5 ms·

> Yes, this is a perfect example how political silencing works: I say everyone should get an equal voice, and you twist my words, and say I'm supporting right-w

> Yes, this is a perfect example how political silencing works: I say everyone should get an equal voice, and you twist my words, and say I'm supporting right-wing populism. You are the one twisting words here. Just like you twisted GP words in your previous post. GP did not say that you support right-wing populism but that your post was a perfect demonstration of it. This post of yours is also a demonstration of what GP was talking about.

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
> GP did not say that you support right-wing populism but that your post was a perfect demonstration of it. Sorry, but what's the difference? That's being needlessly pedantic on a technicality. > Just like you twisted GP words in your previous post. I didn't twist his words because I was contradicting the political situation in Germany, not his opinion. And then he called my take as being "a perfect demonstration of right wing populism" which reinforces my point that you can't contradict the status quo in Germany and have a contrarian voice, without being called a right wing populist and people immediately bringing up the AFD even though you never did and don't even remotely support them. But since you all brought it up, the Afd situation in Germany is something that's real that should be resolved through education and public conversations and debates, not silenced and swept under the rug pretending it doesn't exist as that just makes the problem worse.
- Gasp0de 3y ago
  I don't think you have a good understanding of what is going on in Germany. 20% of the German population currently want to vote for a fascist who likes to cite right wing terrorists, thinks Hitler wasn't all bad and wants to deport everyone whose grandparents aren't German, so how can you say "Right wing people are being censored"? This guy is on state television all the time.
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    >This guy is on state television all the time. I wasn't talking about right wing nutjobs getting screen time, I was talking about having sane right leaning discussion with people, which you can't because you're automatically pointed to the Afd nutjobs on TV as being representative for what you're trying to say, even though you have no connection to those people.
    - Gasp0de 3y ago
      I would love to hear more about those "sane right leaning opinions" for which you get attributed to afd.
    - hnbad 3y ago
      > I wasn't talking about right wing nutjobs getting screen time You mean like Friedrich Merz, who coined the term "Sozialtourismus" ("social (welfare) tourism")? Horst Seehofer, the previous minister of the interior, who called migration the "mother of all problems in this country"? Last time I checked even the left treated them as "serious politicians" regardless of ther character. The question really is what is it that you think you can't have a "sane right leaning discussion" about anymore? Usually when I hear people say that, it's about topics like race and IQ (and why we should treat people of different races differently because of that), sex differences (and why we should treat people of different sexes differently because of that), hetero- vs homosexuality (and why we should treat people with different sexual orientations differently because of that), poor people underachieving (and why we should treat them worse because of that) or trans people (and why we should treat them as sexual perverts). If it's any comfort to you: I live in the North-West of Germany and most people I know think there's some meaningful difference between races (but we shouldn't treat people of other races worse for it), some meaningful difference between sexes (but we shouldn't treat people of other sexes worse for it), homosexuality is kinda icky and abnormal (but we shouldn't treat them worse for it), poor people are mostly at fault for where they are in life (but we should still generally support them) and trans people are weird freaks (but we should still treat them somewhat respectfully). I'm decidedly to the left of all of these stances and you can find plenty of people to have a "right leaning discussion" about these issues with, though I can't vouch for the sanity of it or how far right it will lean. I suspect the same is true in the South and especially the East of Germany, and even city centers like Berlin or Hamburg.
- hnbad 3y ago
  > not silenced and swept under the rug pretending it doesn't exist as that just makes the problem worse. Ironically there's a common misconception that Germany overcame its Nazi past through a process of "Denazification". Instead what happened was that while there were plenty of trials of former NSDAP members they usually resulted in hardly any consequences and frequently people were even able to go back into public offices because a lot of the evidence was deliberately swept under the rug. The biggest outcome instead was that "right-wing" became a dirty word by becoming synonymous with "nazi", so conservatives would go on referring to themselves as the "political center" while completely ignoring the role the Christliche Mitte (a Christian conservative party that strongly resembled the modern Union) played in Hitler's rise to power and the passing of the Enablement Act to reign in the lefties. Oh and of course for good measure we banned nazi symbols and slogans, which has led to "conservative" activists flying the flag of the German Empire (which shares the same colors and also pre-dates the Weimar Republic, which conservatives at the time saw as a leftist perversion). And because most people on the far right are smart enough not to show up bald-headed in jack boots, camo jackets and flying the flag of the German Empire anymore, we're now at the point where the same people applauding for suggestions that immigrants should be shot at the border instead fly the German flag and talk about "protecting families" and "protecting our values". Basically our far right has arrived at the same point as the American far right (as laid out in the infamous leaked audio of a politician saying that you can't openly talk about Black people anymore so you instead have to talk about more abstract things like "urban crime" to still talk about Black people). And worryingly the "centrist" conservatives have over the past eight years or so adopted some of the same talking points and one of the conservative Union front-runners jokingly described his party as "an alternative for Germany" (AfD means "Alternative for Germany"). So yes, outright censorship doesn't work. The problem isn't the symbolism, the problem is the ideology. They will just move on to new symbols and new talking points if you don't stomp out the ideology. But don't worry: Germany will never stomp out the ideology of the far right. If we couldn't do it after the Holocaust, I don't think it will ever happen. And while we're on a detour (because there obviously is no point in addressing anything you say given that you've now twice reframed what I said to presumably argue against someone not present in this conversation): the other day I was near the train station and passed a homeless person when something caught my eye: in the middle of the plaza was a large art installation celebrating tolerance and inclusion. It was covered by a lot of verbiage meant to spark conversation among passers-by and "enable dialogues" or whatever the cool kids do with political art these days. The entire thing was sponsored by a federal ministry and some German NGOs, for some reason there were also some leaflets about seasonal food although I'm not sure how that fits into the overall messaging about queer identities and immigrants. But I digress. After inspecting the art piece for a bit, I came across one headline on a poster board containing some wisdom about loving your neighbor: "Where does the idea that some people deserve more than others come from?"

FirmwareBurner 3y ago

> GP did not say that you support right-wing populism but that your post was a perfect demonstration of it. Sorry, but what's the difference? That's being needlessly pedantic on a technicality. > Just like you twisted GP words in your previous post. I didn't twist his words because I was contradicting the political situation in Germany, not his opinion. And then he called my take as being "a perfect demonstration of right wing populism" which reinforces my point that you can't contradict the status quo in Germany and have a contrarian voice, without being called a right wing populist and people immediately bringing up the AFD even though you never did and don't even remotely support them. But since you all brought it up, the Afd situation in Germany is something that's real that should be resolved through education and public conversations and debates, not silenced and swept under the rug pretending it doesn't exist as that just makes the problem worse.

Gasp0de 3y ago
I don't think you have a good understanding of what is going on in Germany. 20% of the German population currently want to vote for a fascist who likes to cite right wing terrorists, thinks Hitler wasn't all bad and wants to deport everyone whose grandparents aren't German, so how can you say "Right wing people are being censored"? This guy is on state television all the time.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  >This guy is on state television all the time. I wasn't talking about right wing nutjobs getting screen time, I was talking about having sane right leaning discussion with people, which you can't because you're automatically pointed to the Afd nutjobs on TV as being representative for what you're trying to say, even though you have no connection to those people.
  - Gasp0de 3y ago
    I would love to hear more about those "sane right leaning opinions" for which you get attributed to afd.
  - hnbad 3y ago
    > I wasn't talking about right wing nutjobs getting screen time You mean like Friedrich Merz, who coined the term "Sozialtourismus" ("social (welfare) tourism")? Horst Seehofer, the previous minister of the interior, who called migration the "mother of all problems in this country"? Last time I checked even the left treated them as "serious politicians" regardless of ther character. The question really is what is it that you think you can't have a "sane right leaning discussion" about anymore? Usually when I hear people say that, it's about topics like race and IQ (and why we should treat people of different races differently because of that), sex differences (and why we should treat people of different sexes differently because of that), hetero- vs homosexuality (and why we should treat people with different sexual orientations differently because of that), poor people underachieving (and why we should treat them worse because of that) or trans people (and why we should treat them as sexual perverts). If it's any comfort to you: I live in the North-West of Germany and most people I know think there's some meaningful difference between races (but we shouldn't treat people of other races worse for it), some meaningful difference between sexes (but we shouldn't treat people of other sexes worse for it), homosexuality is kinda icky and abnormal (but we shouldn't treat them worse for it), poor people are mostly at fault for where they are in life (but we should still generally support them) and trans people are weird freaks (but we should still treat them somewhat respectfully). I'm decidedly to the left of all of these stances and you can find plenty of people to have a "right leaning discussion" about these issues with, though I can't vouch for the sanity of it or how far right it will lean. I suspect the same is true in the South and especially the East of Germany, and even city centers like Berlin or Hamburg.
hnbad 3y ago
> not silenced and swept under the rug pretending it doesn't exist as that just makes the problem worse. Ironically there's a common misconception that Germany overcame its Nazi past through a process of "Denazification". Instead what happened was that while there were plenty of trials of former NSDAP members they usually resulted in hardly any consequences and frequently people were even able to go back into public offices because a lot of the evidence was deliberately swept under the rug. The biggest outcome instead was that "right-wing" became a dirty word by becoming synonymous with "nazi", so conservatives would go on referring to themselves as the "political center" while completely ignoring the role the Christliche Mitte (a Christian conservative party that strongly resembled the modern Union) played in Hitler's rise to power and the passing of the Enablement Act to reign in the lefties. Oh and of course for good measure we banned nazi symbols and slogans, which has led to "conservative" activists flying the flag of the German Empire (which shares the same colors and also pre-dates the Weimar Republic, which conservatives at the time saw as a leftist perversion). And because most people on the far right are smart enough not to show up bald-headed in jack boots, camo jackets and flying the flag of the German Empire anymore, we're now at the point where the same people applauding for suggestions that immigrants should be shot at the border instead fly the German flag and talk about "protecting families" and "protecting our values". Basically our far right has arrived at the same point as the American far right (as laid out in the infamous leaked audio of a politician saying that you can't openly talk about Black people anymore so you instead have to talk about more abstract things like "urban crime" to still talk about Black people). And worryingly the "centrist" conservatives have over the past eight years or so adopted some of the same talking points and one of the conservative Union front-runners jokingly described his party as "an alternative for Germany" (AfD means "Alternative for Germany"). So yes, outright censorship doesn't work. The problem isn't the symbolism, the problem is the ideology. They will just move on to new symbols and new talking points if you don't stomp out the ideology. But don't worry: Germany will never stomp out the ideology of the far right. If we couldn't do it after the Holocaust, I don't think it will ever happen. And while we're on a detour (because there obviously is no point in addressing anything you say given that you've now twice reframed what I said to presumably argue against someone not present in this conversation): the other day I was near the train station and passed a homeless person when something caught my eye: in the middle of the plaza was a large art installation celebrating tolerance and inclusion. It was covered by a lot of verbiage meant to spark conversation among passers-by and "enable dialogues" or whatever the cool kids do with political art these days. The entire thing was sponsored by a federal ministry and some German NGOs, for some reason there were also some leaflets about seasonal food although I'm not sure how that fits into the overall messaging about queer identities and immigrants. But I digress. After inspecting the art piece for a bit, I came across one headline on a poster board containing some wisdom about loving your neighbor: "Where does the idea that some people deserve more than others come from?"