in favour of one of the two parties (and thus blow up, just as the previous VVD-PVV coalition did... which was technically a VVD-CDA coalition with PVV support).
I just really dislike the level of polarization that is coming out of all this. Its the same reason why I sort of defend Russia on a political level. I don't think the demonization is necessary in either of these cases, even if I don't agree with certain actions or policies from either of these groups. The polarization is especially worrying to me because these parties have so much support from people. Even if its just in the polls and he doesn't get that much in parliament, 30% is a lot of people.
I don't think Wilders is particularly fascist, or nazi-esque, but I'll admit that I don't know the details of his policies. I've just looked at wikipedia and it didn't seem too out of bounds. If he has in fact talked about rounding up or kicking out 2nd/3rd generation immigrants (whom I would just call Dutch people) then that's problematic. I think the policies listed only include immigrants who 'fail to integrate into society', which means there'd be some sort of standard to measure integration. I don't see anything about undermining democracy, so the term fascist seems completely unfounded to me.
I think just the word "douche" suffices for him, if you want to call him names, rather than hyperbolic terms such as nazi or fascist. I doubt Le Pen is much different. They certainly do have idiotic policies that won't solve any of the problems we are facing, though.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I don't think "douche" or "asshat" is a good way to describe Le Pen. She clearly is a competent person with a specific agenda, one that is very clearly nationalist, and often described by opposition as fascist. It's the agenda that people have a problem with.
Wilders seems like a bit of a loose cannon, a guy who acts somewhat on impulse and treads quite aggressively in that regard.
|
On March 04 2017 02:49 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 01:10 Acrofales wrote:On March 04 2017 00:56 a_flayer wrote:On March 04 2017 00:39 LightSpectra wrote:On March 04 2017 00:21 a_flayer wrote:On March 04 2017 00:19 LightSpectra wrote:
I'd love to have an open debate with a FN supporter, but that's a far cry from those one-liner posts.
Saying "I hope Macron wins" is equally as useless as "I hope Le Pen wins", but it's less inflammatory and troll-ish considering Macron isn't a hatemonger. Good luck finding people to debate with if you label the person they support as hatemongers, and their opinions as inflammatory and troll-ish. Yeah, again, I don't mind having an actual debate with a FN supporter, I also don't mind having an actual debate with a Nazi or Klansman. But that's a lot different from randomly posting "Sieg Heil!"s every once in awhile. Yes, but again, while you're saying you want a debate with these people, you're basically insulting them at the same time - comparing them with nazis and fascists. How do you reckon that will go down on their end? Does that seem like something that might lead to a constructive debate? How did it go down when Hillary called the mindless racist sexist idiots that support Trump "deplorables" ? "Hi sub-human scum, do you want to hold a conversation?" In that same light, I've always found it kind of odd that the Prime Minister of the Netherlands says in advance that he won't work with Wilders in a coalition party when they both get roughly the same amount of votes, and then accuses him of dividing the country. You're doing sort of the same, by accusing that FN supporter of being inflammatory and trollish while at the same time suggesting he's a fascist or a nazi, which is quite inflammatory and trollish in my opinion. The paradox of tolerance: should a tolerant person be tolerant of intolerance? Imho, no. Wilders and his basket of deplorables can go and yell in the corner. Yes, his constituents are upset about valid concerns. No, their way for "dealing" with those concerns are not acceptable policy. And as long as that is their main (and only) concern, there doesn't seem to be any point in dealing with him. I can't see VVD agreeing to a Nexit referendum in a coalition (and if they do, it should be the end of them: they have always portrayed themselves as one of the most pro-Europe parties in the Netherlands). The VVD could probably take a harder stance on migration than they'd normally like to, but that's about it for things that the PVV cares for. It basically means that any "negotiation" about a coalition together is doomed to: 1) fail 2) succeed but be completely onesided in favour of one of the two parties (and thus blow up, just as the previous VVD-PVV coalition did... which was technically a VVD-CDA coalition with PVV support). I just really dislike the level of polarization that is coming out of all this. Its the same reason why I sort of defend Russia on a political level. I don't think the demonization is necessary in either of these cases, even if I don't agree with certain actions or policies from either of these groups. The polarization is especially worrying to me because these parties have so much support from people. Even if its just in the polls and he doesn't get that much in parliament, 30% is a lot of people. I don't think Wilders is particularly fascist, or nazi-esque, but I'll admit that I don't know the details of his policies. I've just looked at wikipedia and it didn't seem too out of bounds. If he has in fact talked about rounding up or kicking out 2nd/3rd generation immigrants (whom I would just call Dutch people) then that's problematic. But even then, I think the policies listed only include immigrants who 'fail to integrate into society', which means there'd be some sort of standard to measure integration. I'd be willing to have a talk about what this level of integration means. I don't see anything about undermining democracy, so the term fascist seems completely unfounded to me. I think just the word "douche" suffices for him, if you want to call him names, rather than hyperbolic terms such as nazi or fascist. I doubt Le Pen is much different. They certainly do have idiotic policies that won't solve any of the problems we are facing, though.
https://www.pvv.nl/visie.html
Close all Mosques, outlaw the Quran, pre-emptively lock up Muslims.
starting up chants of "Less Moroccans" which he is currently in court over.
Sure has all the signals of hate speech. Not the mention an utter disregard for the freedom of religion.
|
On March 04 2017 02:41 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 01:49 maybenexttime wrote:On March 04 2017 01:10 LegalLord wrote:lol (if we're talking about alternate reality controlling the narrative) Can you elaborate? Be specific. If we want to talk about countries that make up alternate reality depictions of their own place in the world in WWII and beyond, we can look no further than your own country of Poland. The first place to start is the Obama comment in question - an obviously sympathetic statement in an obviously sympathetic context, taken as a disingenuous claim that Poles were complicit in the Holocaust. And don't get me started on your current populist government which, for example, wanted to exhume the bodies of the people killed in the Polish plane crash in Russia out of little more than the pursuit of a conspiracy theory. You complain about biased guests being on Russian TV - well perhaps you should also consider why it is that rabid populists/nationalists are popular enough for you to have the government you currently have. I don't particularly care if you supported this leader or not. It is true that there are more sane and less sane people in every country. But their vote count reflects on the kind of people you have there. That Jar-o-coleslaw's party has as much influence as it does suggests that his brand of populism has some sway over the national consciousness. Same as LDPR's support in Russia suggests some support for aggressive nationalism, Svoboda's/Right Sector's support in Ukraine suggests some inclination towards fascism, and Trump's support in America suggests some tendency towards being really stupid. But don't go around claiming someone else is making an alternate reality narrative when your own country does that as good as anyone.
Every country save Germany appears to make up their own reality of WW2. (not to say that there aren't historians, off all people, that deny the holocaust and such but that's not government policy [unless the AfD gets the majority])
Maybe I've missed alot, but do you intend to equate individual polish people aiding Nazi Germany to the Hitler-Stalin pact or the forceful occupation of Europe subsequent to Germany's liberation?
|
On March 04 2017 02:59 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 02:49 a_flayer wrote:On March 04 2017 01:10 Acrofales wrote:On March 04 2017 00:56 a_flayer wrote:On March 04 2017 00:39 LightSpectra wrote:On March 04 2017 00:21 a_flayer wrote:On March 04 2017 00:19 LightSpectra wrote:
I'd love to have an open debate with a FN supporter, but that's a far cry from those one-liner posts.
Saying "I hope Macron wins" is equally as useless as "I hope Le Pen wins", but it's less inflammatory and troll-ish considering Macron isn't a hatemonger. Good luck finding people to debate with if you label the person they support as hatemongers, and their opinions as inflammatory and troll-ish. Yeah, again, I don't mind having an actual debate with a FN supporter, I also don't mind having an actual debate with a Nazi or Klansman. But that's a lot different from randomly posting "Sieg Heil!"s every once in awhile. Yes, but again, while you're saying you want a debate with these people, you're basically insulting them at the same time - comparing them with nazis and fascists. How do you reckon that will go down on their end? Does that seem like something that might lead to a constructive debate? How did it go down when Hillary called the mindless racist sexist idiots that support Trump "deplorables" ? "Hi sub-human scum, do you want to hold a conversation?" In that same light, I've always found it kind of odd that the Prime Minister of the Netherlands says in advance that he won't work with Wilders in a coalition party when they both get roughly the same amount of votes, and then accuses him of dividing the country. You're doing sort of the same, by accusing that FN supporter of being inflammatory and trollish while at the same time suggesting he's a fascist or a nazi, which is quite inflammatory and trollish in my opinion. The paradox of tolerance: should a tolerant person be tolerant of intolerance? Imho, no. Wilders and his basket of deplorables can go and yell in the corner. Yes, his constituents are upset about valid concerns. No, their way for "dealing" with those concerns are not acceptable policy. And as long as that is their main (and only) concern, there doesn't seem to be any point in dealing with him. I can't see VVD agreeing to a Nexit referendum in a coalition (and if they do, it should be the end of them: they have always portrayed themselves as one of the most pro-Europe parties in the Netherlands). The VVD could probably take a harder stance on migration than they'd normally like to, but that's about it for things that the PVV cares for. It basically means that any "negotiation" about a coalition together is doomed to: 1) fail 2) succeed but be completely onesided in favour of one of the two parties (and thus blow up, just as the previous VVD-PVV coalition did... which was technically a VVD-CDA coalition with PVV support). I just really dislike the level of polarization that is coming out of all this. Its the same reason why I sort of defend Russia on a political level. I don't think the demonization is necessary in either of these cases, even if I don't agree with certain actions or policies from either of these groups. The polarization is especially worrying to me because these parties have so much support from people. Even if its just in the polls and he doesn't get that much in parliament, 30% is a lot of people. I don't think Wilders is particularly fascist, or nazi-esque, but I'll admit that I don't know the details of his policies. I've just looked at wikipedia and it didn't seem too out of bounds. If he has in fact talked about rounding up or kicking out 2nd/3rd generation immigrants (whom I would just call Dutch people) then that's problematic. But even then, I think the policies listed only include immigrants who 'fail to integrate into society', which means there'd be some sort of standard to measure integration. I'd be willing to have a talk about what this level of integration means. I don't see anything about undermining democracy, so the term fascist seems completely unfounded to me. I think just the word "douche" suffices for him, if you want to call him names, rather than hyperbolic terms such as nazi or fascist. I doubt Le Pen is much different. They certainly do have idiotic policies that won't solve any of the problems we are facing, though. https://www.pvv.nl/visie.htmlClose all Mosques, outlaw the Quran, pre-emptively lock up Muslims. starting up chants of "Less Moroccans" which he is currently in court over. Sure has all the signals of hate speech. Not the mention an utter disregard for the freedom of religion.
I went to the website as well, yeah, that's basically the same list as on wikipedia although a tad more offensive on the anti-Muslim thing. What is really extremely disappointing to me that people can vote on any politician with such a horribly meagre and empty platform. Like, there's nothing of substance there at all.
|
On March 04 2017 03:16 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 02:59 Gorsameth wrote:On March 04 2017 02:49 a_flayer wrote:On March 04 2017 01:10 Acrofales wrote:On March 04 2017 00:56 a_flayer wrote:On March 04 2017 00:39 LightSpectra wrote:On March 04 2017 00:21 a_flayer wrote:On March 04 2017 00:19 LightSpectra wrote:
I'd love to have an open debate with a FN supporter, but that's a far cry from those one-liner posts.
Saying "I hope Macron wins" is equally as useless as "I hope Le Pen wins", but it's less inflammatory and troll-ish considering Macron isn't a hatemonger. Good luck finding people to debate with if you label the person they support as hatemongers, and their opinions as inflammatory and troll-ish. Yeah, again, I don't mind having an actual debate with a FN supporter, I also don't mind having an actual debate with a Nazi or Klansman. But that's a lot different from randomly posting "Sieg Heil!"s every once in awhile. Yes, but again, while you're saying you want a debate with these people, you're basically insulting them at the same time - comparing them with nazis and fascists. How do you reckon that will go down on their end? Does that seem like something that might lead to a constructive debate? How did it go down when Hillary called the mindless racist sexist idiots that support Trump "deplorables" ? "Hi sub-human scum, do you want to hold a conversation?" In that same light, I've always found it kind of odd that the Prime Minister of the Netherlands says in advance that he won't work with Wilders in a coalition party when they both get roughly the same amount of votes, and then accuses him of dividing the country. You're doing sort of the same, by accusing that FN supporter of being inflammatory and trollish while at the same time suggesting he's a fascist or a nazi, which is quite inflammatory and trollish in my opinion. The paradox of tolerance: should a tolerant person be tolerant of intolerance? Imho, no. Wilders and his basket of deplorables can go and yell in the corner. Yes, his constituents are upset about valid concerns. No, their way for "dealing" with those concerns are not acceptable policy. And as long as that is their main (and only) concern, there doesn't seem to be any point in dealing with him. I can't see VVD agreeing to a Nexit referendum in a coalition (and if they do, it should be the end of them: they have always portrayed themselves as one of the most pro-Europe parties in the Netherlands). The VVD could probably take a harder stance on migration than they'd normally like to, but that's about it for things that the PVV cares for. It basically means that any "negotiation" about a coalition together is doomed to: 1) fail 2) succeed but be completely onesided in favour of one of the two parties (and thus blow up, just as the previous VVD-PVV coalition did... which was technically a VVD-CDA coalition with PVV support). I just really dislike the level of polarization that is coming out of all this. Its the same reason why I sort of defend Russia on a political level. I don't think the demonization is necessary in either of these cases, even if I don't agree with certain actions or policies from either of these groups. The polarization is especially worrying to me because these parties have so much support from people. Even if its just in the polls and he doesn't get that much in parliament, 30% is a lot of people. I don't think Wilders is particularly fascist, or nazi-esque, but I'll admit that I don't know the details of his policies. I've just looked at wikipedia and it didn't seem too out of bounds. If he has in fact talked about rounding up or kicking out 2nd/3rd generation immigrants (whom I would just call Dutch people) then that's problematic. But even then, I think the policies listed only include immigrants who 'fail to integrate into society', which means there'd be some sort of standard to measure integration. I'd be willing to have a talk about what this level of integration means. I don't see anything about undermining democracy, so the term fascist seems completely unfounded to me. I think just the word "douche" suffices for him, if you want to call him names, rather than hyperbolic terms such as nazi or fascist. I doubt Le Pen is much different. They certainly do have idiotic policies that won't solve any of the problems we are facing, though. https://www.pvv.nl/visie.htmlClose all Mosques, outlaw the Quran, pre-emptively lock up Muslims. starting up chants of "Less Moroccans" which he is currently in court over. Sure has all the signals of hate speech. Not the mention an utter disregard for the freedom of religion. I went to the website as well, yeah, that's basically the same list as on wikipedia although a tad more offensive on the anti-Muslim thing. What is really extremely disappointing to me that people can vote on any politician with such a horribly meagre and empty platform. Like, there's nothing of substance there at all.
Basic populism. Find people who think they deserve better (even if they are already very well off), give them someone else to blame for their troubles and then claim to get rid of those people.
Same way Trump got elected in the US by yelling about immigrants and getting the rural vote, who lost their jobs to computers and robots and not to Mexicans or China.
|
On March 04 2017 02:49 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 01:10 Acrofales wrote:On March 04 2017 00:56 a_flayer wrote:On March 04 2017 00:39 LightSpectra wrote:On March 04 2017 00:21 a_flayer wrote:On March 04 2017 00:19 LightSpectra wrote:
I'd love to have an open debate with a FN supporter, but that's a far cry from those one-liner posts.
Saying "I hope Macron wins" is equally as useless as "I hope Le Pen wins", but it's less inflammatory and troll-ish considering Macron isn't a hatemonger. Good luck finding people to debate with if you label the person they support as hatemongers, and their opinions as inflammatory and troll-ish. Yeah, again, I don't mind having an actual debate with a FN supporter, I also don't mind having an actual debate with a Nazi or Klansman. But that's a lot different from randomly posting "Sieg Heil!"s every once in awhile. Yes, but again, while you're saying you want a debate with these people, you're basically insulting them at the same time - comparing them with nazis and fascists. How do you reckon that will go down on their end? Does that seem like something that might lead to a constructive debate? How did it go down when Hillary called the mindless racist sexist idiots that support Trump "deplorables" ? "Hi sub-human scum, do you want to hold a conversation?" In that same light, I've always found it kind of odd that the Prime Minister of the Netherlands says in advance that he won't work with Wilders in a coalition party when they both get roughly the same amount of votes, and then accuses him of dividing the country. You're doing sort of the same, by accusing that FN supporter of being inflammatory and trollish while at the same time suggesting he's a fascist or a nazi, which is quite inflammatory and trollish in my opinion. The paradox of tolerance: should a tolerant person be tolerant of intolerance? Imho, no. Wilders and his basket of deplorables can go and yell in the corner. Yes, his constituents are upset about valid concerns. No, their way for "dealing" with those concerns are not acceptable policy. And as long as that is their main (and only) concern, there doesn't seem to be any point in dealing with him. I can't see VVD agreeing to a Nexit referendum in a coalition (and if they do, it should be the end of them: they have always portrayed themselves as one of the most pro-Europe parties in the Netherlands). The VVD could probably take a harder stance on migration than they'd normally like to, but that's about it for things that the PVV cares for. It basically means that any "negotiation" about a coalition together is doomed to: 1) fail 2) succeed but be completely onesided in favour of one of the two parties (and thus blow up, just as the previous VVD-PVV coalition did... which was technically a VVD-CDA coalition with PVV support). I just really dislike the level of polarization that is coming out of all this. Its the same reason why I sort of defend Russia on a political level. I don't think the demonization is necessary in either of these cases, even if I don't agree with certain actions or policies from either of these groups. The polarization is especially worrying to me because these parties have so much support from people. Even if its just in the polls and he doesn't get that much in parliament, 30% is a lot of people. I don't think Wilders is particularly fascist, or nazi-esque, but I'll admit that I don't know the details of his policies. I've just looked at wikipedia and it didn't seem too out of bounds. If he has in fact talked about rounding up or kicking out 2nd/3rd generation immigrants (whom I would just call Dutch people) then that's problematic. I think the policies listed only include immigrants who 'fail to integrate into society', which means there'd be some sort of standard to measure integration. I don't see anything about undermining democracy, so the term fascist seems completely unfounded to me. I think just the word "douche" suffices for him, if you want to call him names, rather than hyperbolic terms such as nazi or fascist. I doubt Le Pen is much different. They certainly do have idiotic policies that won't solve any of the problems we are facing, though.
The polarization already happened seventy years ago, when the Western world collectively decided that scapegoating ethnic/religious minorities for society's problems is not a tolerable agenda.
I don't see what's so hyperbolic about the term "fascist." Do you have a better term for ethnocentric nationalist corporatist xenophobes? Like I said, today's Marine Le Pens and Geert Wilderss are an only slightly more filtered and polite version of yesterday's John Tyndalls and Jean-Marie Le Pens. They've learned to quit with the Holocaust denial and martyrization of Nazis/Nazi collaborators, but that's just about it. Still the same predictable scapegoating and nebulous populism.
The funny thing is how predictable this all is:
![[image loading]](http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20170304_FBC022.png)
Source: http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21717824-new-social-faultline-france-has-reshaped-countrys-politics-and-sidelined-its-main
|
On March 04 2017 03:05 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 02:41 LegalLord wrote:On March 04 2017 01:49 maybenexttime wrote:On March 04 2017 01:10 LegalLord wrote:lol (if we're talking about alternate reality controlling the narrative) Can you elaborate? Be specific. If we want to talk about countries that make up alternate reality depictions of their own place in the world in WWII and beyond, we can look no further than your own country of Poland. The first place to start is the Obama comment in question - an obviously sympathetic statement in an obviously sympathetic context, taken as a disingenuous claim that Poles were complicit in the Holocaust. And don't get me started on your current populist government which, for example, wanted to exhume the bodies of the people killed in the Polish plane crash in Russia out of little more than the pursuit of a conspiracy theory. You complain about biased guests being on Russian TV - well perhaps you should also consider why it is that rabid populists/nationalists are popular enough for you to have the government you currently have. I don't particularly care if you supported this leader or not. It is true that there are more sane and less sane people in every country. But their vote count reflects on the kind of people you have there. That Jar-o-coleslaw's party has as much influence as it does suggests that his brand of populism has some sway over the national consciousness. Same as LDPR's support in Russia suggests some support for aggressive nationalism, Svoboda's/Right Sector's support in Ukraine suggests some inclination towards fascism, and Trump's support in America suggests some tendency towards being really stupid. But don't go around claiming someone else is making an alternate reality narrative when your own country does that as good as anyone. Every country save Germany appears to make up their own reality of WW2.
??
how dare you
hitler was terrified of our mountain warrior guerilla tactics
terrified i tell you
what's a nazi gold?
|
On March 04 2017 03:20 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 02:49 a_flayer wrote:On March 04 2017 01:10 Acrofales wrote:On March 04 2017 00:56 a_flayer wrote:On March 04 2017 00:39 LightSpectra wrote:On March 04 2017 00:21 a_flayer wrote:On March 04 2017 00:19 LightSpectra wrote:
I'd love to have an open debate with a FN supporter, but that's a far cry from those one-liner posts.
Saying "I hope Macron wins" is equally as useless as "I hope Le Pen wins", but it's less inflammatory and troll-ish considering Macron isn't a hatemonger. Good luck finding people to debate with if you label the person they support as hatemongers, and their opinions as inflammatory and troll-ish. Yeah, again, I don't mind having an actual debate with a FN supporter, I also don't mind having an actual debate with a Nazi or Klansman. But that's a lot different from randomly posting "Sieg Heil!"s every once in awhile. Yes, but again, while you're saying you want a debate with these people, you're basically insulting them at the same time - comparing them with nazis and fascists. How do you reckon that will go down on their end? Does that seem like something that might lead to a constructive debate? How did it go down when Hillary called the mindless racist sexist idiots that support Trump "deplorables" ? "Hi sub-human scum, do you want to hold a conversation?" In that same light, I've always found it kind of odd that the Prime Minister of the Netherlands says in advance that he won't work with Wilders in a coalition party when they both get roughly the same amount of votes, and then accuses him of dividing the country. You're doing sort of the same, by accusing that FN supporter of being inflammatory and trollish while at the same time suggesting he's a fascist or a nazi, which is quite inflammatory and trollish in my opinion. The paradox of tolerance: should a tolerant person be tolerant of intolerance? Imho, no. Wilders and his basket of deplorables can go and yell in the corner. Yes, his constituents are upset about valid concerns. No, their way for "dealing" with those concerns are not acceptable policy. And as long as that is their main (and only) concern, there doesn't seem to be any point in dealing with him. I can't see VVD agreeing to a Nexit referendum in a coalition (and if they do, it should be the end of them: they have always portrayed themselves as one of the most pro-Europe parties in the Netherlands). The VVD could probably take a harder stance on migration than they'd normally like to, but that's about it for things that the PVV cares for. It basically means that any "negotiation" about a coalition together is doomed to: 1) fail 2) succeed but be completely onesided in favour of one of the two parties (and thus blow up, just as the previous VVD-PVV coalition did... which was technically a VVD-CDA coalition with PVV support). I just really dislike the level of polarization that is coming out of all this. Its the same reason why I sort of defend Russia on a political level. I don't think the demonization is necessary in either of these cases, even if I don't agree with certain actions or policies from either of these groups. The polarization is especially worrying to me because these parties have so much support from people. Even if its just in the polls and he doesn't get that much in parliament, 30% is a lot of people. I don't think Wilders is particularly fascist, or nazi-esque, but I'll admit that I don't know the details of his policies. I've just looked at wikipedia and it didn't seem too out of bounds. If he has in fact talked about rounding up or kicking out 2nd/3rd generation immigrants (whom I would just call Dutch people) then that's problematic. I think the policies listed only include immigrants who 'fail to integrate into society', which means there'd be some sort of standard to measure integration. I don't see anything about undermining democracy, so the term fascist seems completely unfounded to me. I think just the word "douche" suffices for him, if you want to call him names, rather than hyperbolic terms such as nazi or fascist. I doubt Le Pen is much different. They certainly do have idiotic policies that won't solve any of the problems we are facing, though. The polarization already happened seventy years ago, when the Western world collectively decided that scapegoating ethnic/religious minorities for society's problems is not a tolerable agenda. I don't see what's so hyperbolic about the term "fascist." Do you have a better term for ethnocentric nationalist corporatist xenophobes? Like I said, today's Marine Le Pens and Geert Wilderss are an only slightly more filtered and polite version of yesterday's John Tyndalls and Jean-Marie Le Pens. They've learned to quit with the Holocaust denial and martyrization of Nazis/Nazi collaborators, but that's just about it. Still the same predictable scapegoating and nebulous populism.
Le Pen's husband famously said that the key was to “get rid of antisemitism” [in speeches]. They advantageously replaced it with Muslims anyway...
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 04 2017 03:05 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 02:41 LegalLord wrote:On March 04 2017 01:49 maybenexttime wrote:On March 04 2017 01:10 LegalLord wrote:lol (if we're talking about alternate reality controlling the narrative) Can you elaborate? Be specific. If we want to talk about countries that make up alternate reality depictions of their own place in the world in WWII and beyond, we can look no further than your own country of Poland. The first place to start is the Obama comment in question - an obviously sympathetic statement in an obviously sympathetic context, taken as a disingenuous claim that Poles were complicit in the Holocaust. And don't get me started on your current populist government which, for example, wanted to exhume the bodies of the people killed in the Polish plane crash in Russia out of little more than the pursuit of a conspiracy theory. You complain about biased guests being on Russian TV - well perhaps you should also consider why it is that rabid populists/nationalists are popular enough for you to have the government you currently have. I don't particularly care if you supported this leader or not. It is true that there are more sane and less sane people in every country. But their vote count reflects on the kind of people you have there. That Jar-o-coleslaw's party has as much influence as it does suggests that his brand of populism has some sway over the national consciousness. Same as LDPR's support in Russia suggests some support for aggressive nationalism, Svoboda's/Right Sector's support in Ukraine suggests some inclination towards fascism, and Trump's support in America suggests some tendency towards being really stupid. But don't go around claiming someone else is making an alternate reality narrative when your own country does that as good as anyone. Every country save Germany appears to make up their own reality of WW2. (not to say that there aren't historians, off all people, that deny the holocaust and such but that's not government policy [unless the AfD gets the majority]) Maybe I've missed alot, but do you intend to equate individual polish people aiding Nazi Germany to the Hitler-Stalin pact or the forceful occupation of Europe subsequent to Germany's liberation?
Sometimes it certainly feels that Germany hasn't come to terms with its Nazi past in the best way. As a whole, it's clear that Germans do largely denounce that period very strongly with only a few exceptions. But the response should be more along the lines of "that was our past, but that's not who we are, and we should not sacrifice our own interests out of trying to prove that we aren't the successors to those that fought for Hitler."
None of this was about Polish aid to Nazi Germany. Indeed that wasn't even really discussed in the Polish "death camps" matter here. It's about controlling the narrative, to make oneself the hero of one's own national story, rather than acknowledge the ugly reality that we're all the descendants of people who did good, bad, and downright ugly things in the past.
Molotov-Ribbentrop is another one of those ugly realities of the past that aren't pleasant to think about, but it's hard to say that it was the wrong choice at the time. Unless you would deny that the prospect of being attacked by Hitler's Germany is an undesirable one, it might be seen as an attempt to preserve peace. Dividing Europe as per secret protocols? Establishment of a buffer zone for a very vulnerable USSR which is easy to launch an invasion of. The morally reprehensible aspects of the pact are well-established.
We all have a history that isn't always pleasant to remember. Trying to pretend it never happened is the wrong approach.
|
On March 04 2017 02:41 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 01:49 maybenexttime wrote:On March 04 2017 01:10 LegalLord wrote:lol (if we're talking about alternate reality controlling the narrative) Can you elaborate? Be specific. If we want to talk about countries that make up alternate reality depictions of their own place in the world in WWII and beyond, we can look no further than your own country of Poland. The first place to start is the Obama comment in question - an obviously sympathetic statement in an obviously sympathetic context, taken as a disingenuous claim that Poles were complicit in the Holocaust. And don't get me started on your current populist government which, for example, wanted to exhume the bodies of the people killed in the Polish plane crash in Russia out of little more than the pursuit of a conspiracy theory. You complain about biased guests being on Russian TV - well perhaps you should also consider why it is that rabid populists/nationalists are popular enough for you to have the government you currently have. I don't particularly care if you supported this leader or not. It is true that there are more sane and less sane people in every country. But their vote count reflects on the kind of people you have there. That Jar-o-coleslaw's party has as much influence as it does suggests that his brand of populism has some sway over the national consciousness. Same as LDPR's support in Russia suggests some support for aggressive nationalism, Svoboda's/Right Sector's support in Ukraine suggests some inclination towards fascism, and Trump's support in America suggests some tendency towards being really stupid. But don't go around claiming someone else is making an alternate reality narrative when your own country does that as good as anyone.
Indeed, the response to Obama's slip-up was too emotional. But you are completely ignoring the context. And the context is that the terms "Polish Concentration Camps" and "Polish Death Camps" were coined by Bundesnachrichtendienst (West German intelligence agency). While initially a conspiracy, the terms are being disseminated mostly by ignorant people. We have to deal with this crap pretty much on a monthly basis and after a point you can get fed up with it, so knee-jerk reactions are bound to happen. Considering that there are some Jewish organizations that would like to extort WW2 reparations from Poland, it's in our best interest not to be seen as complicit in the Holocaust.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_114#Operations_to_whitewash_German_responsibility_for_World_War_II
The actual reasons for the exhumations were to prove that the autopsies were not done properly. This was verified positively in some cases. Some victims had various objects sewn into them or body parts were put together at random. People were put in other people's coffins also. Russians did a terrible job with the investigation, perhaps on purpose - to polarize our society. They certainly did that with the wreckage itself. On the one hand, a few years ago they claimed that we can safely say the the crash was caused by the pilots (and promulgated false information regarding one of the generals, supposedly drunk, pressuring the pilots - which was later debunked), and on the other hand, they still refuse to return the wreckage because the investigation is not closed. Russians also cleaned the wreckage (naTemat.pl is very anti-PiS, btw) before closing the investigation. All in all, the Russian side did a lot to make the investigation look suspicious.
Why is PiS supposedly populist (in the pejorative sense)? Can you give any examples that held actual sway during the elections? Or do your assertions have similar validity as your claim that Poland's output is mainly agricultural? Because I have a hunch you know as much about our internal politics as you do about our economy.
And I think you'll agree that is a completely different caliber compared to Russia claiming the USSR entered WW2 after being attacked by Germany...
|
On March 04 2017 02:52 LegalLord wrote:
I don't think "douche" or "asshat" is a good way to describe Le Pen. She clearly is a competent person with a specific agenda, one that is very clearly nationalist, and often described by opposition as fascist. It's the agenda that people have a problem with.
Wilders seems like a bit of a loose cannon, a guy who acts somewhat on impulse and treads quite aggressively in that regard.
Wilders doesn't act on impulse. His speeches are always thought out way before he says anything. The 'lesser Morrocans' incident for example was thought of before it happened. It wasn't spontaneous or something.
|
The march towards the abyss continues for Fillon. Dozens of elected representatives left his campaign or stopped supporting him. The UDI definitely stopped supporting him and asked for his replacement. The organizer of the primary, Thierry Solère + Show Spoiler +who's also under an investigation for a possible fiscal fraud lol
Meanwhile, Fillon posted a video in which he asks militants to come at the demonstration Sunday to support him. His mindset seems to be:
+ Show Spoiler +
The next days will be critical for his candidature. It seems there is a certain will among the leaders of the right (except his fidels of course) to finally unplug him, but they need to find the proper way to do it... and convince the man himself, since he can't be booted!
Marine Le Pen will be summoned the next Friday for a possible indictment in the EU fake jobs case. She already said that she would not go. (And she can, thanks to her parliamentary immunity... It was lifted a few days ago, but only for another case  )
|
So I was curious about that, Le Pen's parliamentary immunity was revoked for tweeting violent imagery; does that mean she can now be investigated for the fake jobs thing, or is the revocation only applicable for the charge of distributing violent imagery?
|
Only for the imagery, but given that they are blatantly violating their impartiality I can't see why they wouldn't have applied it to the fake jobs issue if they thought they had a case. In theory the immunity should be revoked for the fraud (and not the imagery) and not vice versa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/c4jt321.png)
