4 ms·

Radical parties gaining mass support is an indication that the centrist parties which should be 'more reasonable' are deliberately ignoring some major factor wh

Radical parties gaining mass support is an indication that the centrist parties which should be 'more reasonable' are deliberately ignoring some major factor which a lot of the voters care about. Anyone looking at the rise of AfD should also look at the example of Denmark, which some years earlier had also seen a strong rise of radical alt-right parties, but once the centrists switched their stance against immigration, at the next elections the radicals went back down to their rightful 1% or so of votes. That is also an example which shows that indeed it is possible to compete with hate-based politics with actual actionable and long-term viable policies. Indeed, SPD should instead examine why they themselves are losing votes and consider it their duty to provide some alternative for German voters so that a person can vote against immigration without getting the full neo-nazi package in addition to that.

rbanffy 2y ago
> deliberately ignoring some major factor which a lot of the voters care about. Is it that so, or is it that hate-based shallow arguments appeal to a particular audience more than "more reasonable" policies or discourse? > once the centrists switched their stance against immigration Then the far-right would have won and turned the political mainstream into xenophobes. Not a great outcome for the society as a whole. Would arguments centered on supporting immigrants (and refugees fleeing humanitarian crisis) and integrating them into their host society have the same appeal for people who have been fed a diet of fear and hatred? There has to be a line that should never be crossed in any democratic society. The far right has crossed it.
- jeffhuys 2y ago
  Either way, banning a political party is just going to feed the flame. Also, speech you hate ≠ hate speech.
  - rbanffy 2y ago
    We must be careful with this kind of argument, as it is very similar to blackmail. “If you ban my party, it’ll be much worse”.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  > There has to be a line that should never be crossed in any democratic society. I agree, but... Does it cross that line to say that too much immigration, too fast, causes some definite, specific negative effects on society? Does it cross that line to say that therefore we should accept less immigration? (It definitely crosses that line to say that immigrants are evil, or worse, subhuman.)
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

rbanffy 2y ago

> deliberately ignoring some major factor which a lot of the voters care about. Is it that so, or is it that hate-based shallow arguments appeal to a particular audience more than "more reasonable" policies or discourse? > once the centrists switched their stance against immigration Then the far-right would have won and turned the political mainstream into xenophobes. Not a great outcome for the society as a whole. Would arguments centered on supporting immigrants (and refugees fleeing humanitarian crisis) and integrating them into their host society have the same appeal for people who have been fed a diet of fear and hatred? There has to be a line that should never be crossed in any democratic society. The far right has crossed it.

jeffhuys 2y ago
Either way, banning a political party is just going to feed the flame. Also, speech you hate ≠ hate speech.
- rbanffy 2y ago
  We must be careful with this kind of argument, as it is very similar to blackmail. “If you ban my party, it’ll be much worse”.
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
> There has to be a line that should never be crossed in any democratic society. I agree, but... Does it cross that line to say that too much immigration, too fast, causes some definite, specific negative effects on society? Does it cross that line to say that therefore we should accept less immigration? (It definitely crosses that line to say that immigrants are evil, or worse, subhuman.)
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]