EPTThe Problem is that the left constantly tries to talk all problems with Immigration away while the right is using Immigration as a reason for everything bad ever. Both stances are plain dumb but if asked, i'm rather with the "in theory" more moral guys than with the xenophobes.
European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 774
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10705 Posts
The Problem is that the left constantly tries to talk all problems with Immigration away while the right is using Immigration as a reason for everything bad ever. Both stances are plain dumb but if asked, i'm rather with the "in theory" more moral guys than with the xenophobes. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On April 12 2017 00:58 Velr wrote: Demanding assimilation would force you to define what French/American/German/Whatever actually means and how such a person has to act. Which is pretty much impossible and therefore stupid. The Problem is that the left constantly tries to talk all problems with Immigration away while the right is using Immigration as a reason for everything bad ever. Both stances are plain dumb but if asked, i'm rather with the "in theory" more moral guys than with the xenophobes. Write this sentence without the appeasment talk painting the other side as "also not on the right track" and you will immidiately be marked a delusional leftist. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On April 12 2017 00:44 Big J wrote: Demanding assimilation goes against the fundamental principles of an open, liberal society which is pretty much the common democratic ground we established after the war. You may be right if you say we do not defend ourselves well enough against radical islamic elements (though statistically those incidents are simply minor, yet they shake the society so there is a good argument for a higher security demand, whether it is materialistically justified or not), but if you demand assimilation and thus you want a closed society, you are on the highway to authoritarianism. There is simply no liberal justification for a closed society, what you demand of the individual migrant is built on racial, or nationalistic ideologies and thus racism and xenophobia. I don't think demanding that immigrants have a certain degree of respect for equality between genders/people's sexual orientations, accept that people have the freedom to insult whatever bloody myths they believe in (by, for example drawing & publishing cartoons) and so on is too much to ask. And, I should add, by and large, they do have some respect for these ideas - enough to usually keep quiet about it, at least. Nonetheless, we, as liberal Europeans, have to stop these absurdly backwards and ultra-conservative viewpoints that are being propagated throughout our Muslim communities by, amongst other things, Salafist Imams who are supported by foreign powers. I don't think it's racist or xenophobic to take a stand against that. It's about recognizing that people in the past fought for these ideas, and we can have some pride in our ancestors for that. You warn about authoritarianism, but say there's a 'good argument for higher security demand', which will lead to exactly that. I don't think that surveillance is a good way to go about it at any rate, because that only looks at the very utmost extreme expressions of the problem (and can't even prevent these occurrences unless you basically start arresting people on thought-crime). It's not authoritarianism to debate and argue with people, or to convince/educate them to stop holding backwards ideas. Banning the burqa in some areas of our society is part of the same faulty approach. You're basically legislating around the expression of an idea, rather than confronting the backwards idea itself. The same goes with legislation that was introduced in Germany, where fathers & mothers who bring their daughters to the Middle East/Africa to mutilate their genitals are banned from having passports. It's not looking at the root of the problem that these ideas exist and are being propagated. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On April 12 2017 01:24 a_flayer wrote: I don't think demanding that immigrants have a certain degree of respect for equality between genders/people's sexual orientations, accept that people have the freedom to insult whatever bloody myths they believe in (by, for example drawing & publishing cartoons) and so on is too much to ask. And, I should add, by and large, they do have some respect for these ideas - enough to usually keep quiet about it, at least. Nonetheless, we, as liberal Europeans, have to stop these absurdly backwards and ultra-conservative viewpoints that are being propagated throughout our Muslim communities by, amongst other things, Salafist Imams who are supported by foreign powers. I don't think it's racist or xenophobic to take a stand against that. It's about recognizing that people in the past fought for these ideas, and we can have some pride in our ancestors for that. You warn about authoritarianism, but say there's a 'good argument for higher security demand', which will lead to exactly that. I don't think that surveillance is a good way to go about it at any rate, because that only looks at the very utmost extreme expressions of the problem (and can't even prevent these occurrences unless you basically start arresting people on thought-crime). Banning the burqa in some areas of our society is part of the same faulty approach. You're basically legislating around the expression of an idea, rather than confronting the backwards idea itself. I'm absolutely against large scale surveillance, nonetheless there is a certain degree that can be justified within a liberal framework to protect people from other people. As you point out, certain religiously fanatic groups are a problem and I do believe it is justified to have a more permanent presence where they are spreading their beliefs. I can pretty much get behind everything you write. None of that is a "cultural", "nationalist" or "xenophobic" view. You are not generalizing and you build on a proper fundament of liberal and materialistic values, not some bullshit that talks about racial homogeneity, christian superiority or traditional rights. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
(CNN)French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right National Front (FN) party, told a television audience over the weekend that France was not responsible for the so-called Vél d'Hiv roundup of July 1942, when French police arrested more than 13,000 Jews, detained them for five days in the Vélodrome d'Hiver cycling stadium in Paris and then deported them. Source | ||
|
Oshuy
Netherlands529 Posts
On April 12 2017 02:52 LegalLord wrote: I can't trust Fake News Network to report faithfully, can any French folk explain how significant this will probably be? Source Discussed on the previous page of the thread ... FN classical nationalist view is that since France is great, anything bad that may have happened in the past is not the work of France, but of some dark force that had control over the greatest country at that time. For "Vel d'Hiv", is was the work of the Vishy government, which couldn't be France because what was France then was the resistance and De Gaulle as a temporarily misplaced leader in London (proof : Vishy admited defeat and allies won in the end). The actual quote itself is not that bad (at least compared to what FN has let out in the past), but from a communication point of view it may be serious just weeks from the election: It allows all opponents to pull out the message: "FN is a negationist antisemitic and racist party and their outward face of respectability the last few years is a sham" So far FN justifications are drowned in the outrage, hard to tell what the impact in the polls will be. Will depend how soon it fizzles out. Could be just the flavor of the day depending on what media get to highlight next (no longer in the headlines this evening). | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On April 12 2017 01:13 Big J wrote: Write this sentence without the appeasment talk painting the other side as "also not on the right track" and you will immidiately be marked a delusional leftist. I guess the problem here is often a crisis of conservatism in some countries. You can't really expect the right-wingers to stop complaining about 'leftists', but you can at least expect conservatives to not join in on the rhetoric. After all, conservatism traditionally functioned as a pretty strong defense against any extremist ideas. Protecting minorities (of all kind) against public outrage used to be an important conservative position. This blanket accusation of 'leftism' seems to be very strong in countries in which conservatives have started to appease voters of the far-right. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On April 12 2017 03:19 Nyxisto wrote: I guess the problem here is often a crisis of conservatism in some countries. You can't really expect the right-wingers to stop complaining about 'leftists', but you can at least expect conservatives to not join in on the rhetoric. After all, conservatism traditionally functioned as a pretty strong defense against any extremist ideas. Protecting minorities (of all kind) against public outrage used to be an important conservative position. This blanket accusation of 'leftism' seems to be very strong in countries in which conservatives have started to appease voters of the far-right. I have no clue what the 'correct strategy' here would be. I've seen Austrian conservative chancellor Schüssel destroy the far-right through appeasment in a coalition, which in turn has radicalized them much more. In my opinion if you have a "major party system", then those major parties have the responsibility to integrate the anti-liberal, revolutionised forces in the society. And they have the responsibility to let go when the other side has won, or to form a coalition with minor parties that are closest to you. I am not a big fan of the CDU's anti-AfD course for example, by strongly opposing them, they become a major alternative for the voter if they want change. While a CDU/SPD coalition is the fastest way to create the need for anti-establishment options. So in essence, I do believe that appeasment is should be considered, but you can't just do it towards their voters, they will see through it if you can't even consider partnering with the creators of those ideas. I personally prefer a system that allows for a greater spread and that does not force compromise before the elections (within major parties), but after elections. A lot of the far-right voters are plainly there to protest against the system by choosing the party that seems to be the most anti-system option. The two advantages being that a) you simply can represent minor opinions, people don't feel forced to vote for Hillary just to vote against Trump or vis-verca. b) You represent the voter's opinion better proportionally if you have a nationalist, a liberterian and a conservative party instead of having a conservative candidate for a united right-wing party. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On April 12 2017 00:33 Danglars wrote: Great. I can accept Marine Le Pen's failings if you detach yourself enough from the partisan lines against her to some more objective criticism. I suppose I should explain more about what I mean by sacred cows. In English-language press, the recounting of what was done in the wake of Charlie Hebdo was blurring reprinted images of the offending cover, and preferred instead the vacuous symbol of the pen/pencil betokening timid support of the ideal and zero support of its exercise. Every attempt to explain a failure of assimilation is met by accusations of racism and xenophobia. The sacred cow is you aren't allowed to say anything ill of Muslims because (strong) there isn't anything wrong with Islam, as practiced by immigrant and French Muslim groups, and (weak) you're encouraging far-right fringe extremists with your rhetoric. It's shown, however imperfectly, on polling on burkini bans. French citizens are opposed, French leaders claim nothing wrong, and surely this opposition is coming out in some nonsensical legislation, but the divide exists. If French society continues at the current pace of cultural evolving, if anything remains of its representative government ideal, a FN 2.0 party will morph from existing or previous with less far right radicals but more attention to the unwelcome effects of capitulating to terrorism and compassion to refugees over loyalty to country. You cannot command assimilation. It happens naturally over time (decades), but you can only ask integration. In a society where basic liberties are guaranteed, I don't see how you can demand from someone to change his whole identity… and to what exactly? You can, however, discourage/forbid certain behaviours. Right-wingers always blame minorities for “not integrating,” yet oddly enough often or always refuse to talk about the number one obstacle to integrate: racism. It's a known fact that people who have an immigrant background, as it's the case with most Muslims, are discriminated when it comes to housing, jobs, cop controls, schools, etc. How are you supposed to be fully part of the society when that society tells you daily in various ways that you will always be a sub-citizen? Basically right-wingers think backwards: they think that lack of integration triggers racism, while the reverse is true. As for the Muslim minority in France, most of them (70+%) do accept “secular/liberal principles,” with only ~25% of them having authoritarian and rigid conservative views (strongly correlated with lower socio-economic background). I don't think there is any significant difference with the general population, but sadly the study does not ask the same things for other religions so we cannot directly compare. [It's based on a study from September 2016 by some think tank.] But given that a massive social movement of Christian conservatives arose when we adopted the gay marriage, it's pretty clear that those authoritarian, conservative/backwards religious views are not a Muslim specificity at all. The idea that you are not allowed to say bad things about Muslims in the French society is absolutely grotesque. You can find many magazine covers, endless books or press articles depicting islam in a worrying, negative way. Some polemists literally built their careers on their obsession about islam, usually inversely proportional to their actual knowledge of islam-related stuff. The French society actually bathes in anti-Muslim racism, to the point that people apparently think that there are actually 15-20 millions of Muslims in France (actual figure = 5 millions… And that's already counting people who are not actually observants). The burkini ban was a hysterical instrumentalization from despicable right-wing local politicians who wanted to create a buzz for Sarkozy's campaign. Overall people in this region (South-East) are more racist than the national average, the FN reaches insane scores there. We were also just after the Nice attack. French leaders did not claim that nothing was wrong, many tried to exploit this stupid controversy to stir anti-Muslim feelings and sell their right/far-right junk (including our ex-Prime minister). I still facepalm at the fact that people talked an entire goddamn month about a random garment that barely anyone even wears to begin with. Press articles were forced to use photos from Turkey or Tunisia to illustrate women in “burkini” lol… Only France can reach this amount of sheer stupidity, freaking out about a completely fringe aspect of our social life. I don't understand why you even talk about refugees. France took almost nothing, only 5k people in a 66 millions people country i. e. 0,0075% or 1 person out of 13 200. On April 12 2017 02:52 LegalLord wrote: I can't trust Fake News Network to report faithfully, can any French folk explain how significant this will probably be? Source It sparked a controversy but there should not be significant consequences. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7888 Posts
On April 11 2017 22:53 Danglars wrote: Show me polling on French colonies among FN voters today. I can acknowledge the bad history and inclusion of certain far right fringe groups I do not support. I get that you're generally an insufferable troll, so abandon your attempt to explain if your thesis is my love for hateful racist scumbags. Try harder. Do we even have one French citizen here that supports FN? I wonder if your opinions are just xenophobia for groups you disagree with. "You are racist against racists!!" Well that's a neat defense, mate. If you want a comprehensive text in English about the relationship of the FN to our colonial past, here you go: http://thehistoryinquestion.com/uncategorized/sessions_jennifer_14_03_2017/ I can find you plenty of excellent ressources and articles in French, but best is to hear Marine Le Pen herself saying De Gaulle shouldn't have given their independence to algerians: http://r-p-r.fr/2015/10/02/apres-morano-marine-le-pen-derape-sur-de-gaulle-et-lalgerie-francaise-challenges/ So now that this is established, can I ask you what is your point with that poll thing? It's not FN voters you cheer for, but the FN itself. Even though the numerous FN voters I have met were almost systematically closed minded fairly hateful people, what's at stake is not so much what they think but what they vote for, and Marine Le Pen has been quite good at masking the bad smell of her party with a perfume of relative plitical correctness. It's not the arabs that are thieves anymore, but the muslim that are "culturally incompatible". Apparently part of the french public is taking the distinction seriously, even though it comes from the exact same people. The problem is not "the intrusion of far right fringe groups". The problem is that the DNA of the party is rooted in Vichy and the OAS. Despite all her effort to be "normal", Le Pen can't help herself saying that the French police didn't do anything wrong by sending jews to Auschwitz before the germans even asked. See, you cheer systematically for the meanest, nastiest people, and never have I read you displaying an atom of compassion. Call me an unsufferable troll or wonder why your opinions are so horrifying to most people here. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On April 12 2017 00:44 Big J wrote: Demanding assimilation goes against the fundamental principles of an open, liberal society which is pretty much the common democratic ground we established after the war. You may be right if you say we do not defend ourselves well enough against radical islamic elements (though statistically those incidents are simply minor, yet they shake the society so there is a good argument for a higher security demand, whether it is materialistically justified or not), but if you demand assimilation and thus you want a closed society, you are on the highway to authoritarianism. There is simply no liberal justification for a closed society, what you demand of the individual migrant is built on racial, or nationalistic ideologies and thus racism and xenophobia. Reporting on its failings goes with an open, liberal society. Sadly, these attempts have been strawmanned and ridiculed to the point where you'll hear suggestions that assimilation isn't even a noble societal goal. And since you mention it, it's fine to consider the threat of radical Islamic terrorism to be a minor issue, so long as you're willing to hear arguments against it (i.e. it's a moderate to large issue, it's unaddressed w/e) without assaulting the speaker as some bigot. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
Nobody denies that fears have to be addressed and that, to pick up your example, radical interpretations of the quran and religious extremism are of concern to politicians and media. I think you're just blabbering your agenda of "you should be allow to say fuck islam and muslims in particular. They can be dangerous hurr durr" here instead of making any contribution to any form of discussion. We do discuss the threat of radical islam, but if it is used, usually by the right, as a means to sweepingly discredit members of a very diverse religion origin or belief, it is paramount to point that out and call them out on it. Assimiliation is NOT a societal goal, according to my values, muss less a noble one. Assimiliation as the right wants it equals denial of identity and legacy. Enrichment, coexistence, equality and diversity are pillars of a modern society. If you want to live in isolation go join the Amish or be a hermit but do not try to force your unalterable beliefs about a differing culture on everyone. It won't be easy pickings to form a globalized society but it is inevitable in this kind of world, unless we want to forcibly hold people in different classes. And that at any rate is not my goal. Problems we are facing right now. Climate change, refugee movements and decline of natural resources (mineral and biotic) are just some of the challenges only solvable on a global scale. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On April 12 2017 04:26 TheDwf wrote: You cannot command assimilation. It happens naturally over time (decades), but you can only ask integration. In a society where basic liberties are guaranteed, I don't see how you can demand from someone to change his whole identity… and to what exactly? You can, however, discourage/forbid certain behaviours. Right-wingers always blame minorities for “not integrating,” yet oddly enough often or always refuse to talk about the number one obstacle to integrate: racism. It's a known fact that people who have an immigrant background, as it's the case with most Muslims, are discriminated when it comes to housing, jobs, cop controls, schools, etc. How are you supposed to be fully part of the society when that society tells you daily in various ways that you will always be a sub-citizen? Basically right-wingers think backwards: they think that lack of integration triggers racism, while the reverse is true. As for the Muslim minority in France, most of them (70+%) do accept “secular/liberal principles,” with only ~25% of them having authoritarian and rigid conservative views (strongly correlated with lower socio-economic background). I don't think there is any significant difference with the general population, but sadly the study does not ask the same things for other religions so we cannot directly compare. [It's based on a study from September 2016 by some think tank.] But given that a massive social movement of Christian conservatives arose when we adopted the gay marriage, it's pretty clear that those authoritarian, conservative/backwards religious views are not a Muslim specificity at all. The idea that you are not allowed to say bad things about Muslims in the French society is absolutely grotesque. You can find many magazine covers, endless books or press articles depicting islam in a worrying, negative way. Some polemists literally built their careers on their obsession about islam, usually inversely proportional to their actual knowledge of islam-related stuff. The French society actually bathes in anti-Muslim racism, to the point that people apparently think that there are actually 15-20 millions of Muslims in France (actual figure = 5 millions… And that's already counting people who are not actually observants). The burkini ban was a hysterical instrumentalization from despicable right-wing local politicians who wanted to create a buzz for Sarkozy's campaign. Overall people in this region (South-East) are more racist than the national average, the FN reaches insane scores there. We were also just after the Nice attack. French leaders did not claim that nothing was wrong, many tried to exploit this stupid controversy to stir anti-Muslim feelings and sell their right/far-right junk (including our ex-Prime minister). I still facepalm at the fact that people talked an entire goddamn month about a random garment that barely anyone even wears to begin with. Press articles were forced to use photos from Turkey or Tunisia to illustrate women in “burkini” lol… Only France can reach this amount of sheer stupidity, freaking out about a completely fringe aspect of our social life. I don't understand why you even talk about refugees. France took almost nothing, only 5k people in a 66 millions people country i. e. 0,0075% or 1 person out of 13 200. It sparked a controversy but there should not be significant consequences. We could play the blame game for as many years as there's been a French Fifth Republic. Now you speak to some vague support of "discourage/forbid certain behaviours," but every time something of the kind is brought up (American observation), the speaker is attacked for wanting to force assimilation or other nonsense. Now, I'm no expert on racism in France, so I'll hold my tongue there. For all I know, the left/moderates have it right and it's racism and not group preference/language barrier/pre-existing mutual animosity feeding and growing/what have you. I don't know how backward your debate is, whether or not racism is automatic when you see disparate statistics between groups. Overall, informative, and thanks. I have to question your numbers on refugees, just seeing reporting on the Dunkirk migrant camp, the free movement provisions once entry to the EU is granted, difficulties assessing numbers within the millions of immigrants in communities, etc. Continuing my points on difficulties questioning Muslims in society and whether or not secular/liberal principles are accepted is really beyond my scope of participation here, so I'll leave it be. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On April 12 2017 04:55 Biff The Understudy wrote: "You are racist against racists!!" Well that's a neat defense, mate. Excuse me, did you misquote someone else who said it? Or do I have to go back through three layers of spin to arrive at something resembling logic. If you want a comprehensive text in English about the relationship of the FN to our colonial past, here you go: http://thehistoryinquestion.com/uncategorized/sessions_jennifer_14_03_2017/ I can find you plenty of excellent ressources and articles in French, but best is to hear Marine Le Pen herself saying De Gaulle shouldn't have given their independence to algerians: http://r-p-r.fr/2015/10/02/apres-morano-marine-le-pen-derape-sur-de-gaulle-et-lalgerie-francaise-challenges/ Thanks. I wish I could read French because primary source leaders in their own words are so valuable. So now that this is established, can I ask you what is your point with that poll thing? It's not FN voters you cheer for, but the FN itself. Even though the numerous FN voters I have met were almost systematically closed minded fairly hateful people, what's at stake is not so much what they think but what they vote for, and Marine Le Pen has been quite good at masking the bad smell of her party with a perfume of relative plitical correctness. It's not the arabs that are thieves anymore, but the muslim that are "culturally incompatible". Apparently part of the french public is taking the distinction seriously, even though it comes from the exact same people. The problem is not "the intrusion of far right fringe groups". The problem is that the DNA of the party is rooted in Vichy and the OAS. Despite all her effort to be "normal", Le Pen can't help herself saying that the French police didn't do anything wrong by sending jews to Auschwitz before the germans even asked. See, you cheer systematically for the meanest, nastiest people, and never have I read you displaying an atom of compassion. Call me an unsufferable troll or wonder why your opinions are so horrifying to most people here. That maybe you have to examine your own prejudices if you declare such a large segment of your population are "almost systematically closed minded fairly hateful people." I deal with the same mischaracterization in my own society, where people who aren't named Biff open up "I know you're a big fan of hateful, racist, scumbags, but what about..." like the preface really helps matters. I suggest you drop the hatred, the defense of exhibiting hatred, and the dissimulation about your own hatred. Maybe then you won't be trying to sell one version of hatred instead of what you call a different form. I cheer for the first group to bring important topics to the fore of the political discussion, with a bad messenger and a bad historical platform. The next steps, which I said evolution of political parties, could lead to very positive changes in your country. We won't see eye to eye on what you consider problems and non-problems. You entire approach is a problem. You can't even quote Le Pen properly to critique her and you can't resist calling people racist scumbags for disagreeing with you. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7888 Posts
On April 12 2017 05:48 Danglars wrote: Excuse me, did you misquote someone else who said it? Or do I have to go back through three layers of spin to arrive at something resembling logic. Thanks. I wish I could read French because primary source leaders in their own words are so valuable. That maybe you have to examine your own prejudices if you declare such a large segment of your population are "almost systematically closed minded fairly hateful people." I deal with the same mischaracterization in my own society, where people who aren't named Biff open up "I know you're a big fan of hateful, racist, scumbags, but what about..." like the preface really helps matters. I suggest you drop the hatred, the defense of exhibiting hatred, and the dissimulation about your own hatred. Maybe then you won't be trying to sell one version of hatred instead of what you call a different form. I cheer for the first group to bring important topics to the fore of the political discussion, with a bad messenger and a bad historical platform. The next steps, which I said evolution of political parties, could lead to very positive changes in your country. We won't see eye to eye on what you consider problems and non-problems. You entire approach is a problem. You can't even quote Le Pen properly to critique her and you can't resist calling people racist scumbags for disagreeing with you. 1. I basically quoted you. Replaced xenophobic by racist, but that's equally as dumb. 2. Too bad you don't read French, that's why I told you what she said. That French Ageria was great and De Gaulle was wrong. Just like Daddy and his bunch of monsters. I won't translate the whole thing, if you don't believe me, either learn to read French or use google translate. 3. I said the ones I have met were usually etc... I am not saying they all are just the ones I have met. You haven't been in a voting station seeing young men screaming "we'll fuck them all" and taking only a Marine Le Pen ballot. I have. You haven't seen local elected FN asking to close a vibrant cultural center because they did an exhibition with a muslim artist. I have. You haven't had dinner with the FN neighbours saying that the refugees can drown in the Meditereranea. I have. I'm not making generalization, I just tell you what my experience is, specifying that it's my experience. Don't strawman me. I'm sure they are decent, if horrendously misguided people voting for Le Pen and her team of pond scums. I just haven't met any. Things are fairly simple. You cheer for atrocious people with atrocious ideas and with an atrocious past. Don't, if you don't want me to "mischaracterize" you as an atrocious person. I give you (and most of their voters) the benefit of the doubt of either trolling or not knowing who the FN leaders are and what they truly stand for. I would take it. If you want to keep whining about me being mean for saying that it ain't ok to vote for Petainists racists (and don't tell me Le Pen is not racist, if there is one racist on earth it's her) or support them, please indulge. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On April 12 2017 05:59 Biff The Understudy wrote: 1. I basically quoted you. Replaced xenophobic by racist, but that's equally as dumb. Thanks for all the laughs. I repeat, is this the second time you meant to quote somebody else and quoted me, or is there some triple-tier of logic connecting what you wrote (concluded?) and what I said 2. Too bad you don't read French, that's why I told you what she said. That French Ageria was great and De Gaulle was wrong. Just like Daddy and his bunch of monsters. I won't translate the whole thing, if you don't believe me, either learn to read French or use google translate. 3. I said the ones I have met were usually etc... I am not saying they all are just the ones I have met. You haven't been in a voting station seeing young men screaming "we'll fuck them all" and taking only a Marine Le Pen ballot. I have. You haven't seen local elected FN asking to close a vibrant cultural center because they did an exhibition with a muslim artist. I have. You haven't had dinner with the FN neighbours saying that the refugees can drown in the Meditereranea. I have. I'm not making generalization, I just tell you what my experience is, specifying that it's my experience. Don't strawman me. I'm sure they are decent, if horrendously misguided people voting for Le Pen and her team of pond scums. I just haven't met any. Things are fairly simple. You cheer for atrocious people with atrocious ideas and with an atrocious past. Don't, if you don't want me to "mischaracterize" you as an atrocious person. I give you (and most of their voters) the benefit of the doubt of either trolling or not knowing who the FN leaders are and what they truly stand for. I would take it. If you want to keep whining about me being mean for saying that it ain't ok to vote for Petainists or support them, please indulge. I can't ride around France finding out if Biff's experiences are representative or just another leftist that finds extremists and inflates their voice. I can't. I know you've called me a lover of "hateful racist scumbags," "cheer systematically for the meanest, nastiest people," "cheer for atrocious people with atrocious ideas and with an atrocious past." Honestly, you make me start to sympathize with FN voters. I've criticized Le Pen three times and only supported what might be a useful evolution of political platforms gained by her candidacy (and unheard by you). I'm not a big fan of FN or Le Pen, but if you're an example of the opposition, yeah you're starting to inform me about why her support is in the 23% or 24%. Your ears are just too plugged up for nuance and you only know "cheer" and "hate," as evidenced by your last few posts. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Thankfully seems like no casualties. Just minor injuries. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On April 12 2017 06:20 Danglars wrote: Thanks for all the laughs. I repeat, is this the second time you meant to quote somebody else and quoted me, or is there some triple-tier of logic connecting what you wrote (concluded?) and what I said I can't ride around France finding out if Biff's experiences are representative or just another leftist that finds extremists and inflates their voice. I can't. I know you've called me a lover of "hateful racist scumbags," "cheer systematically for the meanest, nastiest people," "cheer for atrocious people with atrocious ideas and with an atrocious past." Honestly, you make me start to sympathize with FN voters. I've criticized Le Pen three times and only supported what might be a useful evolution of political platforms gained by her candidacy (and unheard by you). I'm not a big fan of FN or Le Pen, but if you're an example of the opposition, yeah you're starting to inform me about why her support is in the 23% or 24%. Your ears are just too plugged up for nuance and you only know "cheer" and "hate," as evidenced by your last few posts. Her support being about 25% is probably the same reason why about 25% of Muslims have expressed sympathy for the Charlie Hebdo attackers. And just as that 25% of Muslims are not necessarily would-be terrorists, neither are 25% of Le Pen supporters racists. It's just people being people, having ideas, forming tribes, etc. | ||
|
lastpuritan
United States540 Posts
On April 11 2017 16:26 Velr wrote: So erdogan is jailing thousands of journalists and teachers, banning newspapers and closing tv stations because he is such an awesome democrat that just wants to push a normal constitutional reform? Sounds legit. Never said any of these in my post. But yeah, we fully support his decision to shut down newspapers and tv stations of Gulen organization, or PKK media, deal with it. You don't even let our government to rally for our citizens and expect us to be nice on coup plotters. We should have fed them to the dogs we buy from Netherlands police. | ||
| ||
