|
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 May 08 2017 05:06 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 05:00 SoSexy wrote:
It's exactly true. Your second point does not make sense. It's exactly true because you say so? Can't really remember the Molotovs for Brexit or Orban or whenever the SVP wins something (which has been less often in the recent past btw)... My second point makes complete sense. Hi, I'm a nazi, I think inferior races are the bane of the world. However I'm not doing anything about it. What, you come at me with an aggressive tone saying that I'm wrong about the world? Why are you so aggressive, I think your reaction is kind of extreme. Makes me think perhaps you're the extremist. Do you see why this doesn't work? It doesn't work because we're attempting to qualify content, not form.
I'm sure your memory still works fine, just try. i.e, molotovs for Le Pen, clashes on Trump's inauguration etc etc. Brexit was ridicolous enough with people calling for the vote to be canceled after they lost it. If they had won, however, they would have been chanting in joy, waving the Union Jack...
Your second point does not make sense because extremism is not considered in comparison to others, but within itself. In your scenario, both the guys would be extremists. One for calling stupid racial banter, the other for being aggressive (and i'm not talking about some insults - if the other guy starts to throw molotovs at the nazi, he is an extremist too. If the situation is illegal, the State will provide countermeasures. end of the story.)
|
Switzerland12216 Posts
On May 08 2017 05:14 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 05:06 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2017 05:00 SoSexy wrote:
It's exactly true. Your second point does not make sense. It's exactly true because you say so? Can't really remember the Molotovs for Brexit or Orban or whenever the SVP wins something (which has been less often in the recent past btw)... My second point makes complete sense. Hi, I'm a nazi, I think inferior races are the bane of the world. However I'm not doing anything about it. What, you come at me with an aggressive tone saying that I'm wrong about the world? Why are you so aggressive, I think your reaction is kind of extreme. Makes me think perhaps you're the extremist. Do you see why this doesn't work? It doesn't work because we're attempting to qualify content, not form. I'm sure your memory still works fine, just try. i.e, molotovs for Le Pen, clashes on Trump's inauguration etc etc. Brexit was ridicolous enough with people calling for the vote to be canceled after they lost it. Your second point does not make sense because extremism is not considered in comparison to others, but within itself. In your scenario, both the guys would be extremists. One for calling stupid racial banter, the other for being aggressive (and i'm not talking about some insults - if the other guy starts to throw molotovs at the nazi, he is an extremist too)
Did you write "etc" because you had no other examples but you wanted to make it sound like you had more? Cause if that's the case, that's not enough to justify your initial amusement.
Explain what you mean by "extremism is not considered in comparison to others, but within itself", cause it sounds like a sentence devoid of meaning, and it can't really be true, you are always extreme in comparison to something else that you can refer to as a non-extreme view.
When we say that the far right is extreme in political ideology, we say this because they are at the end of the spectrum of right wing politics, so they are the furthest from the center. We don't say that because of their propensity to throw molotov at people, that's not really how political ideologies work. You seem to be confusing violence with extremism.
|
On May 08 2017 05:23 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 05:14 SoSexy wrote:On May 08 2017 05:06 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2017 05:00 SoSexy wrote:
It's exactly true. Your second point does not make sense. It's exactly true because you say so? Can't really remember the Molotovs for Brexit or Orban or whenever the SVP wins something (which has been less often in the recent past btw)... My second point makes complete sense. Hi, I'm a nazi, I think inferior races are the bane of the world. However I'm not doing anything about it. What, you come at me with an aggressive tone saying that I'm wrong about the world? Why are you so aggressive, I think your reaction is kind of extreme. Makes me think perhaps you're the extremist. Do you see why this doesn't work? It doesn't work because we're attempting to qualify content, not form. I'm sure your memory still works fine, just try. i.e, molotovs for Le Pen, clashes on Trump's inauguration etc etc. Brexit was ridicolous enough with people calling for the vote to be canceled after they lost it. Your second point does not make sense because extremism is not considered in comparison to others, but within itself. In your scenario, both the guys would be extremists. One for calling stupid racial banter, the other for being aggressive (and i'm not talking about some insults - if the other guy starts to throw molotovs at the nazi, he is an extremist too) Did you write "etc" because you had no other examples but you wanted to make it sound like you had more? Cause if that's the case, that's not enough to justify your initial point. Explain what you mean by "extremism is not considered in comparison to others, but within itself", cause it sounds like a sentence devoid of meaning, and it can't really be true, you are always extreme in comparison to something else that you can refer to as a non-extreme view. When we say that the far right is extreme in political ideology, we say this because they are at the end of the spectrum of right wing politics, so they are the furthest from the center. We don't say that because of their propensity to throw molotov at people, that's not really how political ideologies work. You seem to be confusing violence with extremism.
The problem is that what is politically extreme for you, might not be for me. Using a political spectrum like yours is already reflective of a certain worlview. I.e, a communist in Soviet Russia would not perceive his ideology as an extremization of the center.
On the other side, I consider certain actions to be more objective to quantify. Let us suppose there is a party that wants to close the borders of X country. To some people this will be extremism, to others it will be a blessing. We cannot formulate an objective conclusion. However, if the supporters of that party start to throw molotovs at the police at rallies, we can classify the action as extremism.
You can say that according to your political spectrum, the far-right (the term already implies it) is extreme in political ideology. What I am saying is that the political spectrum is relative, while actions that directly threaten people and property are not.
|
@“Extremes are basically the same” people, behold the amazing report from Mélenchon to Le Pen:
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_P4GTCWAAElELp.jpg)
|
Guess Mélenchon supporters were not all that against the system 
|
I always want to know what goes on in the heads of the people who move from Hamon to Le Pen or similar, do these people vote drunk?
|
Switzerland12216 Posts
On May 08 2017 05:34 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 05:23 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2017 05:14 SoSexy wrote:On May 08 2017 05:06 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2017 05:00 SoSexy wrote:
It's exactly true. Your second point does not make sense. It's exactly true because you say so? Can't really remember the Molotovs for Brexit or Orban or whenever the SVP wins something (which has been less often in the recent past btw)... My second point makes complete sense. Hi, I'm a nazi, I think inferior races are the bane of the world. However I'm not doing anything about it. What, you come at me with an aggressive tone saying that I'm wrong about the world? Why are you so aggressive, I think your reaction is kind of extreme. Makes me think perhaps you're the extremist. Do you see why this doesn't work? It doesn't work because we're attempting to qualify content, not form. I'm sure your memory still works fine, just try. i.e, molotovs for Le Pen, clashes on Trump's inauguration etc etc. Brexit was ridicolous enough with people calling for the vote to be canceled after they lost it. Your second point does not make sense because extremism is not considered in comparison to others, but within itself. In your scenario, both the guys would be extremists. One for calling stupid racial banter, the other for being aggressive (and i'm not talking about some insults - if the other guy starts to throw molotovs at the nazi, he is an extremist too) Did you write "etc" because you had no other examples but you wanted to make it sound like you had more? Cause if that's the case, that's not enough to justify your initial point. Explain what you mean by "extremism is not considered in comparison to others, but within itself", cause it sounds like a sentence devoid of meaning, and it can't really be true, you are always extreme in comparison to something else that you can refer to as a non-extreme view. When we say that the far right is extreme in political ideology, we say this because they are at the end of the spectrum of right wing politics, so they are the furthest from the center. We don't say that because of their propensity to throw molotov at people, that's not really how political ideologies work. You seem to be confusing violence with extremism. The problem is that what is politically extreme for you, might not be for me. Using a political spectrum like yours is already reflective of a certain worlview. I.e, a communist in Soviet Russia would not perceive his ideology as an extremization of the center. On the other side, I consider certain actions to be more objective to quantify. Let us suppose there is a party that wants to close the borders of X country. To some people this will be extremism, to others it will be a blessing. We cannot formulate an objective conclusion. However, if the supporters of that party start to throw molotovs at the police at rallies, we can classify the action as extremism.
It would be a problem if I was responsible for the creation of the spectrum. Luckily, I'm not, so it's not really a problem. It's completely irrelevant that you or a communist don't feel like they are extremists, we aren't interested in your feelings. Is there a bunch of people who are so distinctly to the left of communism that they deserve a separate classification? No, there aren't. So they are far left, regardless of how blessed they feel about that. That's how it works.
You used the term "objective" in this. It doesn't mean what you think it means.
|
Not like it matters anyways...
|
On May 08 2017 05:41 Nyxisto wrote:
I always want to know what goes on in the heads of the people who move from Hamon to Le Pen or similar, do these people vote drunk?
Maybe statistical artefacts
|
On May 08 2017 05:42 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 05:34 SoSexy wrote:On May 08 2017 05:23 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2017 05:14 SoSexy wrote:On May 08 2017 05:06 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2017 05:00 SoSexy wrote:
It's exactly true. Your second point does not make sense. It's exactly true because you say so? Can't really remember the Molotovs for Brexit or Orban or whenever the SVP wins something (which has been less often in the recent past btw)... My second point makes complete sense. Hi, I'm a nazi, I think inferior races are the bane of the world. However I'm not doing anything about it. What, you come at me with an aggressive tone saying that I'm wrong about the world? Why are you so aggressive, I think your reaction is kind of extreme. Makes me think perhaps you're the extremist. Do you see why this doesn't work? It doesn't work because we're attempting to qualify content, not form. I'm sure your memory still works fine, just try. i.e, molotovs for Le Pen, clashes on Trump's inauguration etc etc. Brexit was ridicolous enough with people calling for the vote to be canceled after they lost it. Your second point does not make sense because extremism is not considered in comparison to others, but within itself. In your scenario, both the guys would be extremists. One for calling stupid racial banter, the other for being aggressive (and i'm not talking about some insults - if the other guy starts to throw molotovs at the nazi, he is an extremist too) It's not that easy. The spectrum is not set in stone as you think. Did you write "etc" because you had no other examples but you wanted to make it sound like you had more? Cause if that's the case, that's not enough to justify your initial point. Explain what you mean by "extremism is not considered in comparison to others, but within itself", cause it sounds like a sentence devoid of meaning, and it can't really be true, you are always extreme in comparison to something else that you can refer to as a non-extreme view. When we say that the far right is extreme in political ideology, we say this because they are at the end of the spectrum of right wing politics, so they are the furthest from the center. We don't say that because of their propensity to throw molotov at people, that's not really how political ideologies work. You seem to be confusing violence with extremism. The problem is that what is politically extreme for you, might not be for me. Using a political spectrum like yours is already reflective of a certain worlview. I.e, a communist in Soviet Russia would not perceive his ideology as an extremization of the center. On the other side, I consider certain actions to be more objective to quantify. Let us suppose there is a party that wants to close the borders of X country. To some people this will be extremism, to others it will be a blessing. We cannot formulate an objective conclusion. However, if the supporters of that party start to throw molotovs at the police at rallies, we can classify the action as extremism. It would be a problem if I was responsible for the creation of the spectrum. Luckily, I'm not, so it's not really a problem. It's completely irrelevant that you or a communist don't feel like they are extremists, we aren't interested in your feelings. Is there a bunch of people who are so distinctly to the left of communism that they deserve a separate classification? No, there aren't. So they are far left, regardless of how blessed they feel about that. That's how it works. You used the term "objective" in this. It doesn't mean what you think it means.
The political spectrum is not set in stone. It's not that easy.
|
On May 08 2017 05:14 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 05:06 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2017 05:00 SoSexy wrote:
It's exactly true. Your second point does not make sense. It's exactly true because you say so? Can't really remember the Molotovs for Brexit or Orban or whenever the SVP wins something (which has been less often in the recent past btw)... My second point makes complete sense. Hi, I'm a nazi, I think inferior races are the bane of the world. However I'm not doing anything about it. What, you come at me with an aggressive tone saying that I'm wrong about the world? Why are you so aggressive, I think your reaction is kind of extreme. Makes me think perhaps you're the extremist. Do you see why this doesn't work? It doesn't work because we're attempting to qualify content, not form. I'm sure your memory still works fine, just try. i.e, molotovs for Le Pen, clashes on Trump's inauguration etc etc. Brexit was ridicolous enough with people calling for the vote to be canceled after they lost it. If they had won, however, they would have been chanting in joy, waving the Union Jack... Your second point does not make sense because extremism is not considered in comparison to others, but within itself. In your scenario, both the guys would be extremists. One for calling stupid racial banter, the other for being aggressive (and i'm not talking about some insults - if the other guy starts to throw molotovs at the nazi, he is an extremist too. If the situation is illegal, the State will provide countermeasures. end of the story.)
Well, there are some traditions of violent anarchist groups generally designated as "black blocks" but their main purpose are generally about hurting some policemen rather than protesting against the election, I mean, elections or any social movements are just a good excuse for them to begin their "great revolution" but most of the protesters are peaceful. I guess there are the useful idiots of the power, they help to present the leftist as monstruous ppl while they attack the different syndicate who are "collabos with the police during the demonstration".
The funny thing is that there are generally young guys from the upper class who want to show their true "virility" and revolutionnary and individualist character while the syndicate are really struggling for the workers. Not mediatising them would make those groups disappear rather quickly
|
Switzerland12216 Posts
On May 08 2017 05:43 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 05:42 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2017 05:34 SoSexy wrote:On May 08 2017 05:23 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2017 05:14 SoSexy wrote:On May 08 2017 05:06 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2017 05:00 SoSexy wrote:
It's exactly true. Your second point does not make sense. It's exactly true because you say so? Can't really remember the Molotovs for Brexit or Orban or whenever the SVP wins something (which has been less often in the recent past btw)... My second point makes complete sense. Hi, I'm a nazi, I think inferior races are the bane of the world. However I'm not doing anything about it. What, you come at me with an aggressive tone saying that I'm wrong about the world? Why are you so aggressive, I think your reaction is kind of extreme. Makes me think perhaps you're the extremist. Do you see why this doesn't work? It doesn't work because we're attempting to qualify content, not form. I'm sure your memory still works fine, just try. i.e, molotovs for Le Pen, clashes on Trump's inauguration etc etc. Brexit was ridicolous enough with people calling for the vote to be canceled after they lost it. Your second point does not make sense because extremism is not considered in comparison to others, but within itself. In your scenario, both the guys would be extremists. One for calling stupid racial banter, the other for being aggressive (and i'm not talking about some insults - if the other guy starts to throw molotovs at the nazi, he is an extremist too) It's not that easy. The spectrum is not set in stone as you think. Did you write "etc" because you had no other examples but you wanted to make it sound like you had more? Cause if that's the case, that's not enough to justify your initial point. Explain what you mean by "extremism is not considered in comparison to others, but within itself", cause it sounds like a sentence devoid of meaning, and it can't really be true, you are always extreme in comparison to something else that you can refer to as a non-extreme view. When we say that the far right is extreme in political ideology, we say this because they are at the end of the spectrum of right wing politics, so they are the furthest from the center. We don't say that because of their propensity to throw molotov at people, that's not really how political ideologies work. You seem to be confusing violence with extremism. The problem is that what is politically extreme for you, might not be for me. Using a political spectrum like yours is already reflective of a certain worlview. I.e, a communist in Soviet Russia would not perceive his ideology as an extremization of the center. On the other side, I consider certain actions to be more objective to quantify. Let us suppose there is a party that wants to close the borders of X country. To some people this will be extremism, to others it will be a blessing. We cannot formulate an objective conclusion. However, if the supporters of that party start to throw molotovs at the police at rallies, we can classify the action as extremism. It would be a problem if I was responsible for the creation of the spectrum. Luckily, I'm not, so it's not really a problem. It's completely irrelevant that you or a communist don't feel like they are extremists, we aren't interested in your feelings. Is there a bunch of people who are so distinctly to the left of communism that they deserve a separate classification? No, there aren't. So they are far left, regardless of how blessed they feel about that. That's how it works. You used the term "objective" in this. It doesn't mean what you think it means. The political spectrum is not set in stone. It's not that easy.
It is though. You only get to pretend it isn't because the US has been using it poorly.
|
On May 08 2017 05:45 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 05:43 SoSexy wrote:On May 08 2017 05:42 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2017 05:34 SoSexy wrote:On May 08 2017 05:23 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2017 05:14 SoSexy wrote:On May 08 2017 05:06 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2017 05:00 SoSexy wrote:
It's exactly true. Your second point does not make sense. It's exactly true because you say so? Can't really remember the Molotovs for Brexit or Orban or whenever the SVP wins something (which has been less often in the recent past btw)... My second point makes complete sense. Hi, I'm a nazi, I think inferior races are the bane of the world. However I'm not doing anything about it. What, you come at me with an aggressive tone saying that I'm wrong about the world? Why are you so aggressive, I think your reaction is kind of extreme. Makes me think perhaps you're the extremist. Do you see why this doesn't work? It doesn't work because we're attempting to qualify content, not form. I'm sure your memory still works fine, just try. i.e, molotovs for Le Pen, clashes on Trump's inauguration etc etc. Brexit was ridicolous enough with people calling for the vote to be canceled after they lost it. Your second point does not make sense because extremism is not considered in comparison to others, but within itself. In your scenario, both the guys would be extremists. One for calling stupid racial banter, the other for being aggressive (and i'm not talking about some insults - if the other guy starts to throw molotovs at the nazi, he is an extremist too) It's not that easy. The spectrum is not set in stone as you think. Did you write "etc" because you had no other examples but you wanted to make it sound like you had more? Cause if that's the case, that's not enough to justify your initial point. Explain what you mean by "extremism is not considered in comparison to others, but within itself", cause it sounds like a sentence devoid of meaning, and it can't really be true, you are always extreme in comparison to something else that you can refer to as a non-extreme view. When we say that the far right is extreme in political ideology, we say this because they are at the end of the spectrum of right wing politics, so they are the furthest from the center. We don't say that because of their propensity to throw molotov at people, that's not really how political ideologies work. You seem to be confusing violence with extremism. The problem is that what is politically extreme for you, might not be for me. Using a political spectrum like yours is already reflective of a certain worlview. I.e, a communist in Soviet Russia would not perceive his ideology as an extremization of the center. On the other side, I consider certain actions to be more objective to quantify. Let us suppose there is a party that wants to close the borders of X country. To some people this will be extremism, to others it will be a blessing. We cannot formulate an objective conclusion. However, if the supporters of that party start to throw molotovs at the police at rallies, we can classify the action as extremism. It would be a problem if I was responsible for the creation of the spectrum. Luckily, I'm not, so it's not really a problem. It's completely irrelevant that you or a communist don't feel like they are extremists, we aren't interested in your feelings. Is there a bunch of people who are so distinctly to the left of communism that they deserve a separate classification? No, there aren't. So they are far left, regardless of how blessed they feel about that. That's how it works. You used the term "objective" in this. It doesn't mean what you think it means. The political spectrum is not set in stone. It's not that easy. It is though. You only get to pretend it isn't because the US has been using it poorly.
Are you sure? I believe it had sense historically due to the way it was born but things change fast. The discussion is open, there's quite some literature on the topic.
|
Some poll about the législatives, done before the election but with the “Macron winning hypothesis”. 46% of people weren't sure to vote or expressed no choice. People were asked for which party they would vote, regardless of the actual local configurations.
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_QByH-WsAE-YRl.jpg) Far-left FI (Mélenchon's movement) Communists (supported Mélenchon but have their own candidates for now) PS (officially supported Hamon) Greens (supported Hamon) Presidential majority Right + their centre-right ally (Fillon) Sovereignist right whose leader rallied Le Pen FN (Le Pen)
|
On May 08 2017 05:41 Nyxisto wrote:
I always want to know what goes on in the heads of the people who move from Hamon to Le Pen or similar, do these people vote drunk?
"My candidate lost, burn it all!" we saw the same from Bernie bro's who wanted to vote Trump after Hillary won the Primary.
|
Norway28678 Posts
On May 08 2017 05:41 Nyxisto wrote:
I always want to know what goes on in the heads of the people who move from Hamon to Le Pen or similar, do these people vote drunk?
1 in 50 is a very small amount.  I agree that it seems completely ridiculuos, but if you look at positions held by 2% of the population or 2% of any given group, there's gonna be a bunch of stuff that looks batshit insane to most of us.
|
On May 08 2017 05:57 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 05:41 Nyxisto wrote:
I always want to know what goes on in the heads of the people who move from Hamon to Le Pen or similar, do these people vote drunk? "My candidate lost, burn it all!" we saw the same from Bernie bro's who wanted to vote Trump after Hillary won the Primary.
Not just that. I remembr in the Dutch election there were people doubting between voting PVV and D66. Those 2 parties are like polar opposites.
|
Switzerland12216 Posts
On May 08 2017 05:57 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 05:41 Nyxisto wrote:
I always want to know what goes on in the heads of the people who move from Hamon to Le Pen or similar, do these people vote drunk? "My candidate lost, burn it all!" we saw the same from Bernie bro's who wanted to vote Trump after Hillary won the Primary.
The comparison doesn't really work in the french context since there is not a system of primary between liberals and socdems where the liberals are fucking over the socdems because of which you could want to see the system burn. And it's especially surprising for someome who voted for Hamon over Mélenchon in the primary, sounds like he's more into improving the system from the left than into having a revolution...
|
On May 08 2017 06:00 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 05:57 Gorsameth wrote:On May 08 2017 05:41 Nyxisto wrote:
I always want to know what goes on in the heads of the people who move from Hamon to Le Pen or similar, do these people vote drunk? "My candidate lost, burn it all!" we saw the same from Bernie bro's who wanted to vote Trump after Hillary won the Primary. Not just that. I remembr in the Dutch election there were people doubting between voting PVV and D66. Those 2 parties are like polar opposites.
it usually depends on what topics are important to you. we have had many talks about cooperation or even coalition between the Greens and the Pirates, which to many people makes perfect sense because both are rather social in econony and also have the " cool factor" in not being corrupt. Yet for me as a Pirate sympathiser, the Greens are completely unacceptable because of their insane regulationist tendencies.
|
On May 08 2017 06:00 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 05:57 Gorsameth wrote:On May 08 2017 05:41 Nyxisto wrote:
I always want to know what goes on in the heads of the people who move from Hamon to Le Pen or similar, do these people vote drunk? "My candidate lost, burn it all!" we saw the same from Bernie bro's who wanted to vote Trump after Hillary won the Primary. Not just that. I remembr in the Dutch election there were people doubting between voting PVV and D66. Those 2 parties are like polar opposites.
I would assume those are single issue voters who tunnel on "these parties are for/against X" and ignore everything else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
