4 ms·

In both extremist sides there are people calling for violence. That way they disturb normal conversation. Even the Dutch NCTV, the government anti-terrorism org

by mpol 5y ago

In both extremist sides there are people calling for violence. That way they disturb normal conversation. Even the Dutch NCTV, the government anti-terrorism organisation, labeled them as extremists, with the mention that they had not used violence up to now. One of the proponents of Kick Out Zwarte Piet, Akwasi, called out on stage for kicking Zwarte Piet in the face. Many people who are part of the childrens party felt threathened. He was found guilty, but because he said "I was misunderstood" they let it go. This kind of aggressive extremist action actually is counter productive in the racism debate as it is completely unreasonable. It is very common to hear being said that the anti-racism card has been pushed too hard and the lobby is losing its support. Personally I don't have any issue with changing the look of Zwarte Piet into roetveeg-Piet, which has mostly happened here. Just the conversation is highly aggressive. As an anecdote, when a colored person dresses as Zwarte Piet, he often gets called out for being racist :) All because it has never been a healthy discussion. "And what's wrong with being extremely anti-racist [...] ?" What is wrong is that extremism can go too far :)

DonHopkins 5y ago
By any measure, the pro-Zwarte Piet protesters are much more violent much more often than the anti-racist protestors who they're regularly attacking. And the pro-Zwarte Piet hooligans are the ones attacking the police defending the anti-racist protestors, not the other way around. Zwarte Piet protest group accuses police of failing to protect safety: https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2019/11/zwarte-piet-protest-group-accuses-police-of-failing-to-protect-it-from-violent-attacks/ https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2019/11/zwarte-piet-protest-gr... >[...] The group has also filed a police complaint against The Hague businessman John van Zweden, who posted tweets on Friday afternoon calling on people to turn up to the protest ‘with tar, feathers and other shit to drive them out of the city.’ [...] And there are not two sides to the argument about racism. The pro-racist side is wrong, and has a long sordid history of enforcing their racism with violence, and the anti-racist side is correct, and on the right side of history. >It is very common to hear being said that the anti-racism card has been pushed too hard and the lobby is losing its support. So you're rationalizing that if only the mean anti-racists weren't so extreme and didn't protest against racism and always play that darned anti-racism card, they'd be able to change the nice pro-racist's minds, huh? I highly doubt it, or that the pro-Zwarte Piet hooligans are only racist and violent because somebody "pushed too hard" on "the anti-racism card" as you absurdly claim. Their furious butt-hurt from the anti-racist Zwarte Piet protestors spoiling their fading memories of religious childhood fairy tales doesn't justify their continuing violence and racism in the name of Jesus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing >Tone policing (also tone trolling, tone argument, and tone fallacy) is an ad hominem (personal attack) and anti-debate tactic based on criticizing a person for expressing emotion. Tone policing detracts from the truth or falsity of a statement by attacking the tone in which it was presented rather than the message itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#Concern_troll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#Concern_troll >A concern troll is a false-flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the troll claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt within the group often by appealing to outrage culture. This is a particular case of sockpuppeting and safe-baiting.
- mpol 5y ago
  "[...] are much more violent [...]" You want to argue that one extremist group is less or more violent than the other? Well, you just made my point :) Both extremist groups are scum. In the Netherlands we don't solve things with violence but with conversation. And yes, people do listen. Please do not think we are like the US, we do have healthy conversations and a government that does listen (sometimes :) ). Calling for violence from a public stage, urging people towards violent behaviour has nothing to do with tone policing, it is simply forbidden by law and people will stop listening to you. You might want to read up on the "Poldermodel", which is very much part of Dutch politics and society. Please do not mix up the US culture and history with that of the Dutch. In the US, colored people who have been for generations in the US get discriminated on skin color. I would argue that discrimination on skin color in the Netherlands does exist, and yes, the change of Zwarte Piet is slowly being done. But discrimination is much more happening on a cultural level, which is even harder to deal with. People with a Moroccon, Turkish or Hindu background don't always find their place easily. And no, by saying that I don't mean that discrimination on skin color is any good.

by mpol 5y ago

DonHopkins 5y ago

By any measure, the pro-Zwarte Piet protesters are much more violent much more often than the anti-racist protestors who they're regularly attacking. And the pro-Zwarte Piet hooligans are the ones attacking the police defending the anti-racist protestors, not the other way around. Zwarte Piet protest group accuses police of failing to protect safety: https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2019/11/zwarte-piet-protest-group-accuses-police-of-failing-to-protect-it-from-violent-attacks/ https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2019/11/zwarte-piet-protest-gr... >[...] The group has also filed a police complaint against The Hague businessman John van Zweden, who posted tweets on Friday afternoon calling on people to turn up to the protest ‘with tar, feathers and other shit to drive them out of the city.’ [...] And there are not two sides to the argument about racism. The pro-racist side is wrong, and has a long sordid history of enforcing their racism with violence, and the anti-racist side is correct, and on the right side of history. >It is very common to hear being said that the anti-racism card has been pushed too hard and the lobby is losing its support. So you're rationalizing that if only the mean anti-racists weren't so extreme and didn't protest against racism and always play that darned anti-racism card, they'd be able to change the nice pro-racist's minds, huh? I highly doubt it, or that the pro-Zwarte Piet hooligans are only racist and violent because somebody "pushed too hard" on "the anti-racism card" as you absurdly claim. Their furious butt-hurt from the anti-racist Zwarte Piet protestors spoiling their fading memories of religious childhood fairy tales doesn't justify their continuing violence and racism in the name of Jesus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing >Tone policing (also tone trolling, tone argument, and tone fallacy) is an ad hominem (personal attack) and anti-debate tactic based on criticizing a person for expressing emotion. Tone policing detracts from the truth or falsity of a statement by attacking the tone in which it was presented rather than the message itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#Concern_troll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#Concern_troll >A concern troll is a false-flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the troll claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt within the group often by appealing to outrage culture. This is a particular case of sockpuppeting and safe-baiting.

mpol 5y ago
"[...] are much more violent [...]" You want to argue that one extremist group is less or more violent than the other? Well, you just made my point :) Both extremist groups are scum. In the Netherlands we don't solve things with violence but with conversation. And yes, people do listen. Please do not think we are like the US, we do have healthy conversations and a government that does listen (sometimes :) ). Calling for violence from a public stage, urging people towards violent behaviour has nothing to do with tone policing, it is simply forbidden by law and people will stop listening to you. You might want to read up on the "Poldermodel", which is very much part of Dutch politics and society. Please do not mix up the US culture and history with that of the Dutch. In the US, colored people who have been for generations in the US get discriminated on skin color. I would argue that discrimination on skin color in the Netherlands does exist, and yes, the change of Zwarte Piet is slowly being done. But discrimination is much more happening on a cultural level, which is even harder to deal with. People with a Moroccon, Turkish or Hindu background don't always find their place easily. And no, by saying that I don't mean that discrimination on skin color is any good.