6 ms·

The word radicalized is also way overused. Orban is seen as hateful or radicalising because he is against illegal immigration. He has made a big marketing poin

by zpeti 5y ago

The word radicalized is also way overused. Orban is seen as hateful or radicalising because he is against illegal immigration. He has made a big marketing point about this. But that doesn't mean that there aren't legitimate concerns about illegal immigration that Hungarians might have. Just because Western european nations have decided they don't mind if they add 1-2% yearly to their populations of a culturally totally different type of person, doesn't mean that that is normal or "good". Orban is using these emotions for his own purposes. That's true. But it's not Orban that is creating these issues, or the concerns about them.

thinkindie 5y ago
because they are part of a community (Europe) with certain rules and they are deciding to enjoy the fruits of being part of this community (a lot of funds, free movements for people) and then you don't want to follow the rules. It's part of the basic principles of living in a community. You can't have your cake and eat it.
- krzyk 5y ago
  Issue is that when they joining EU there was no mention of large influx of immigrants to the country. There is also a difference when you get immigrants of somehow similar culture vs large amount of immigrants from one that is completely different (and it being the same as ISIS, doesn't help, how one can differentiate infiltrator from legitimate refugee?). It is all good if amount of immigrants is not large influx. But what most Hungarians (and Poles) didn't take into account is that most of those immigrants prefer to get to western Europe, so blocking them was pointless. They would quickly go West.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
    I’m not from Hungary or Poland so can you please explain to me why Hungary and Poland seem uniquely inundated by refugees and apparently terrorists? Are there terrorist attacks happening from refugees regularly in Hungary and Poland? Why are they special, or are other EU countries just getting terrorist attacks and are ok with it? I’m genuinely asking because looking at the map, neither Hungary nor Poland are the first stop for a middle eastern refugee, and I have no idea where the statement of infiltrator from ISIS comes from because I haven’t heard of an uptick of terrorism in either country.
    - majgr 5y ago
      Poland is very homogeneous regarding race, church. Most, who vote for populists, weren’t abroad, or hadn’t opportunity to meet other cultures really. Everything they know come from tv, or social media, and right-wing uses social media extensively: Facebook groups, or YouTube videos to scare them, you know, when one falls into Recommended black hole there is no turning back. Rapes, burning cars etc. Even government TV likes to remind from time to time what a “problem” refugees are. So it is mostly by showing everything negative about Muslims in Europe that is ever been able to find.
    - enriquto 5y ago
      they will answer that they don't have terror attacks precisely because they don't let terrorists in (unlike those pesky french and germans)
      - krzyk 5y ago
        Well, don't you see it as one of the reasons?
        trasz 5y ago
        The polish way of avoiding terrorism is very simple: just don’t count it as terrorism. Voila, problem solved. Works just as well with COVID tests.
    - krzyk 5y ago
      > I’m genuinely asking because looking at the map, neither Hungary nor Poland are the first stop for a middle eastern refugee, and I have no idea where the statement of infiltrator from ISIS comes from because I haven’t heard of an uptick of terrorism in either country. People are more reluctant to let immigrants from too foreign culture in, e.g. Poland let in > 1M of Ukrainian immigrants (they are from similar culture as Poland) during last few years. Those assimilate easily. Also, people are afraid of the unknown. You force that on them, they will object -> vote for those that will block that. There is no way around that. This happens more in places that are more religious and for example Poland is, if you let in people from different (also religious) culture you create a clash. I think it would be easier for Czech, where there are few religious citizens. As for terrorists. People watch TV -> see that ISIS is cutting heads -> EU wants to import people from exact same region into your country. Many people objected to that, even those less nationalist.
thinkindie 5y ago
and just to clarify - joining the EU is an exercise of free will. Countries are met with some conditions and it's their decision to join or not. This is valid for both Hungary and Poland. If they don't want to be part of EU any longer I think Brexit showed the way, and all the consequences of that.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
  I seem to recall the UK Brexit and that freewill argument was almost immediately challenged by calls for next rounds of referenda ( presumably until the right decision is reached by the population ). As always, it is democracy and free will as long as it is exercised in a way the conforms to rather specific view of what the outcome should be.
  - jonp888 5y ago
    I don't understand your argument. Britain voted to leave, and they left. People can 'call' for whatever they like. In this case the demand was related to the refererendum being on a nebulous idea without any clear idea on how to implement it. No-one would ever seriously suggest having a referendum on a Trade deal or Treaty before the negotiations had even started. The idea of having a referendum on the final deal was hardly a crazy one.
- varelaz 5y ago
  Brexit was a way to leave EU by country which wants this. But Hungary doesn't want to leave, they want all benefits and keep doing what they want. EU has very little power to punish Hungary. To do something serious all countries should vote for this, but Hungary and Poland have agreement on protection of each other. So EU is kind of hostage there.
- bobthechef 5y ago
  > joining the EU is an exercise of free will This sounds like comments to the effect of "If you don't like how America does X, then leave X." It also frames things in a relativistic sense, as if consent is unconditionally binding and nothing but consent has any moral weight. Anyway, this isn't as simple as it sounds. First, joining did not give the EU license to make all sorts of weird impositions and to demand these countries cooperate against their own good. Second, countries aren't people. Politicians in those countries at the time put a great deal of energy into promoting entry into the EU among the populace, and referenda results reflected a wish to deal with frustration caused by domestic political realities, and feelings of inferiority, more than some kind of reasoned and responsible decision (I recall speaking with political analysts at the time who felt that entry into the EU was a bad decision, at the very least a premature one). > I think Brexit showed the way This may be the only option. But this is politics. The EU is unjust (put aside the propaganda please) and so the moral high ground is not to be found in Brussels. For now, tolerating and resisting bullying from the EU is likely better than exiting. But I don't expect the EU is last another 25 years at this rate, so it might be a matter of waiting out the storm.
pjc50 5y ago
There's almost seven million displaced Syrians. The real failure is to not have dealt with the Syrian crisis, and now the demand to kick out the refugees, no matter how impractical this is or how lethal it would be to them, is rising.
- jsbdk 5y ago
  I don't really see how the Syrian issue is my fault or my responsibility. Why aren't all those Syrians flown to the United States and Israel? Now that would be fair.
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    Or to turkey, russia, iran, france ... there are many powers involved in syria and fighting over it.
    - ramphastidae 5y ago
      https://www.unhcr.org/refugee-statistics/ https://www.unhcr.org/refugee-statistics/ > Turkey hosts the largest number of refugees, with nearly 3.7 million people. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrians_in_Turkey https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrians_in_Turkey > The number of Syrians in Turkey is estimated at over 3.6 million people as of March 2020,[3] and consists mainly of refugees of the Syrian Civil War.
      - hutzlibu 5y ago
        Yes. And turkey is also very active in creating more refugees by supporting islamists in syria and active combat raids. And is using the mass of refugees regulary to blackmail the EU.
        ramphastidae 5y ago
        Turkey did not start the war in Syria, but they do share a border with them, and have a responsibility to secure their border from a failed state. They took in more refugees than any other country in the world, which has a massive impact on their economy and security. Requesting economic aid from the EU to deal with this is not blackmail. The EU benefits massively from keeping Syrians in Turkey, because Syrians primarily use it as a pass through on their way to Europe.
barneygale 5y ago
There would be little reason to migrate if those European nations didn't exploit corruption and poor labour/environmental standards in other countries. Allowing free movement of goods and services without free movement of people entrenches inequality and makes the problem worse. Time to look at whether global capitalism is culturally "good", rather than shifting the blame to desperate people seeking safety or a better life for their family.
- bobthechef 5y ago
  > There would be little reason to migrate if those European nations didn't exploit Which European nations did this and how? Did Hungary, Poland, Lithuania, etc. do this? If you're talking about colonialism, then if Western Europe has a guilty conscience, let them pay the price. Don't punish nations that had nothing to do with any of that and who themselves were oppressed under foreign imperialism during that time. (Though two wrongs don't make a right, so I would avoid the insane rhetoric of "reparative cultural and national self-destruction".) Besides, the idea that the world is poor because of European nations is a simplistic claim and the sum benefits and injustices. These weren't typically wealthy nations that those European devils colonized, even if they later took part in exploiting or mistreating those peoples. Odd that only the West receives that attention and no one else. > Allowing free movement of goods and services without free movement of people entrenches inequality and makes the problem worse Inequality is not the problem. Poverty and unjust treatment are. Also, free migration actually does actually make the world worse. It leads to the destruction of the host nation by flooding it with people of a different culture beyond a rate at which they can be absorbed, but also the draining of the origin nations of labor, expertise, etc. It's bad for everyone. Maybe corporations benefit in some myopic way. They're the one who will print the bleeding heart op eds that tug at sentimentalist moralizers.
pell 5y ago
>Orban is seen as hateful or radicalising because he is against illegal immigration. He has made a big marketing point about this. I'm not going to go into the topic of migration and the "legality" of it. But the reason Orban is considered "radical" by many is not because of his stance on immigration first and foremost but because he's been dismantling democratic institutions left and right, starting with NGOs, the media, academia and to some extend even the judiciary. The fact that his rhetoric is hung up on blaming everything on George Soros does also not help.
- neel8986 5y ago
  Looks so much similar to Modi in India. At some point we are all helpless in front of blatant rhetoric. We will destroy our institutions just for the hatred for "others"
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    Rhetoric on its own is nothing. But rhetoric that adresses needs and fears of a big size of the people - does. So I do not see the solution in fighting populist rhetoric, but in adressing the cause of the fear of the people.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      >but in adressing the cause of the fear of the people. If you address it they won't have a reason to vote for you next time. This problem plagues many US cities.
  - zo1 5y ago
    There is a huge disconnect between the accepted "truths" in "public discourse" or "mainstream" opinion, and what people really believe. This is a consequence of who knows how many years/decades of punishing "incorrect" opinions. Just look at the example presented in this thread about illegal and/or wide-scale immigration. 100% a thing that people can sanely and without being hateful hold as an opinion, yet it is stigmatized and punished when espoused in any sort of public forum or as a political platform. So everyone that doesn't want to be clumped into "that right-wing/hate group" category of people, just decides to shut up and go with it performatively.

by zpeti 5y ago

thinkindie 5y ago

because they are part of a community (Europe) with certain rules and they are deciding to enjoy the fruits of being part of this community (a lot of funds, free movements for people) and then you don't want to follow the rules. It's part of the basic principles of living in a community. You can't have your cake and eat it.

krzyk 5y ago
Issue is that when they joining EU there was no mention of large influx of immigrants to the country. There is also a difference when you get immigrants of somehow similar culture vs large amount of immigrants from one that is completely different (and it being the same as ISIS, doesn't help, how one can differentiate infiltrator from legitimate refugee?). It is all good if amount of immigrants is not large influx. But what most Hungarians (and Poles) didn't take into account is that most of those immigrants prefer to get to western Europe, so blocking them was pointless. They would quickly go West.
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
  I’m not from Hungary or Poland so can you please explain to me why Hungary and Poland seem uniquely inundated by refugees and apparently terrorists? Are there terrorist attacks happening from refugees regularly in Hungary and Poland? Why are they special, or are other EU countries just getting terrorist attacks and are ok with it? I’m genuinely asking because looking at the map, neither Hungary nor Poland are the first stop for a middle eastern refugee, and I have no idea where the statement of infiltrator from ISIS comes from because I haven’t heard of an uptick of terrorism in either country.
  - majgr 5y ago
    Poland is very homogeneous regarding race, church. Most, who vote for populists, weren’t abroad, or hadn’t opportunity to meet other cultures really. Everything they know come from tv, or social media, and right-wing uses social media extensively: Facebook groups, or YouTube videos to scare them, you know, when one falls into Recommended black hole there is no turning back. Rapes, burning cars etc. Even government TV likes to remind from time to time what a “problem” refugees are. So it is mostly by showing everything negative about Muslims in Europe that is ever been able to find.
  - enriquto 5y ago
    they will answer that they don't have terror attacks precisely because they don't let terrorists in (unlike those pesky french and germans)
    - krzyk 5y ago
      Well, don't you see it as one of the reasons?
      - trasz 5y ago
        The polish way of avoiding terrorism is very simple: just don’t count it as terrorism. Voila, problem solved. Works just as well with COVID tests.
  - krzyk 5y ago
    > I’m genuinely asking because looking at the map, neither Hungary nor Poland are the first stop for a middle eastern refugee, and I have no idea where the statement of infiltrator from ISIS comes from because I haven’t heard of an uptick of terrorism in either country. People are more reluctant to let immigrants from too foreign culture in, e.g. Poland let in > 1M of Ukrainian immigrants (they are from similar culture as Poland) during last few years. Those assimilate easily. Also, people are afraid of the unknown. You force that on them, they will object -> vote for those that will block that. There is no way around that. This happens more in places that are more religious and for example Poland is, if you let in people from different (also religious) culture you create a clash. I think it would be easier for Czech, where there are few religious citizens. As for terrorists. People watch TV -> see that ISIS is cutting heads -> EU wants to import people from exact same region into your country. Many people objected to that, even those less nationalist.

thinkindie 5y ago

and just to clarify - joining the EU is an exercise of free will. Countries are met with some conditions and it's their decision to join or not. This is valid for both Hungary and Poland. If they don't want to be part of EU any longer I think Brexit showed the way, and all the consequences of that.

A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
I seem to recall the UK Brexit and that freewill argument was almost immediately challenged by calls for next rounds of referenda ( presumably until the right decision is reached by the population ). As always, it is democracy and free will as long as it is exercised in a way the conforms to rather specific view of what the outcome should be.
- jonp888 5y ago
  I don't understand your argument. Britain voted to leave, and they left. People can 'call' for whatever they like. In this case the demand was related to the refererendum being on a nebulous idea without any clear idea on how to implement it. No-one would ever seriously suggest having a referendum on a Trade deal or Treaty before the negotiations had even started. The idea of having a referendum on the final deal was hardly a crazy one.
varelaz 5y ago
Brexit was a way to leave EU by country which wants this. But Hungary doesn't want to leave, they want all benefits and keep doing what they want. EU has very little power to punish Hungary. To do something serious all countries should vote for this, but Hungary and Poland have agreement on protection of each other. So EU is kind of hostage there.
bobthechef 5y ago
> joining the EU is an exercise of free will This sounds like comments to the effect of "If you don't like how America does X, then leave X." It also frames things in a relativistic sense, as if consent is unconditionally binding and nothing but consent has any moral weight. Anyway, this isn't as simple as it sounds. First, joining did not give the EU license to make all sorts of weird impositions and to demand these countries cooperate against their own good. Second, countries aren't people. Politicians in those countries at the time put a great deal of energy into promoting entry into the EU among the populace, and referenda results reflected a wish to deal with frustration caused by domestic political realities, and feelings of inferiority, more than some kind of reasoned and responsible decision (I recall speaking with political analysts at the time who felt that entry into the EU was a bad decision, at the very least a premature one). > I think Brexit showed the way This may be the only option. But this is politics. The EU is unjust (put aside the propaganda please) and so the moral high ground is not to be found in Brussels. For now, tolerating and resisting bullying from the EU is likely better than exiting. But I don't expect the EU is last another 25 years at this rate, so it might be a matter of waiting out the storm.

pjc50 5y ago

There's almost seven million displaced Syrians. The real failure is to not have dealt with the Syrian crisis, and now the demand to kick out the refugees, no matter how impractical this is or how lethal it would be to them, is rising.

jsbdk 5y ago
I don't really see how the Syrian issue is my fault or my responsibility. Why aren't all those Syrians flown to the United States and Israel? Now that would be fair.
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  Or to turkey, russia, iran, france ... there are many powers involved in syria and fighting over it.
  - ramphastidae 5y ago
    https://www.unhcr.org/refugee-statistics/ https://www.unhcr.org/refugee-statistics/ > Turkey hosts the largest number of refugees, with nearly 3.7 million people. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrians_in_Turkey https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrians_in_Turkey > The number of Syrians in Turkey is estimated at over 3.6 million people as of March 2020,[3] and consists mainly of refugees of the Syrian Civil War.
    - hutzlibu 5y ago
      Yes. And turkey is also very active in creating more refugees by supporting islamists in syria and active combat raids. And is using the mass of refugees regulary to blackmail the EU.
      - ramphastidae 5y ago
        Turkey did not start the war in Syria, but they do share a border with them, and have a responsibility to secure their border from a failed state. They took in more refugees than any other country in the world, which has a massive impact on their economy and security. Requesting economic aid from the EU to deal with this is not blackmail. The EU benefits massively from keeping Syrians in Turkey, because Syrians primarily use it as a pass through on their way to Europe.

barneygale 5y ago

There would be little reason to migrate if those European nations didn't exploit corruption and poor labour/environmental standards in other countries. Allowing free movement of goods and services without free movement of people entrenches inequality and makes the problem worse. Time to look at whether global capitalism is culturally "good", rather than shifting the blame to desperate people seeking safety or a better life for their family.

bobthechef 5y ago
> There would be little reason to migrate if those European nations didn't exploit Which European nations did this and how? Did Hungary, Poland, Lithuania, etc. do this? If you're talking about colonialism, then if Western Europe has a guilty conscience, let them pay the price. Don't punish nations that had nothing to do with any of that and who themselves were oppressed under foreign imperialism during that time. (Though two wrongs don't make a right, so I would avoid the insane rhetoric of "reparative cultural and national self-destruction".) Besides, the idea that the world is poor because of European nations is a simplistic claim and the sum benefits and injustices. These weren't typically wealthy nations that those European devils colonized, even if they later took part in exploiting or mistreating those peoples. Odd that only the West receives that attention and no one else. > Allowing free movement of goods and services without free movement of people entrenches inequality and makes the problem worse Inequality is not the problem. Poverty and unjust treatment are. Also, free migration actually does actually make the world worse. It leads to the destruction of the host nation by flooding it with people of a different culture beyond a rate at which they can be absorbed, but also the draining of the origin nations of labor, expertise, etc. It's bad for everyone. Maybe corporations benefit in some myopic way. They're the one who will print the bleeding heart op eds that tug at sentimentalist moralizers.

pell 5y ago

>Orban is seen as hateful or radicalising because he is against illegal immigration. He has made a big marketing point about this. I'm not going to go into the topic of migration and the "legality" of it. But the reason Orban is considered "radical" by many is not because of his stance on immigration first and foremost but because he's been dismantling democratic institutions left and right, starting with NGOs, the media, academia and to some extend even the judiciary. The fact that his rhetoric is hung up on blaming everything on George Soros does also not help.

neel8986 5y ago
Looks so much similar to Modi in India. At some point we are all helpless in front of blatant rhetoric. We will destroy our institutions just for the hatred for "others"
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  Rhetoric on its own is nothing. But rhetoric that adresses needs and fears of a big size of the people - does. So I do not see the solution in fighting populist rhetoric, but in adressing the cause of the fear of the people.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    >but in adressing the cause of the fear of the people. If you address it they won't have a reason to vote for you next time. This problem plagues many US cities.
- zo1 5y ago
  There is a huge disconnect between the accepted "truths" in "public discourse" or "mainstream" opinion, and what people really believe. This is a consequence of who knows how many years/decades of punishing "incorrect" opinions. Just look at the example presented in this thread about illegal and/or wide-scale immigration. 100% a thing that people can sanely and without being hateful hold as an opinion, yet it is stigmatized and punished when espoused in any sort of public forum or as a political platform. So everyone that doesn't want to be clumped into "that right-wing/hate group" category of people, just decides to shut up and go with it performatively.