With that same reasoning, you could also say it's pretty hypocritical not to respect them - we say that they need to respect people (such as immigrants and homosexuals) for being different compared to themselves, but refuse to respect them for having opinions that deviate from the majority. If they are seen as a victim, chances are even higher that they'll win more support. And I'm not saying their policies should ever be supported - but their right to sit in parliament shouldn't be questioned.
Political discussions and other rants about useless things like culture
- Thread starter Matse
- Start date
Either way is true. And what you explained in your previous post, about exposing them for who they am, is the best way to deal with it I think. Because this hasn't happened with the PVV in The Netherlands Geert Wilders could basically victimize himself, thus winning a lot of votes and becoming the third party in The Netherlands.
Defiance
I vårens ljusa kvällar
Actually the other day I was listening to the Thinking Allowed podcast, and they were discussing "hate crimes". In a similar discussion like this, they said that (e.g.) killing a Nazi for being a Nazi is still a hate crime, even is the guy/gal is a Nazi. Pretty similar to this, I guess we have to be "tolerant of their intolerance".
I guess Maxim1110, that TN is way worse off than Sverige, considering that Wilders is gaining so much power.
I guess Maxim1110, that TN is way worse off than Sverige, considering that Wilders is gaining so much power.
stizzleomnibus
Decisively Human
One of the most troubling philosophical questions is how tolerant societies handle intolerance. It is not okay to simply accept those who are different; you must accept those who hate them as well. Frankly, I find the European response to hate groups to be incredibly troubling. I know we had talked about Fred Phelps, the American Shame, a while ago. While I would love it if he would shut the fuck up, it's really impressive that we allow him the freedom to speak. I understand some restrictions on speech in extreme cases, such as German sensitivity to Naziism. At the same time, outlawing speech is the first step on a long road to totalitarianism.
I'm a little high so maybe this won't make much sense.
But generally what the fringes do when given free speech and broader participation in the democratic process is that, regardless of where they stand on the political spectrum, their main purpose is to destroy the middle ground.
The ultimate case of this in the 20th century was the Spanish Civil War, where both the left and the right (that is, the Carlist / fascist right and the anarchists / socialists / communists) agitated the electorate, got into power, and proceeded to eviscerate the democratic process.
I'm American (well, Puerto Rican, but my background is complicated because I'm actually an islander who sees his American and Puerto Rican experiences as completely different), and my basic position is that free speech ultimately has to be protected.
But if you say something stupid, you should suffer the consequences. Obviously political violence is not the answer. Unless what you utter threatens the state. If you use the language of political violence, the state has an obligation to turn its guns on you.
You should be able to say whatever you like in society. But when you advocate violence or imply violent measures against others, you're on thin fucking ice. If it cracks, it's your fault. I don't consider it government oppression to smash those who make the first move in making their politics violent.
Obviously that statement has to be nuanced. Citizens responding with violence to violence committed by their own government without cause is also just.
But generally what the fringes do when given free speech and broader participation in the democratic process is that, regardless of where they stand on the political spectrum, their main purpose is to destroy the middle ground.
The ultimate case of this in the 20th century was the Spanish Civil War, where both the left and the right (that is, the Carlist / fascist right and the anarchists / socialists / communists) agitated the electorate, got into power, and proceeded to eviscerate the democratic process.
I'm American (well, Puerto Rican, but my background is complicated because I'm actually an islander who sees his American and Puerto Rican experiences as completely different), and my basic position is that free speech ultimately has to be protected.
But if you say something stupid, you should suffer the consequences. Obviously political violence is not the answer. Unless what you utter threatens the state. If you use the language of political violence, the state has an obligation to turn its guns on you.
You should be able to say whatever you like in society. But when you advocate violence or imply violent measures against others, you're on thin fucking ice. If it cracks, it's your fault. I don't consider it government oppression to smash those who make the first move in making their politics violent.
Obviously that statement has to be nuanced. Citizens responding with violence to violence committed by their own government without cause is also just.
stizzleomnibus
Decisively Human
That makes perfect sense. Free speech presents a challenge: where is the line between expression and "utility" in speech? It's perfectly legal to say "I hate all [ethnic group]", but it is not legal to say "We're going to kill all [ethnic group]". So, as far as prosecuting people for inciting violence, do it. However, some nations make it difficult to even express a controversial opinion. I was just reading about a case in Canada where a man has been brought up on libel charges for criticizing the police. That's EXACTLY the kind of speech that needs to be protected. So, while I don't particularly want to hear what bigots have to say, they've got to be allowed to say it, else all the rest of our speech is in danger.
I appreciate someone like Fred Phelps or Howard Stern, because they push the boundaries of free speech. While I don't give a shit what they have to say, the moral crusaders are busy fighting them on the far side of the field, creating a safe space back here for the rest of us to engage in uninhibited dialog.
I appreciate someone like Fred Phelps or Howard Stern, because they push the boundaries of free speech. While I don't give a shit what they have to say, the moral crusaders are busy fighting them on the far side of the field, creating a safe space back here for the rest of us to engage in uninhibited dialog.
Defiance
I vårens ljusa kvällar
^ Indeed, and it's interesting that just as we're talking about this, Geert is undergoing a trial for his racist comments and could face up to a year in prison.
What're the boundaries of free speech, if they're always changing? Are there any boundaries? Should there be any?
On other news, the guy who apparently try to blow up a car in Times Square was sentenced to life in prison. I don't know how the heck people live in the US, the constant state of paranoia fed by the government and the news would make me leave the country in the blink of an eye. I'm going to Colorado, and to be honest I'm incredibly nervous. Not so much because of a so-called "terror" attack, but I'm just afraid that some guy will start a random shooting and kill me
. On the terror stuff, I think that an attack is unlikely to happen, but I've got to admit that I'm afraid, especially due to the bloody lack of control US airports have. It's such a fallacy, the guy in Nederland almost blew up the plane, even after his father went to the embassy to say that his son was getting involved with terrorists. This lack of control is what scares me. I once went through a US airport, and I had a cutter. No one took it from me, although I guess you can't kill anyone with a cutter . But perhaps some preventive measures were necessary?
What're the boundaries of free speech, if they're always changing? Are there any boundaries? Should there be any?
On other news, the guy who apparently try to blow up a car in Times Square was sentenced to life in prison. I don't know how the heck people live in the US, the constant state of paranoia fed by the government and the news would make me leave the country in the blink of an eye. I'm going to Colorado, and to be honest I'm incredibly nervous. Not so much because of a so-called "terror" attack, but I'm just afraid that some guy will start a random shooting and kill me
. On the terror stuff, I think that an attack is unlikely to happen, but I've got to admit that I'm afraid, especially due to the bloody lack of control US airports have. It's such a fallacy, the guy in Nederland almost blew up the plane, even after his father went to the embassy to say that his son was getting involved with terrorists. This lack of control is what scares me. I once went through a US airport, and I had a cutter. No one took it from me, although I guess you can't kill anyone with a cutter . But perhaps some preventive measures were necessary?I see you tried to translate "The Netherlands" to Dutch? 
Well, google translate got it wrong there. Although many languages use plural forms (such as French: Pays-Bas, and English) but in Dutch it is "Nederland" which is singular. Just like in German, where it is "Niederlande". It was once called "De Nederlanden" (or De Neederlanden, in old Dutch) but that was before the split up with Belgium and Luxembourg. So basically the plural form is used for the old republic (yes, The Netherlands was one of the first republics in the world, and we are not a full republic now due to a ridiculous royal family) which included roughly Belgium and Luxembourg and a small part of northern France, and the singular word is used for the country as it is now.
On the royal family: I don't have anything against them personally, but I just think it's ridiculous we pay millions of euros for a family that just has a ceremonial function.
Oh, a lot has happened in the political world of The Netherlands in the past few weeks. Sometimes I wish I could just post some links to articles about it but because I can't expect the lot of you to speak Dutch and automatic translators usually suck, I shouldn't try. Well, I guess British and American papers and newssites have articles on the subject too, I read an article on Geert's prosecution in Le Monde today as well.
I'll explain a lot later, as I don't really have the time now but there is one thing I want to say about the prosecution: first of all, let's have it clear that I do not think he should be prosecuted. In one way because it damages the freedom of speech, in another because this will only win him votes. If he wins, that's a triumph. If he loses, he can tell his voters how evil the left-wing parties are for prosecuting him (suspecting they are behind it all). He said that with him, the freedom of speech stands trial. He is in a way right, but he is the last to complain about that. Freedom of speech may stand trial, freedom of religion never had an honest trial.
Well, google translate got it wrong there. Although many languages use plural forms (such as French: Pays-Bas, and English) but in Dutch it is "Nederland" which is singular. Just like in German, where it is "Niederlande". It was once called "De Nederlanden" (or De Neederlanden, in old Dutch) but that was before the split up with Belgium and Luxembourg. So basically the plural form is used for the old republic (yes, The Netherlands was one of the first republics in the world, and we are not a full republic now due to a ridiculous royal family) which included roughly Belgium and Luxembourg and a small part of northern France, and the singular word is used for the country as it is now. On the royal family: I don't have anything against them personally, but I just think it's ridiculous we pay millions of euros for a family that just has a ceremonial function.
Oh, a lot has happened in the political world of The Netherlands in the past few weeks. Sometimes I wish I could just post some links to articles about it but because I can't expect the lot of you to speak Dutch and automatic translators usually suck, I shouldn't try. Well, I guess British and American papers and newssites have articles on the subject too, I read an article on Geert's prosecution in Le Monde today as well.
I'll explain a lot later, as I don't really have the time now but there is one thing I want to say about the prosecution: first of all, let's have it clear that I do not think he should be prosecuted. In one way because it damages the freedom of speech, in another because this will only win him votes. If he wins, that's a triumph. If he loses, he can tell his voters how evil the left-wing parties are for prosecuting him (suspecting they are behind it all). He said that with him, the freedom of speech stands trial. He is in a way right, but he is the last to complain about that. Freedom of speech may stand trial, freedom of religion never had an honest trial.
Defiance
I vårens ljusa kvällar
^ Yeah I know it's Nederland, I didn't use google translate; I just typed it the way it sounded right to me
stizzleomnibus
Decisively Human
@Defiance: There's no violence in America. Regardless of what you may have heard, there hasn't been a single successful terror attack in 9 years (and one month - six days). We have the occasional domestic loon, but whatever.
@Maxim: You'll have to do your own research, but I know that in the case of the United Kingdom the royal family is actually cash positive for the country. Taxpayers invest a bit in keeping them there, and the entire world pours money into the U.K. to visit palaces.
@Maxim: You'll have to do your own research, but I know that in the case of the United Kingdom the royal family is actually cash positive for the country. Taxpayers invest a bit in keeping them there, and the entire world pours money into the U.K. to visit palaces.
Defiance
I vårens ljusa kvällar
Of course there's violence in the US! Oh, but you mean terrorist attacks
. Ja, there's no real reason to worry. What do you think of the so-called "9/11 was an inside job" theory? Palaces are awesome and I love Her Majesty The Queen. I think it's a really great cultural aspect that, sadly enough, not many people like.
Of course the palaces are nice, but I have to say that those in The Netherlands don't have the grandeur of the British palaces. In the end, those palaces are here now anyway. Louis doesn't live in Neuschwanstein in southern Germany anymore but that castle is there anyway. Of course, some money needs to be paid for maintenance etc, but over a 100 million is a bit too much imo...
Defiance
I vårens ljusa kvällar
I guess I see your point, Nederland (wrote it correctly, I hope) doesn;t have a very famous/relevant monarchy. No one really cares about it, whilst when you talk of UK, most people know The Queen.
Defiance
I vårens ljusa kvällar
Defiance
I vårens ljusa kvällar
^ .
In other Costa Rican news, the usual is happening: People "vote" for the same party, and there's a 30-year lag in the general infrastructure.
Of course, it took the government 30 years to build a road, and when it's finally built the road is unfinished and badly designed. But of course, Mr Arias wanted to inaugurate it, even if it (along with many other buildings ) wasn't complete.
But hey, it's a Banana Republic here, so there's no surprise in that. I can't wait to go to a real country, I'll finish this master's and BYE-BYE! Off to The Land of the Rising Sun, where people can't speak English, women are sexually frustrated and teenagers kill themselves in groups of five! :Smokin:
.In other Costa Rican news, the usual is happening: People "vote" for the same party, and there's a 30-year lag in the general infrastructure.
Of course, it took the government 30 years to build a road, and when it's finally built the road is unfinished and badly designed. But of course, Mr Arias wanted to inaugurate it, even if it (along with many other buildings ) wasn't complete.
But hey, it's a Banana Republic here, so there's no surprise in that. I can't wait to go to a real country, I'll finish this master's and BYE-BYE! Off to The Land of the Rising Sun, where people can't speak English, women are sexually frustrated and teenagers kill themselves in groups of five! :Smokin:
Villain
Doctor BenQuillity
Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the subject of Geert Wilders' Trial:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...67984.html?mod=WSJEUROPE_hpp_MIDDLESecondNews
I agree with her 100%. Islam in Europe today is a threat to free speech. While I disagree with some of Mr. Wilders' simplistic black-or-white statements, I fully agree with him that many current practices of Islam should not be tolerated in any civilized country, ever.
-Villain
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...67984.html?mod=WSJEUROPE_hpp_MIDDLESecondNews
I agree with her 100%. Islam in Europe today is a threat to free speech. While I disagree with some of Mr. Wilders' simplistic black-or-white statements, I fully agree with him that many current practices of Islam should not be tolerated in any civilized country, ever.
-Villain
Religious fundamentalists and political extremists do the same thing. Islam by doctrine isn't any worse than other political movements that have tried to homogenize humanity (either by conversion or extermination, and this includes Christianity).
It's not a problem with Islam. It's a problem of nationalism, both in Europe and abroad. What's "threatening" about Islam is that in current world affairs, Islam is the language of politics in many parts of the world. Why this is a problem *now* and not, say, when the Ottoman Empire was almost as large as the Roman Empire, is a complicated matter.
If you think Islam is the problem, you're looking at the wrong mask. Demographics, pressure on resources, the prospect of many of these poorer countries never achieving a standard of living they see in the developed world... it's a two way street. Anyone peddling Islamophobia is just appealing to our more primordial instinct to want more for "us," whereas Islamic fundamentalists are no different than Nazis who think those who are different have to be destroyed for the better of the truly deserving parts of humanity.
Ultimately, we have to take responsibility for the extremes. I have no problem smashing in the head of Islamophobes and Christian fundamentalists in our midst, but I also expect religious moderates to take full responsibility for the lunatics their doctrines spawn. I don't give a fuck about victim narratives.
It's not a problem with Islam. It's a problem of nationalism, both in Europe and abroad. What's "threatening" about Islam is that in current world affairs, Islam is the language of politics in many parts of the world. Why this is a problem *now* and not, say, when the Ottoman Empire was almost as large as the Roman Empire, is a complicated matter.
If you think Islam is the problem, you're looking at the wrong mask. Demographics, pressure on resources, the prospect of many of these poorer countries never achieving a standard of living they see in the developed world... it's a two way street. Anyone peddling Islamophobia is just appealing to our more primordial instinct to want more for "us," whereas Islamic fundamentalists are no different than Nazis who think those who are different have to be destroyed for the better of the truly deserving parts of humanity.
Ultimately, we have to take responsibility for the extremes. I have no problem smashing in the head of Islamophobes and Christian fundamentalists in our midst, but I also expect religious moderates to take full responsibility for the lunatics their doctrines spawn. I don't give a fuck about victim narratives.
Similar threads
