|
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 April 08 2017 19:13 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 19:04 nitram wrote:On April 08 2017 18:53 Gorsameth wrote:On April 08 2017 16:28 opisska wrote:
Big J, the problem is that you have just discarded half of the population (at least in my country) from any discussion, because you don't like talking to them. That's your choice, but it's selfish and counterproductive. I understand the strategy of marginalizing positions that are perceived as harmful to the society, it has worked well for a long time, but you can't marginalize the majority, that is simply you accepting the defeat. I'm with Big J on this. I don't see the point of trying to have a discussion with people who's opinion is reprehensible and cannot be changed by any argument because their mind is set. If that means I discard half the population that just means we live in a shittier world then I hoped. Guess that social progress we seemed to have made in the last ~200 years was a thin veil waiting for a crisis to happen so it could fall off. Maybe you can't change their minds because they are right and you are wrong? Have you ever considered that? Leftist like to think everything they do is progressive, therefore correct. You are dead wrong and need to come to terms that leftist are responsible for some gigantic social catastrophes. opisska, you are lucky. Poland is behind when it comes to these leftist progressions. When Poland wants to make any social changes, they need not but look at the outcomes of their neighbors to judge whether these social change are right for them. If not judging people on the colour of their skin, the place of their birth or the spaghetti monster they believe in is wrong, then I don't want to be right. I would love to hear your list of leftist social catastrophes that outweigh the endless list of suffering cause by man's arbitrary hatred for one-another.
A muslim can be black, white, brown, yellow, red, orange, green or whatever. A muslim can be born literally everywhere. The problem people have with muslims (oh and by the way, I define muslim as someone who places a heavy emphasis on islam. The guy who is a "muslim" but literally never prays nor reads the quran etc etc is not a muslim. The same goes for 95% of western christians that basicly just go to church randomly to meet up) is that they do not separate politics from religion. The Quran is spiritural pretty much only in the early suras, from then on it's political.
Before you start throwing at me half-assed arguments that go "b-but the bible is worse/the same"... Sure, so what? No one even reads it.
|
On April 08 2017 21:09 nitram wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 19:13 Gorsameth wrote:On April 08 2017 19:04 nitram wrote:On April 08 2017 18:53 Gorsameth wrote:On April 08 2017 16:28 opisska wrote:
Big J, the problem is that you have just discarded half of the population (at least in my country) from any discussion, because you don't like talking to them. That's your choice, but it's selfish and counterproductive. I understand the strategy of marginalizing positions that are perceived as harmful to the society, it has worked well for a long time, but you can't marginalize the majority, that is simply you accepting the defeat. I'm with Big J on this. I don't see the point of trying to have a discussion with people who's opinion is reprehensible and cannot be changed by any argument because their mind is set. If that means I discard half the population that just means we live in a shittier world then I hoped. Guess that social progress we seemed to have made in the last ~200 years was a thin veil waiting for a crisis to happen so it could fall off. Maybe you can't change their minds because they are right and you are wrong? Have you ever considered that? Leftist like to think everything they do is progressive, therefore correct. You are dead wrong and need to come to terms that leftist are responsible for some gigantic social catastrophes. opisska, you are lucky. Poland is behind when it comes to these leftist progressions. When Poland wants to make any social changes, they need not but look at the outcomes of their neighbors to judge whether these social change are right for them. If not judging people on the colour of their skin, the place of their birth or the spaghetti monster they believe in is wrong, then I don't want to be right. I would love to hear your list of leftist social catastrophes that outweigh the endless list of suffering cause by man's arbitrary hatred for one-another. This is exactly it. You refuse to judge people based on their genetics, their culture, and their beliefs which makes you ignorant. Worse yet, you a for importing millions of people incompatible with western culture which is leading to terrorist attacks becoming a norm. The majority of people see this yet you are refusing to listen to them.
Are you suggesting that muslim have genes that are incompatible with western culture? That's not uncomfortable, that's funny.
Cultures and countries have assimilated immigrants and immigration since the dawn of time, regardless of religion, ethnicity and indeed genetics. Your suggestion that somewhat arabs shouldn't come to the West because of some magic incompatibility is pure and simple biggotry.
There are muslim teachers, scientists, artists, workers, government official all around Europe and the states. One of America's greatest chess grandmasters, Yasser Seirawan, is syrian. London mayor, Khan, is from sunni pakistanese origin. Ahmed Zewail is a nobel prize winner and director of physical biology at the California Institute of Technology. Tell me, what's your contribution to society that makes those people less valuable to the West than you?
And geez, if your genes are better than those people and they won nobel prizes or lead world wide capital, you haven't done much with your wonderful genetic and cultural heritage.
I'm sorry to say but you replace "muslim" by "jews" and you are a textbook 1930 antisemite. That's exactly the kind of things the far right was saying, for exactly the same reason, they also pretended to talk in the name of "science". You can do better than being a modern version of a 1930 idiot, try harder.
|
The 70% of Erdogan supporters amongst Europeans with a Turkish passport, to me, is evidence that a lot of Muslims are inclined towards extremism of one kind or another. Erdogan may not technically be Salafist, but he is a socially conservative with an Islamist background who did things like implementing Sunni schools to combat "moral decay". That's pretty close to being Salafist right there, I'd say. The step from Islamist to Salafist is not a significant one by any stretch of the imagination. And I hope we can all at least agree that Erdogan is a political extremist by any definition (right up there with Putin).
Wikipedia on Islamism
Islamism is a concept whose meaning has been debated in both public and academic contexts. The term can refer to diverse forms of social and political activism advocating that public and political life should be guided by Islamic principles, or more specifically to movements which call for full implementation of sharia. It is commonly used interchangeably with the terms political Islam or Islamic fundamentalism.
Source
Wikipedia on Salafism
The Salafist doctrine can be summed up as taking "a fundamentalist approach to Islam, emulating Muhammad and his earliest followers – al-salaf al-salih, the 'pious forefathers'." "They reject religious innovation or bid'ah, and support the implementation of sharia (Islamic law).
Source
Besides that, while today only a relatively small percentage of Muslims distinctly identify as Salafist, as the mayor of Brussels said, many if not all mosques are in fact ran by Salafist Imams. French, German and Swedish intelligence services have said it is the fastest growing movement in fastest growing religion in the world (that is to say Islam).
So, the three things that I mentioned - 70% support amongst Turks for a rather extremist socially conservative Islamist politician (even if such support is driven by nationalism), the relatively many Salafist mosques, and the fact that it is spreading fast is to me evidence that many (young) Muslims are indeed quite vulnerable to radicalization such as what LegalLord said in this post:
On April 08 2017 07:02 LegalLord wrote:
Of all the Muslims I've met, I can say this much: the majority are not terrible people, and like with almost all other identity classifications of interest, most people want simply to live their lives in peace and be able to pay the bills. However, it's hard not to see the tendencies in them that enable extremism to thrive, in their Western home or in their MidEast home. And it's not just the same old "every group has its bad apples" problem either. Christians generally don't support the Ku Klux Klan or any other similar religiously-guided extremist group of their own religion. Whereas if you really dig into it, Muslims will generally admit an attitude that is worryingly sympathetic towards terrorism in the name of Islam.
Furthermore, refugees are the type of people who are ripe for being radicalized. They left their home hardly out of any ideological reason; most of them have little problem with the run-of-the-mill Islam-derivative law ("Sharia law"). They have no particular desire to be Westerners; they just want to flee war and if Germany is offering money as well, why not? But whereas the first generation, barring terrorists who just take advantage of the opportunity to cross the border, will generally merely be troublesome in a Western society (e.g. crime), second-generation refugees have little of the same memory of the troubles of war yet all of the backwards teachings that might compel them towards radicalization. It should not be a surprise that this happens - the only reason it is is because we live in a world where it's important to blatantly deny the existence of race/religion-related problems because it's "racist" to acknowledge them.
And, incidentally, attitudes towards this are one example of the major differences between the West Europeans and the more Eastern ones.
Which was then promptly shut down by Plansix by calling it a racist xenophobic notion.
On April 08 2017 07:12 Plansix wrote:
This right here is the well reasoned way to present some polite xenophobia. And then you preempt the counter argument by a little racism based martyring. "People will call me racist for saying this, but its the truth".
Then you move right into the "refugees are ripe to be radicalized" by providing some dubious claim about them and where they came from. You talk about some Sharia Law based on a garbage understanding of it and again provide zero evidence(Syria wasn't under some terrible version of Sharia law, ISIS is sort of a frat boy nightmare version of Islam).
Take notes people, this is how you make arguments that 1.5 billion people are terrorists or support terrorism based on nothing. Not through yelling, but by slow attrition making unfounded claim after unfounded claim that sound sort of true.
I think it is simply unfair to call what LegalLord said "polite xenophobia", and even using the suggestion of "racism based martyring" as a dismissal of the argument made. Vulnerability to radicalization is quite clearly something that is real, even if the majority don''t take such views to the most extreme form.
For many, "the threat of Islam" is not strictly about terrorism, it is about upholding western values as a whole. From shaking hands with a female boss to respecting people's right to draw whatever cartoons they wish, or allowing children to choose what kind of life they wants for themselves without being ostracized [for being gay, dropping religion, whatever]. Salafism in itself is only one label that can apparently be applied without directly being a called a racist.
|
On April 08 2017 23:52 a_flayer wrote:
The 70% of Erdogan supporters amongst Europeans with a Turkish passport, to me, is evidence that a lot of Muslims are inclined towards extremism of one kind or another. Erdogan may not technically be Salafist, but he is a socially conservative with an Islamist background who did things like implementing Sunni schools to combat "moral decay". That's pretty close to being Salafist right there, I'd say. The step from Islamist to Salafist is not a significant one by any stretch of the imagination. And I hope we can all at least agree that Erdogan is a political extremist by any definition (right up there with Putin).
Well let's start refusing russians to settle in the West, most of them support Putin who is at least as horrendous as Erdogan.
And 25% of French people support a fascist party, and since we are at it, 50% of americans apparently support an orange clown who advocates war crimes and the use of torture.
Suggesting that the Turks shouldn't come to the West because they support Erdogan is absolutely ridiculous, sorry.
|
On April 08 2017 23:57 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 23:52 a_flayer wrote:
The 70% of Erdogan supporters amongst Europeans with a Turkish passport, to me, is evidence that a lot of Muslims are inclined towards extremism of one kind or another. Erdogan may not technically be Salafist, but he is a socially conservative with an Islamist background who did things like implementing Sunni schools to combat "moral decay". That's pretty close to being Salafist right there, I'd say. The step from Islamist to Salafist is not a significant one by any stretch of the imagination. And I hope we can all at least agree that Erdogan is a political extremist by any definition (right up there with Putin). Well let's start refusing russians to settle in the West, most of them support Putin who is at least as horrendous as Erdogan. And 25% of French people support a fascist party, and since we are at it, 50% of americans apparently support an orange clown who advocates war crimes and the use of torture. Suggesting that the Turks shouldn't come to the West because they support Erdogan is absolutely ridiculous, sorry.
I don't even want to refuse any immigrants, from any place. i don't think I ever said that. All I am saying that this is part of a problem that needs to be acknowledged. Extremism of all kinds - from Erdogan supporters, to Putin supporters, to Wilders/Le Pen supporters - it is becoming incredibly widespread in this day and age, and most seem perfectly willing to acknowledge it. But whenever Islam is brought up as being part of it, there is an almost aggressive denial of the potential for social/political extremism (which doesn't have to be violent - most of the far-right isn't violent, but they are undesirable).
On April 08 2017 19:36 Nebuchad wrote:
Do you know why so many imams are salafists per chance? It's broadly because Saudi Arabia finances mosques around the world and has them promote a rigorist ideology that is in line with their views. I'd rather we stop giving a ton of money to Saudi Arabia so that they stop this behavior, and that instead we give islam the same status we give to other european religions. For example in Switzerland it's not an official religion, and when the leftwing leader offered that perhaps "We should think about whether we want to recognise Islam as an official religion so that we don’t leave the training and financing of imams to foreign and perhaps fundamental circles", two thirds of the country thought that it was a bad idea. Much easier to say that islam can't be european than to improve the conditions for european muslims (who already factually exist) to develop an european identity, isn't it?
Also, notice what you can get leftwingers to say when you use the correct terminology.
I have a problem with all of salafism in that it's a very conservative religious ideology. I have the same problem with christian conservatism. I'm not going to want them all kicked out of my country but I'm not going to pretend we're friends either. If you want to target something even more specific than that, there are still words! Fundamentalists, ISIS sympathizers, terrorists... I guess wahabists can work as well? I'm not sure.
I absolutely agree with everything you are saying here. I have the same problems with conservative Christians in this regard, and I am very much not happy about the Saudis. In fact, I've heard the argument from Muslim women who argue against it, that the concept of wearing a hjhab or veil or whatever as a form of modesty amongst women originates from Saudi Arabia - or at least modern books prescribing it as such come primarily from Saudi Arabia. I certainly acknowledge the central role that Saudi Arabia plays in all of this.
So it is indeed unfortunate that we as Europeans don't seem to want to do what you are saying - essentially creating a form of European Islam. Why is that? Is that because we are refusing to take the problem seriously? Is that because we believe in freedom of expression even if that means we feel forced to adjust our own behavior and censor ourselves in the kinds of cartoons we draw, the things we say, and increase surveillance to near-fascist levels?
Also, is it fair to say that "Saudi Arabia" finances the mosques or is it just a minority of wealthy people in that country that profess these beliefs...?
|
On April 09 2017 00:30 a_flayer wrote:
So it is indeed unfortunate that we as Europeans don't seem to want to do what you are saying. Why is that? Is that because we are refusing to take the problem seriously? Is that because we believe in freedom of expression even if that means we feel forced to adjust our own behavior and censor ourselves in the kinds of cartoons we draw, and increase surveillance to near-fascist levels?
It's because they have oil and power, and when you're trying to scare people into voting for you it's much more convenient to target people who have none of those things (like refugees). Besides far right parties have no incentive to attempt and actually fix problems cause if they succeed there's no reason to vote for them anymore. Rightwing parties probably are mostly okay with the situation, cause it's better for the economy to let a few people die from time to time than to redefine the map of the world - especially since several types of corporations benefit incredibly directly from the situation.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
|
On April 09 2017 00:45 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 00:30 a_flayer wrote:
So it is indeed unfortunate that we as Europeans don't seem to want to do what you are saying. Why is that? Is that because we are refusing to take the problem seriously? Is that because we believe in freedom of expression even if that means we feel forced to adjust our own behavior and censor ourselves in the kinds of cartoons we draw, and increase surveillance to near-fascist levels? It's because they have oil and power, and when you're trying to scare people into voting for you it's much more convenient to target people who have none of those things (like refugees). Besides far right parties have no incentive to attempt and actually fix problems cause if they succeed there's no reason to vote for them anymore. Rightwing parties probably are mostly okay with the situation, cause it's better for the economy to let a few people die from time to time than to redefine the map of the world - especially since several types of corporations benefit incredibly directly from the situation.
But shouldn't the left be specifically about abolishing those kind of vertical power structures from Saudi Arabia that fund the social extremism in Islam? Shouldn't the left be taking up the fight in combating what essentially comes down to abuse of power/wealth from a foreign source? Why is the left not doing anything about the core of these issues, and instead trying to combat the nonsense politicians? By not addressing the problem, they are essentially letting the far-right take advantage of stupid people like me who see a problem but are unable to articulate it well enough, and thus buy into the rhetoric from the opposite end of this kind of culture war.
As you said, they're not doing it because of one thing: money. But then we're right back at my first statement, which is that abuse of wealth is exactly the kind of thing they ought to be fighting against. The vertical power structures that come with great wealth (and thus provide social/political influence) is in opposition of the leftist philosophy. But no, instead of recognizing the issue at hand, they just call the right-wing politicians (and by extension those who support them) racists and xenophobes. The left in this regard is essentially useless in Europe, which is a great shame.
|
On April 09 2017 01:13 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 00:45 Nebuchad wrote:On April 09 2017 00:30 a_flayer wrote:
So it is indeed unfortunate that we as Europeans don't seem to want to do what you are saying. Why is that? Is that because we are refusing to take the problem seriously? Is that because we believe in freedom of expression even if that means we feel forced to adjust our own behavior and censor ourselves in the kinds of cartoons we draw, and increase surveillance to near-fascist levels? It's because they have oil and power, and when you're trying to scare people into voting for you it's much more convenient to target people who have none of those things (like refugees). Besides far right parties have no incentive to attempt and actually fix problems cause if they succeed there's no reason to vote for them anymore. Rightwing parties probably are mostly okay with the situation, cause it's better for the economy to let a few people die from time to time than to redefine the map of the world - especially since several types of corporations benefit incredibly directly from the situation. But shouldn't the left be specifically about abolishing those kind of vertical power structures that fund the social extremism in Islam from Saudi Arabia? Shouldn't the left be taking up the fight in combating what essentially comes down to abuse of power/wealth? Why is the left not doing anything about the core of these issues, and instead combating the nonsense politicians? By not addressing the problem, they are essentially letting the far-right take advantage of stupid people like me who see a problem but are unable to articulate it well enough, and thus buy into the rhetoric from the opposite end of this kind of culture war.
Who says they aren't? In my country they are. I haven't seen a bunch of leftists argue about how awesome Saudi Arabia is as an influence to the world, have you?
|
On April 09 2017 01:20 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 01:13 a_flayer wrote:On April 09 2017 00:45 Nebuchad wrote:On April 09 2017 00:30 a_flayer wrote:
So it is indeed unfortunate that we as Europeans don't seem to want to do what you are saying. Why is that? Is that because we are refusing to take the problem seriously? Is that because we believe in freedom of expression even if that means we feel forced to adjust our own behavior and censor ourselves in the kinds of cartoons we draw, and increase surveillance to near-fascist levels? It's because they have oil and power, and when you're trying to scare people into voting for you it's much more convenient to target people who have none of those things (like refugees). Besides far right parties have no incentive to attempt and actually fix problems cause if they succeed there's no reason to vote for them anymore. Rightwing parties probably are mostly okay with the situation, cause it's better for the economy to let a few people die from time to time than to redefine the map of the world - especially since several types of corporations benefit incredibly directly from the situation. But shouldn't the left be specifically about abolishing those kind of vertical power structures that fund the social extremism in Islam from Saudi Arabia? Shouldn't the left be taking up the fight in combating what essentially comes down to abuse of power/wealth? Why is the left not doing anything about the core of these issues, and instead combating the nonsense politicians? By not addressing the problem, they are essentially letting the far-right take advantage of stupid people like me who see a problem but are unable to articulate it well enough, and thus buy into the rhetoric from the opposite end of this kind of culture war. Who says they aren't? In my country they are. I haven't seen a bunch of leftists argue about how awesome Saudi Arabia is as an influence to the world, have you?
I've never seen anyone on any significant political level say anything bad about Saudi Arabia, except far-righters who just complain about Islam as a whole. Leftists without significant political power or influence tend to say these kinds of things, though.
What that guy ↓ is saying.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Saudi Arabia is our Middle East buddy. Speak no wrong about them because it would harm our very important alliance.
|
They in as much as "the left" can be considered a single group they aren´t as blunt as basic bigotry ("All Saudi Arabians are our enemies!"). But looking at it with nuance "weakens" the message if all you are looking at is the most straightforward message.
If you look at things in incredibly simple terms they have nothing to do with reality. If you believe that all muslim immigrants are bad/incompatible/genetically inferior you´d also buy that the critical stance to that would be an absurd inverse - lets invite anyone, don´t ever look at what they do, etc...
|
On April 09 2017 01:22 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 01:20 Nebuchad wrote:On April 09 2017 01:13 a_flayer wrote:On April 09 2017 00:45 Nebuchad wrote:On April 09 2017 00:30 a_flayer wrote:
So it is indeed unfortunate that we as Europeans don't seem to want to do what you are saying. Why is that? Is that because we are refusing to take the problem seriously? Is that because we believe in freedom of expression even if that means we feel forced to adjust our own behavior and censor ourselves in the kinds of cartoons we draw, and increase surveillance to near-fascist levels? It's because they have oil and power, and when you're trying to scare people into voting for you it's much more convenient to target people who have none of those things (like refugees). Besides far right parties have no incentive to attempt and actually fix problems cause if they succeed there's no reason to vote for them anymore. Rightwing parties probably are mostly okay with the situation, cause it's better for the economy to let a few people die from time to time than to redefine the map of the world - especially since several types of corporations benefit incredibly directly from the situation. But shouldn't the left be specifically about abolishing those kind of vertical power structures that fund the social extremism in Islam from Saudi Arabia? Shouldn't the left be taking up the fight in combating what essentially comes down to abuse of power/wealth? Why is the left not doing anything about the core of these issues, and instead combating the nonsense politicians? By not addressing the problem, they are essentially letting the far-right take advantage of stupid people like me who see a problem but are unable to articulate it well enough, and thus buy into the rhetoric from the opposite end of this kind of culture war. Who says they aren't? In my country they are. I haven't seen a bunch of leftists argue about how awesome Saudi Arabia is as an influence to the world, have you? I've never seen anyone on any significant political level say anything bad about Saudi Arabia, except far-righters who just complain about Islam as a whole. Leftists without significant political power or influence tend to say these kinds of things, though.
Well yeah, that's cause the Saudis have power and a powerful ally. If you're going to speak against powerful people while you yourself are in power you better have a damn good alternative. How about renewable energy? Pretty good idea if you ask me, wish more rightwingers would agree. Ultimately the US has much more influence on this particular subject than we do though, and with Trump in power, good luck with that.
|
On April 09 2017 01:44 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 01:22 a_flayer wrote:On April 09 2017 01:20 Nebuchad wrote:On April 09 2017 01:13 a_flayer wrote:On April 09 2017 00:45 Nebuchad wrote:On April 09 2017 00:30 a_flayer wrote:
So it is indeed unfortunate that we as Europeans don't seem to want to do what you are saying. Why is that? Is that because we are refusing to take the problem seriously? Is that because we believe in freedom of expression even if that means we feel forced to adjust our own behavior and censor ourselves in the kinds of cartoons we draw, and increase surveillance to near-fascist levels? It's because they have oil and power, and when you're trying to scare people into voting for you it's much more convenient to target people who have none of those things (like refugees). Besides far right parties have no incentive to attempt and actually fix problems cause if they succeed there's no reason to vote for them anymore. Rightwing parties probably are mostly okay with the situation, cause it's better for the economy to let a few people die from time to time than to redefine the map of the world - especially since several types of corporations benefit incredibly directly from the situation. But shouldn't the left be specifically about abolishing those kind of vertical power structures that fund the social extremism in Islam from Saudi Arabia? Shouldn't the left be taking up the fight in combating what essentially comes down to abuse of power/wealth? Why is the left not doing anything about the core of these issues, and instead combating the nonsense politicians? By not addressing the problem, they are essentially letting the far-right take advantage of stupid people like me who see a problem but are unable to articulate it well enough, and thus buy into the rhetoric from the opposite end of this kind of culture war. Who says they aren't? In my country they are. I haven't seen a bunch of leftists argue about how awesome Saudi Arabia is as an influence to the world, have you? I've never seen anyone on any significant political level say anything bad about Saudi Arabia, except far-righters who just complain about Islam as a whole. Leftists without significant political power or influence tend to say these kinds of things, though. Well yeah, that's cause the Saudis have power and a powerful ally. If you're going to speak against powerful people while you yourself are in power you better have a damn good alternative. How about renewable energy? Pretty good idea if you ask me, wish more rightwingers would agree. Ultimately the US has much more influence on this particular subject than we do though, and with Trump in power, good luck with that.
This is exactly why we should strengthen the notion of the European Union. Europe is considered to be leftist by American standards, and even though its not, it's the best we can do right now. Why don't you join us already? You said it yourself, Switzerland is already abiding by the European rules essentially out of self-preservation, why not get some political influence on its policies? Only together can we stand against the American hegemony.
|
On April 09 2017 01:13 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 00:45 Nebuchad wrote:On April 09 2017 00:30 a_flayer wrote:
So it is indeed unfortunate that we as Europeans don't seem to want to do what you are saying. Why is that? Is that because we are refusing to take the problem seriously? Is that because we believe in freedom of expression even if that means we feel forced to adjust our own behavior and censor ourselves in the kinds of cartoons we draw, and increase surveillance to near-fascist levels? It's because they have oil and power, and when you're trying to scare people into voting for you it's much more convenient to target people who have none of those things (like refugees). Besides far right parties have no incentive to attempt and actually fix problems cause if they succeed there's no reason to vote for them anymore. Rightwing parties probably are mostly okay with the situation, cause it's better for the economy to let a few people die from time to time than to redefine the map of the world - especially since several types of corporations benefit incredibly directly from the situation. But shouldn't the left be specifically about abolishing those kind of vertical power structures from Saudi Arabia that fund the social extremism in Islam? Shouldn't the left be taking up the fight in combating what essentially comes down to abuse of power/wealth from a foreign source? Why is the left not doing anything about the core of these issues, and instead trying to combat the nonsense politicians? By not addressing the problem, they are essentially letting the far-right take advantage of stupid people like me who see a problem but are unable to articulate it well enough, and thus buy into the rhetoric from the opposite end of this kind of culture war. They're not doing it because of money, obviously, but then we're right back at my first statement, which is that is exactly the kind of thing they ought to be fighting against. The vertical power structures that come with great wealth (and thus provide social/political influence). The left is essentially useless in Europe, which is a great shame.
Lol, literally the whole French left (except our disgusting ““social-democrats”” in power naturally) criticizes our relationships with Saudi Arabia or the Qatar, and points towards their harmful influence when it comes to spreading fundamentalism, funding extremist groups or destabilizing the ME. Why do you write this kind of stupid sentence in red if you don't even know the positions of “the left”? Your blue sentence is really something, basically you don't listen to what political group X says, then blames them for not being convicing enough? What the hell?
|
Ok, well, I'll certainly admit that I don't know everything about every political group in Europe. I just haven't seen it anywhere from people in significant positions of power. I've only seen or heard that kind of talk amongst people who have essentially no influence, or those crazy right-wingers who lump it all together indiscriminately. And even you say that it's the social-democrats on the left who are actually in power that do not criticize it... so that lines up with my overall thoughts on the matter that people with significant political force don't do it, does it not?
And yes, I will blame the group that I essentially want to be in power for not being convincing enough to get the votes they need to achieve the goals that align most with my political views. Why is that worth a "what the hell" statement? Do you not want them to be convincing?
|
On April 09 2017 01:50 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 01:44 Nebuchad wrote:On April 09 2017 01:22 a_flayer wrote:On April 09 2017 01:20 Nebuchad wrote:On April 09 2017 01:13 a_flayer wrote:On April 09 2017 00:45 Nebuchad wrote:On April 09 2017 00:30 a_flayer wrote:
So it is indeed unfortunate that we as Europeans don't seem to want to do what you are saying. Why is that? Is that because we are refusing to take the problem seriously? Is that because we believe in freedom of expression even if that means we feel forced to adjust our own behavior and censor ourselves in the kinds of cartoons we draw, and increase surveillance to near-fascist levels? It's because they have oil and power, and when you're trying to scare people into voting for you it's much more convenient to target people who have none of those things (like refugees). Besides far right parties have no incentive to attempt and actually fix problems cause if they succeed there's no reason to vote for them anymore. Rightwing parties probably are mostly okay with the situation, cause it's better for the economy to let a few people die from time to time than to redefine the map of the world - especially since several types of corporations benefit incredibly directly from the situation. But shouldn't the left be specifically about abolishing those kind of vertical power structures that fund the social extremism in Islam from Saudi Arabia? Shouldn't the left be taking up the fight in combating what essentially comes down to abuse of power/wealth? Why is the left not doing anything about the core of these issues, and instead combating the nonsense politicians? By not addressing the problem, they are essentially letting the far-right take advantage of stupid people like me who see a problem but are unable to articulate it well enough, and thus buy into the rhetoric from the opposite end of this kind of culture war. Who says they aren't? In my country they are. I haven't seen a bunch of leftists argue about how awesome Saudi Arabia is as an influence to the world, have you? I've never seen anyone on any significant political level say anything bad about Saudi Arabia, except far-righters who just complain about Islam as a whole. Leftists without significant political power or influence tend to say these kinds of things, though. Well yeah, that's cause the Saudis have power and a powerful ally. If you're going to speak against powerful people while you yourself are in power you better have a damn good alternative. How about renewable energy? Pretty good idea if you ask me, wish more rightwingers would agree. Ultimately the US has much more influence on this particular subject than we do though, and with Trump in power, good luck with that. This is exactly why we should strengthen the notion of the European Union. Europe is considered to be leftist by American standards, and even though its not, it's the best we can do right now. Why don't you join us already? You said it yourself, Switzerland is already abiding by the European rules essentially out of self-preservation, why not get some political influence on its policies? Only together can we stand against the American hegemony.
I'm pro joining the UE yeah, left of Switzerland has always been as far as I know. But in this whole discussion of how we should unfuck the world, this is an impressively minor point. What we should follow closely is whether the US actually manages to create a socdem party behind Sanders, or if the democrats actually rally behind this and move to the left. If they manage to restore balance to their politics so many of the problems get solved at the same time.
But that's not the thread for that I guess.
|
On April 09 2017 02:19 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 01:50 a_flayer wrote:On April 09 2017 01:44 Nebuchad wrote:On April 09 2017 01:22 a_flayer wrote:On April 09 2017 01:20 Nebuchad wrote:On April 09 2017 01:13 a_flayer wrote:On April 09 2017 00:45 Nebuchad wrote:On April 09 2017 00:30 a_flayer wrote:
So it is indeed unfortunate that we as Europeans don't seem to want to do what you are saying. Why is that? Is that because we are refusing to take the problem seriously? Is that because we believe in freedom of expression even if that means we feel forced to adjust our own behavior and censor ourselves in the kinds of cartoons we draw, and increase surveillance to near-fascist levels? It's because they have oil and power, and when you're trying to scare people into voting for you it's much more convenient to target people who have none of those things (like refugees). Besides far right parties have no incentive to attempt and actually fix problems cause if they succeed there's no reason to vote for them anymore. Rightwing parties probably are mostly okay with the situation, cause it's better for the economy to let a few people die from time to time than to redefine the map of the world - especially since several types of corporations benefit incredibly directly from the situation. But shouldn't the left be specifically about abolishing those kind of vertical power structures that fund the social extremism in Islam from Saudi Arabia? Shouldn't the left be taking up the fight in combating what essentially comes down to abuse of power/wealth? Why is the left not doing anything about the core of these issues, and instead combating the nonsense politicians? By not addressing the problem, they are essentially letting the far-right take advantage of stupid people like me who see a problem but are unable to articulate it well enough, and thus buy into the rhetoric from the opposite end of this kind of culture war. Who says they aren't? In my country they are. I haven't seen a bunch of leftists argue about how awesome Saudi Arabia is as an influence to the world, have you? I've never seen anyone on any significant political level say anything bad about Saudi Arabia, except far-righters who just complain about Islam as a whole. Leftists without significant political power or influence tend to say these kinds of things, though. Well yeah, that's cause the Saudis have power and a powerful ally. If you're going to speak against powerful people while you yourself are in power you better have a damn good alternative. How about renewable energy? Pretty good idea if you ask me, wish more rightwingers would agree. Ultimately the US has much more influence on this particular subject than we do though, and with Trump in power, good luck with that. This is exactly why we should strengthen the notion of the European Union. Europe is considered to be leftist by American standards, and even though its not, it's the best we can do right now. Why don't you join us already? You said it yourself, Switzerland is already abiding by the European rules essentially out of self-preservation, why not get some political influence on its policies? Only together can we stand against the American hegemony. I'm pro joining the UE yeah, left of Switzerland has always been as far as I know. But in this whole discussion of how we should unfuck the world, this is an impressively minor point. What we should follow closely is whether the US actually manages to create a socdem party behind Sanders, or if the democrats actually rally behind this and move to the left. If they manage to restore balance to their politics so many of the problems get solved at the same time. But that's not the thread for that I guess.
Honestly, all we need to do in Europe is stop looking at the US as some sort of overlord. We don't need them to adjust their political leanings any more than we need Russia to change. We can change our approach towards the world on our own accord if we have some sort of unity on certain matters. I'd say that Britain leaving the EU could be one step towards that, now we just need to convince France to stop being an American puppet in the UN while at the same time keeping them committed to the EU.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Face it, Europe has a collective sense of Stockholm Syndrome with regards to the US. Whenever the US elects an aggressive idiot they mostly just quietly take it and try their best not to start a commotion, but express their deepest most jubilant excitement whenever the US does something mildly favorable towards them. If Trump won't change that nothing will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
