4 ms·

> there definitely is a populist shift in progress Is it that difficult to believe that a large part of the population is not interested in multiculturalism, u

> there definitely is a populist shift in progress Is it that difficult to believe that a large part of the population is not interested in multiculturalism, unrestrained immigration, Islam, etc? I think until this concept cannot be fathomed and taken seriously you will see a continued shift towards so called "populist" thinking. There _must_ be a shift towards a more moderate politics. It is too far to the left and it's too liberal for the vast majority of people in those countries. You can argue against this ad nauseum, however at the the end of the day it's a democracy and the majority will steer the direction they want their politics to go. The current liberal parties need to wake up and realise they're pushing a form of politics that is out of touch with the masses. And every time people say Trump supports are "stupid" and "racist" and "backwards" you are just going to make them push even harder, because you refuse to acknowledge their very real grievances.

pjc50 10y ago
"multiculturalism, unrestrained immigration, Islam" What do those three things actually mean though? And what would it mean to end them? Immigration is only unrestrained within the EU; EU free movement doesn't apply to either refugees from Syria or non-EU immigrants. What does it mean to end multiculturalism? Formal ban on the teaching of minority languages, as in the bad old days when the UK tried to stamp out Gaelic and Welsh? What does it mean to end Islam? An end to freedom of religion? Making muslims wear large yellow crescents so they can be easily identified? Remember the Bataclan attackers weren't immigrants, they were French or Belgian nationals.
- marknutter 10y ago
  > multiculturalism Typically, this means the various campaigns that push political correctness related to race and culture. While the intentions might be virtuous, what usually ends up happening is people on the right become skeptical about "newspeak" and people on the left accuse the right of being "racist" (a small minority actually are). The divide gets wider. I hope that you're not being deliberately obtuse to try to prove your point. Use your imagination and try to think if there's anything about the push for multiculturalism and how it's being done that could be problematic. > unrestrained immigration Germany has unrestrained immigration. They've taken in something like 600k Syrian refugees while Turkey has taken in over 2M. Here in the US we have an unprotected border that illegal immigrants cross in order to live and work here and the left is trying to push policies that would slowly give them amnesty. Your interpretation of "unrestrained immigration" seems to be deliberately avoiding the hot-button topics. > Islam I very much doubt that the GP is talking about "ending Islam", but it sure makes it easier to argue against their post to interpret it that way, doesn't it? If people on the left can't understand the desire to have a bit more skepticism about Islam in light of the recent raft of ISIS and ISIS inspired terrorist attacks then I'm not sure civil discussion about the issue can actually be had. It's unfortunate, because I definitely sympathize with the position that says we should be tolerant of other cultures. But if that tolerance comes at the expense of security and requires labeling conservatives "racist" for having skepticism all that's going to do is result in more populist candidates and a further swing against progressive ideals.
  - pjc50 10y ago
    > Use your imagination and try to think if there's anything about the push for multiculturalism and how it's being done that could be problematic. You're asking me to make a strawman and argue against it. I'm asking people to explain their position and be specific about what they're against and what they want done about it. > Germany has unrestrained immigration. No they don't. They even have a handy website in English to explain what rules apply: http://www.bamf.de/EN/Migration/migration-node.html http://www.bamf.de/EN/Migration/migration-node.html ; if you, as (I guess?) a US national landed in Germany and decided to stay and work, you'd find out fairly quickly that it's not unrestricted. What they have done is fulfil their obligations under the Hague convention on refugees. This does not automatically grant the refugees indefinite leave to remain or German nationality. > skepticism about Islam What does this actually mean in practice, though? Does it mean allowing or encouraging officials to ask people their religion and discriminate against them on that basis? The UK labour party is currently having a fight over the mirror image of this question, which involves distinguishing between the state of Israel, "Zionism", and people of Jewish ethnicity and religion. The distinctions are easily lost in careless rhetoric but very important.
- splouk 10y ago
  > Immigration is only unrestrained within the EU; EU free movement doesn't apply to either refugees from Syria or non-EU immigrants. I think people are definitely frustrated with how the refugee crisis was dealt. There is a perception -- whether true or not -- that Merkel opened the floodgates for unfettered extra-EU immigration. You are right in that there seems to be no serious solutions to these perceived problems, just a build-up of anger.
- laichzeit0 10y ago
  > Islam Muslims killing people because it is Haram to draw cartoon pictures of their imaginary sky god. Muslims sexually harassing woman in Cologne on New Years. Muslims "call to prayer" blaring over load speakers in non-Islamic countries but in their own Muslim created "suburbs". Muslims wanting public swimming pools gender-segregated. If the only way to break the ebb of this tide is through conservative/right-leaning/populist politics then this is exactly what will happen, if the majority so wills it. The actual point is that these are real or perceived to be real grievances that the current political elite are _refusing to entertain as legitimate concerns_. They're not even asking for a "definition". They are flat-out dismissing it as bigotry, racism, "a small minority of disgruntled people", etc. So people have turned to e.g. Trump, who openly talks about this and offers plain and simple plans that address these issues: Build a big wall, deport millions of illegals, etc. You can disagree, but it's a simple solution that people understand.
  - wvenable 10y ago
    Aren't all those things already illegal? It is really hard to find people on either side of the political spectrum that wouldn't agree that those things should remain illegal and be enforced. So most people don't have a problem with that, but they do have a problem with labeling an entire culture, race, or religion is immortal/illegal. That's literally the definition of racism and we should be better than that. Yet it seems like some people are in a real hurry to turn back the clock on that.
    - bordercases 10y ago
      These illegal events come downstream of the policy of what tends to be liberal government: multicultural immigration done hastily, and without the necessary frameworks in place to support it. Regardless of whether these were ill-considered side-effects or whether the consequences came on purpose, they're that government's mistake and their responsibility. If you're talking to your friends, and none of you are directly involved in political office, then I don't think you're getting the opinion from the people who matter. I would beware apologists, though. I think it is the throughput or volume of importing that is most foolish about this effort, not even the intention. In Canada, there exists at least one public school that has to educate 19-22 year old Syrians who don't speak a lick of English in the midst of 15-16 year olds: same classes, same resources. It turns out that these uneducated adults are giving the administration a tough time and I fear for the sexual safety of those children.
Joof 10y ago
Is it too far left? Current polling leads me to believe that the people are beginning to lean more left themselves. Trump isn't exactly winning. Their greivences are real; mine are similar, but I don't believe that the policies and reactions that are trumpeted are going to fix their grievances. Consider immigration as a concern. Why? Competition for jobs, crime and an exploding population of unskilled workers. Education programs (creating skilled Americans, reducing immigrant birth-rate and crime) and stabilizing Mexico are probably the most beneficial long term solutions, but I hear no discussion around this.

pjc50 10y ago

"multiculturalism, unrestrained immigration, Islam" What do those three things actually mean though? And what would it mean to end them? Immigration is only unrestrained within the EU; EU free movement doesn't apply to either refugees from Syria or non-EU immigrants. What does it mean to end multiculturalism? Formal ban on the teaching of minority languages, as in the bad old days when the UK tried to stamp out Gaelic and Welsh? What does it mean to end Islam? An end to freedom of religion? Making muslims wear large yellow crescents so they can be easily identified? Remember the Bataclan attackers weren't immigrants, they were French or Belgian nationals.

marknutter 10y ago
> multiculturalism Typically, this means the various campaigns that push political correctness related to race and culture. While the intentions might be virtuous, what usually ends up happening is people on the right become skeptical about "newspeak" and people on the left accuse the right of being "racist" (a small minority actually are). The divide gets wider. I hope that you're not being deliberately obtuse to try to prove your point. Use your imagination and try to think if there's anything about the push for multiculturalism and how it's being done that could be problematic. > unrestrained immigration Germany has unrestrained immigration. They've taken in something like 600k Syrian refugees while Turkey has taken in over 2M. Here in the US we have an unprotected border that illegal immigrants cross in order to live and work here and the left is trying to push policies that would slowly give them amnesty. Your interpretation of "unrestrained immigration" seems to be deliberately avoiding the hot-button topics. > Islam I very much doubt that the GP is talking about "ending Islam", but it sure makes it easier to argue against their post to interpret it that way, doesn't it? If people on the left can't understand the desire to have a bit more skepticism about Islam in light of the recent raft of ISIS and ISIS inspired terrorist attacks then I'm not sure civil discussion about the issue can actually be had. It's unfortunate, because I definitely sympathize with the position that says we should be tolerant of other cultures. But if that tolerance comes at the expense of security and requires labeling conservatives "racist" for having skepticism all that's going to do is result in more populist candidates and a further swing against progressive ideals.
- pjc50 10y ago
  > Use your imagination and try to think if there's anything about the push for multiculturalism and how it's being done that could be problematic. You're asking me to make a strawman and argue against it. I'm asking people to explain their position and be specific about what they're against and what they want done about it. > Germany has unrestrained immigration. No they don't. They even have a handy website in English to explain what rules apply: http://www.bamf.de/EN/Migration/migration-node.html http://www.bamf.de/EN/Migration/migration-node.html ; if you, as (I guess?) a US national landed in Germany and decided to stay and work, you'd find out fairly quickly that it's not unrestricted. What they have done is fulfil their obligations under the Hague convention on refugees. This does not automatically grant the refugees indefinite leave to remain or German nationality. > skepticism about Islam What does this actually mean in practice, though? Does it mean allowing or encouraging officials to ask people their religion and discriminate against them on that basis? The UK labour party is currently having a fight over the mirror image of this question, which involves distinguishing between the state of Israel, "Zionism", and people of Jewish ethnicity and religion. The distinctions are easily lost in careless rhetoric but very important.
splouk 10y ago
> Immigration is only unrestrained within the EU; EU free movement doesn't apply to either refugees from Syria or non-EU immigrants. I think people are definitely frustrated with how the refugee crisis was dealt. There is a perception -- whether true or not -- that Merkel opened the floodgates for unfettered extra-EU immigration. You are right in that there seems to be no serious solutions to these perceived problems, just a build-up of anger.
laichzeit0 10y ago
> Islam Muslims killing people because it is Haram to draw cartoon pictures of their imaginary sky god. Muslims sexually harassing woman in Cologne on New Years. Muslims "call to prayer" blaring over load speakers in non-Islamic countries but in their own Muslim created "suburbs". Muslims wanting public swimming pools gender-segregated. If the only way to break the ebb of this tide is through conservative/right-leaning/populist politics then this is exactly what will happen, if the majority so wills it. The actual point is that these are real or perceived to be real grievances that the current political elite are _refusing to entertain as legitimate concerns_. They're not even asking for a "definition". They are flat-out dismissing it as bigotry, racism, "a small minority of disgruntled people", etc. So people have turned to e.g. Trump, who openly talks about this and offers plain and simple plans that address these issues: Build a big wall, deport millions of illegals, etc. You can disagree, but it's a simple solution that people understand.
- wvenable 10y ago
  Aren't all those things already illegal? It is really hard to find people on either side of the political spectrum that wouldn't agree that those things should remain illegal and be enforced. So most people don't have a problem with that, but they do have a problem with labeling an entire culture, race, or religion is immortal/illegal. That's literally the definition of racism and we should be better than that. Yet it seems like some people are in a real hurry to turn back the clock on that.
  - bordercases 10y ago
    These illegal events come downstream of the policy of what tends to be liberal government: multicultural immigration done hastily, and without the necessary frameworks in place to support it. Regardless of whether these were ill-considered side-effects or whether the consequences came on purpose, they're that government's mistake and their responsibility. If you're talking to your friends, and none of you are directly involved in political office, then I don't think you're getting the opinion from the people who matter. I would beware apologists, though. I think it is the throughput or volume of importing that is most foolish about this effort, not even the intention. In Canada, there exists at least one public school that has to educate 19-22 year old Syrians who don't speak a lick of English in the midst of 15-16 year olds: same classes, same resources. It turns out that these uneducated adults are giving the administration a tough time and I fear for the sexual safety of those children.

Joof 10y ago

Is it too far left? Current polling leads me to believe that the people are beginning to lean more left themselves. Trump isn't exactly winning. Their greivences are real; mine are similar, but I don't believe that the policies and reactions that are trumpeted are going to fix their grievances. Consider immigration as a concern. Why? Competition for jobs, crime and an exploding population of unskilled workers. Education programs (creating skilled Americans, reducing immigrant birth-rate and crime) and stabilizing Mexico are probably the most beneficial long term solutions, but I hear no discussion around this.