cunego59 wrote:
But some people as well as some media outlets simply are racist or conspiracy nuts. And calling them out isn't political correctness. It's just correctness. Accusing others of being overly PC is often just an excuse to justify spreading hatred and division. Compact for instance is at the very least highly xenophobic, if not outright racist. If you want to, and if I find the time, maybe I'll compile some articles to underline that, but it should actually be enough to look at some of the recent covers.
Thanks for your offer, would love to have get a prove for some of these assertions.
I've recognized Compact were pushing the AFD the past few month, but apart from that their anti-war and pro-russia stances let them appear left-leaning, too.
Not left, Querfront. Combining elements of the left-wing with classical right-wing stances, in the case of compact or mmnews most notably anti-semitism, but also more "modern" things, like islamophobia.
And on the Kurds: People should not forget that many civilians are dying at the hands of the Turkish military in the Kurdish parts of the country. It's obvious that this won't remain unanswered for long.
cunego59 wrote:
But some people as well as some media outlets simply are racist or conspiracy nuts. And calling them out isn't political correctness. It's just correctness. Accusing others of being overly PC is often just an excuse to justify spreading hatred and division. Compact for instance is at the very least highly xenophobic, if not outright racist. If you want to, and if I find the time, maybe I'll compile some articles to underline that, but it should actually be enough to look at some of the recent covers.
Thanks for your offer, would love to have get a prove for some of these assertions.
I've recognized Compact were pushing the AFD the past few month, but apart from that their anti-war and pro-russia stances let them appear left-leaning, too.
Okay. I'll try to restrain myself and not get into their propaganda against the entire political and media system, which in my opinion is equally dangerous.
But it's not only about who they criticize (though it isn't criticism as much as defamation), but also who they support.
They hail Frauke Petry as "The Better Chancellor". She's the head of the AfD. A party whose leading members didn't hesitate one minute to exploit the Bruxelles attacks. A party whose deputy chairwoman Beatrix von Storch who finds it appropriate to shoot women and children who cross the border illegally (sure, she withdrew the statements, but it says a lot about a person when you make such a statement in the first place). Quotes from the article:
"... her chin is lifted in restrained arrogance. Who doesn't think of Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffany's?"
"Her business suit provides her with a classy coolness that is necessary to divert the observer's attention from her long legs under her skirt."
Sure. That's objective, independent journalism.
Spoiler
They praise Donald Trump for his lack of political correctness and him doubting the climate change, coming to the conclusion that he would be the candidate supporting European and German interests the best. Not a single word on his views on Muslims or Mexicans or his condoning of violence. Link
There's an essay in one volume (not available online) that is dedicated to Renaud Camus, who seems to be one of the main intellectual leaders of the Front National.
Then there are covers like these:
Spoiler
"Foreign in your own country"
"Mommy multiculty"
"Fair game women"
Can you honestly say that those aren't intended to fuel fear and prejudice?
And that's just the results of a quick web research. Look into Jürgen Elsässer a bit more if you want to, he's the publisher. "Interesting" fellow.
I'm very grateful for pointing out the thinks you don't like about Compact, cunego.
I don't like them pushing AfD or raising fear of islamic immigrants by publishing these undifferentiated covers, too.
But populistic covers and pro statements or advertisement of AfD and Trump don't make you xenophobic or racist.
Do you remember the series of anti-islamic covers of Der Spiegel?
I didn't like it, but won't call the Spiegel racist.
Do you remember the Mohammed caricatures?
I personally think it is highly indecent to make fun out of other peoples religions.
There are so many things published we may not like, but when calling something racist or anti-semetic one better is able to prove it.
Other than that Voltaires legacy speaks excellence: I might disagree with your opinion, but I am willing to give my life for your right to express it.
Same goes with Elsässer. I don't share his political views, but he did good journalistic work in the past. As said, best is to wipe away the propaganda to get to the information.
I take it Emre is in denial of the Armenian Genocide, with his dislikes. Any other Turks here? Because it's quite saddening 100% of the Turks here got brainwashed into believing that this never happened. Anyway, I agree with The Schleck Fan that a different president would help Turkey a lot.
Well, after reading the entire program of the AfD, and also watching alot of their interviews, I'm going to vote for them. And yes, I know that they are on the right side of the parties.(not as right as the NPD, but not as centered as the CDU)
I agree with 90% of their program.
Also about the interviews: Yes, Beatrix von Storch is simply not a good person, but not because of her opinions, but because she can't get her opinion into words, properly.
Just for the record. The AfD never said, that they wanted to shoot people at the borders. They just citated the actual law:
„Die in § 9 Nr. 1, 2, 7 und 8 genannten Vollzugsbeamten können im Grenzdienst Schußwaffen auch gegen Personen gebrauchen, die sich der wiederholten Weisung, zu halten oder die Überprüfung ihrer Person oder der etwa mitgeführten Beförderungsmittel und Gegenstände zu dulden, durch die Flucht zu entziehen versuchen.“
In short: weapon usage is allowed, surely in a case it works like this:
1. Stop There / Freeze !
2. Stop or i will shoot !
3. warning shot into the air
4. shot on body(mainly at a leg)
Our media just lets it look like they asked for attacking everyone.
Honestly, if an officer asked you 2 times clearly to stop and even gave a warning shot, and you still keep going, you can't complain about a shot in the leg.
Also looking into the party program. They clearly have nothing against muslims, but against radical muslims. They acknowledge, that a big majority of the muslims in germany are integrated well. They are just directing at extremist ones, which is completely fine, in my opinion. Also they are against the "gendering" of our language.
I'm just a bit sick of seeing, that our media simply pushes the AfD into the far right corner, while it clearly isn't that way. The AfD is clearly a right-conservative party. But nothing more.
„MM“-Frage: „Frau Petry, Sie fordern, an den Grenzen ‚wieder Recht und Ordnung herzustellen‘. Was heißt das?“
Antwort Petry: „Wir brauchen umfassende Kontrollen, damit nicht weiter so viele unregistrierte Flüchtlinge über Österreich einreisen können.“
„MM“-Frage: Die Grenze zu Österreich ist mehr als 800 Kilometer lang. Wie wollen Sie die durchgängig kontrollieren?“
Antwort Petry: „Ich weiß genau, dass Sie mich zur Schlagzeile ‚Petry will Grenzzäune errichten‘ provozieren wollen.“
„MM“-Frage: „Wir wollen nur wissen, wie Ihr Plan aussieht. Wie sieht er aus?“
Antwort Petry: „Wir müssen natürlich genügend Bundespolizisten einsetzen und dürfen Zurückweisungen nicht scheuen. Dies muss notfalls auch mit Grenzsicherungsanlagen durchgesetzt werden.“
„MM“-Frage: „Wie hoch sollen die Zäune sein?“
Antwort Petry: „Sie können es nicht lassen! Schauen Sie doch mal nach Spanien. Die haben auch hohe Zäune.“
„MM“-Frage: „Was passiert, wenn ein Flüchtling über den Zaun klettert?“
Antwort Petry: „Dann muss die Polizei den Flüchtling daran hindern, dass er deutschen Boden betritt.“
„MM“-Frage: „Und wenn er es trotzdem tut?“
Antwort Petry: „Sie wollen mich schon wieder in eine bestimmte Richtung treiben.“
„MM“-Frage: „Nochmal: Wie soll ein Grenzpolizist in diesem Fall reagieren?“
Antwort Petry: „Er muss den illegalen Grenzübertritt verhindern, notfalls auch von der Schusswaffe Gebrauch machen. So steht es im Gesetz.“
„MM“-Frage: „Es gibt in Deutschland ein Gesetz, das einen Schießbefehl an den Grenzen enthält?“
Antwort Petry: „Ich habe das Wort ‚Schießbefehl‘ nicht benutzt. Kein Polizist will auf einen Flüchtling schießen. Ich will das auch nicht. Aber zur Ultima Ratio gehört der Einsatz von Waffengewalt. Entscheidend ist, dass wir es so weit nicht kommen lassen und über Abkommen mit Österreich und Kontrollen an EU-Außengrenzen den Flüchtlingszustrom bremsen.“
I translate:
Interviewer: "Miss Petry, you want to have the borders well organized again. What do you mean?"
Petry: "We need comprehensive checks, for reducing the amount of unregistrated refugees from Austria."
Interviewer: "The border to Austria is around 800km long. How do you want to control it overall?"
Petry: "I know exactly, that you wanna push me to the headline: "Petry wants to build a Fence!""
Interviewer: "We only want to know, how your Plan looks? How does it look?"
Petry: "We need to deploy enough Policemen and we shall not eschew us from sending refugees back. If Necessary, we need to do this via "Border fortifications"."
Interviewer: "How high shall the fence be?"
Petry: "You can't stop it! Look at spain. They have high fences as well."
Interviewer: "What happens, if a refugee climbs over the fence?"
Petry: "Then the police has to stop the refugee."
Interviewer: "And when he does it nevertheless?"
Petry: "You want to push me in a certain direction again..."
Interviewer: "Again, how shall a policemen react in that situation?"
Petry: "He has to stop the illegal entering of the county. In emergency, he has to use his weapon. Like it's written in our laws."(I have stated the law above)
Interviewer: "There's a law in germany, which allows a "shooting command" to secure the border?"
Petry: "I never said "shooting command". No policemen wants to shoot at a refugee. I don't want that either. But to the "Ultima Ratio" belongs the weapon usage. We mainly need to work on the problem, that it doesn't get this far. We need to make an agreement with Austria, so that the can decrease the amount of refugees coming over here."
From that, they say, that the AfD wants to shoot innocents. Thanks media.
Also there are other points, where I'll agree with the AfD. Looking at the cultural side, the environmental side, the educational side and the economy parts of it. But these are not important in this discussion anyways.
Also at the end, I want to state, that I don't like the "Compact" Magazine. They overexaggerate at some points. At some pints not that much, but still, I don't like overexaggerating media. Thats why I also don't read the Bild or watch RTL...
Ollfardh wrote:
I take it Emre is in denial of the Armenian Genocide, with his dislikes. Any other Turks here? Because it's quite saddening 100% of the Turks here got brainwashed into believing that this never happened. Anyway, I agree with The Schleck Fan that a different president would help Turkey a lot.
Emre definitely doesn't like the president as well.
Also: Disliking the president=/=saying there is genocide.Far from it.Actually the ones who say there is genocide supported the president at some point.
Also,brainwashing?Seriously?Are you sure of it?
So at the moment,I am thinking there is not genocide,but then again I will try to do a good research when I have time.
Edited by Forever the Best on 24-03-2016 18:33
Ollfardh wrote:
I take it Emre is in denial of the Armenian Genocide, with his dislikes. Any other Turks here? Because it's quite saddening 100% of the Turks here got brainwashed into believing that this never happened. Anyway, I agree with The Schleck Fan that a different president would help Turkey a lot.
Emre probably doesn't like the president as well.
But,brainwashing?Seriously?Are you sure of it?
Well, probably my choice of words was a bit over the top. But you have to explain it to me, because I just don't get how people doubt there was a genocide of at least a million Armenians. Pretty much the same as the people who say they don't believe in evolution, I just don't get it.
To compare it to cycling, we can talk about Froome, some people like him, some don't. Some people think he won the Tour doped, some say he won it clean. But this would be like saying Froome never won a Tour at all.
Margh Norway wrote:
I'm very grateful for pointing out the thinks you don't like about Compact, cunego.
I don't like them pushing AfD or raising fear of islamic immigrants by publishing these undifferentiated covers, too.
But populistic covers and pro statements or advertisement of AfD and Trump don't make you xenophobic or racist.
Yes it does. Not populism per se. But if your populism is constantly pointed against a certain ethnic or religious group, or against foreigners, then you deserve to be called islamophobic, xenophobic or racist. Same with promoting people with obviously racist messages. You can discuss their other political views, but if you don't condemn or even address their racist agenda at the same time, you approve of them. As Trump did when he didn't condemn that (former?) KKK leader.
Do you remember the series of anti-islamic covers of Der Spiegel?
I didn't like it, but won't call the Spiegel racist.
I don't, would be nice if you could link them. But you're right, I wouldn't call them racist either, because I don't think it's systematic within the Spiegel. In contrast to Compact.
Do you remember the Mohammed caricatures?
I personally think it is highly indecent to make fun out of other peoples religions.
I don't want to start a discussion about Mohammed caricatures, but once again, those satirical magazines make fun of every religion and every ethnicity if they feel there's something to be ridiculed. It's about focusing on one group and attacking mainly them.
There are so many things published we may not like, but when calling something racist or anti-semetic one better is able to prove it.
Other than that Voltaires legacy speaks excellence: I might disagree with your opinion, but I am willing to give my life for your right to express it.
Same goes with Elsässer. I don't share his political views, but he did good journalistic work in the past. As said, best is to wipe away the propaganda to get to the information.
I read that a lot these days. But not everything is an opinion. There's a reason that there are criminal offences like defamation, insult or hate speech. Not everything can be excused by freedom of speech.
So far in this thread today I've seen people claim that the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust didn't happen... only leaves evolution denial for the trifecta
jph27 wrote:
So far in this thread today I've seen people claim that the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust didn't happen... only leaves evolution denial for the trifecta
What about American conspiracys: Iraq, 9/11 and Kennedy?
And can we top it off with the "Gay is a choice"?
Paul23 wrote:
Also about the interviews: Yes, Beatrix von Storch is simply not a good person, but not because of her opinions, but because she can't get her opinion into words, properly.
Okay what? Please explain. "Not being able to word your opinion properly" might be a character flaw but it doesn't make you a bad person, right? If anything, your opinions do or actions do.
Also, what makes you think that it wasn't her opinion? It was a pretty clear question ("does that [shooting at people] include women and children") and an equally clear answer ("Yes."). Not much to interpret.
Just for the record. The AfD never said, that they wanted to shoot people at the borders. They just citated the actual law:
Again, what? Sure, they don't "want" to shoot people. But they deemed it appropriate. And yes, that paragraph exists, but every paragraph except the very first one of the constitution exists in a context. In this case, there is § 4 UZwG, the proportionality principle, which explicitly states that the expected damage (in this case injury or death) of a measure must not be out of proportion to the intended goal of said measure. That alone prohibits shooting at the border in almost any case.
But of course no one from the AfD would ever mention that. Because it doesn't fit their agenda. Because now everyone who says that it is indeed not appropriate or even legal to shoot refugees is a sissy who doesn't even respect the law. And you fell for that as well it seems. At least no judge would agree with this:
Honestly, if an officer asked you 2 times clearly to stop and even gave a warning shot, and you still keep going, you can't complain about a shot in the leg.
See this article for a more in depth analysis including current jurisdiction of the BGH: Link
Also looking into the party program. They clearly have nothing against muslims, but against radical muslims. They acknowledge, that a big majority of the muslims in germany are integrated well. They are just directing at extremist ones, which is completely fine, in my opinion.
It would be if they also stated that clearly when appearing in talk shows or interviews. But they don't. They use fear towards an entire group by suggesting they might all be radicals.
Also there are other points, where I'll agree with the AfD. Looking at the cultural side, the environmental side, the educational side and the economy parts of it. But these are not important in this discussion anyways.
They don't because they're accompanied by their other policies. Same with Trump: Some of his ideas may be valid, but as long as there's a bunch of morally corrupt and hostile ideas that come along, the better ones don't matter.
Edited by cunego59 on 24-03-2016 19:36
cunego59 wrote:
You can discuss their other political views, but if you don't condemn or even address their racist agenda at the same time, you approve of them. ...
lol... sound like former POTUS George Walker Bush:
"You're with us or you're with the terrorists."
Fear we won't find consensus about the Compact thing.
Afaik articles were written by authors from all around the world, even islamic or jewish among them, Donald Trump is endorsed by Ben Carson... it isn't always as easy as we want it to be.
If I would call them racist I would feel being undifferenciated myself.
My view on Turkey is that they are aiding ISIS, failing to cut off the mainline into Europe for extremists and support to ISIS like weapons, taking out the Russian jet for being in their airspace for a measly few seconds. They are not a trustworthy alley to us or any European country fighting ISIS, and its that simple no one trusts Turkey. They have a shocking human rights record and Urdogan is pushing and enforcing strict Muslim law on people who don't want it. It baffled me when Turkey all of a sudden said they told Belgian authorities about the 3 jihadists who committed these crimes, if Turkey knew about them why did they not do more to prevent their progress across Europe. Turkey think by trying to be on both sides they can be winners no matter the outcome but I think if they don't start pulling their weight and they threaten Russia again Russia will just bomb them next time.
Okay what? Please explain. "Not being able to word your opinion properly" might be a character flaw but it doesn't make you a bad person, right? If anything, your opinions do or actions do.
With "not a good person" I meant: "not a good person for the job"
Also, what makes you think that it wasn't her opinion? It was a pretty clear question ("does that [shooting at people] include women and children" and an equally clear answer ("Yes.". Not much to interpret.
She was really pressured at that statement. It was like:
"Does that shooting include women and children?"
"no"
"Does that shooting include women and children?"
"no"
"Does that shooting include women and children?"
"no"
"Does that shooting include women and children?"
"no"
"Does that shooting include women and children?"
"Yes, but fucking leave me alone!"
Also after their definition, like in my previous statement, they never said "shooting at them", so they have a different kind of "shooting" in mind. It's not like they are going on a manhunt, but after 2 warnings and a warning shot, a shot into the leg is also a shot. And why not shoot woman and children on that matter as well?
Woman? for sure! Equality!
Children? Difficult. Surely you can act differently with children(depending on the situation, for sure)
Again, what? Sure, they don't "want" to shoot people. But they deemed it appropriate. And yes, that paragraph exists, but every paragraph except the very first one of the constitution exists in a context. In this case, there is § 4 UZwG, the proportionality principle, which explicitly states that the expected damage (in this case injury or death) of a measure must not be out of proportion to the intended goal of said measure. That alone prohibits shooting at the border in almost any case.
Yes, I know about that law. But do you really think that people are just walking peacefully over the border? Look at the pictures in greece/macedonia. Policemen get attacked. If someone just walks past you, you're surely not allowed to shoot, but if he/she flees or attacks, shooting on the leg is an option. Or wouldn't you stop an attacker/criminial who flees?
It would be if they also stated that clearly when appearing in talk shows or interviews. But they don't. They use fear towards an entire group by suggesting they might all be radicals.
In no single interview, I watched, they stated that. They accept, that alot muslims are well integrated into germany.
Also please keep in mind, that the AfD doesn't consist of "long-time politicians" in lead positions. They are mostly amateurs in that kind of terrain. They are not used to talk around problems, like the other parties(Die Linke is quite honest as well)
Most people think, that their opinion is the only good one. I think differently. I accept the opinions of every left-winger or of every CDU supporter. I only expect, that they have read the party program, before they argue. There are surely different ways of working on a problem. You need to know in which world you want to live. I'm pretty conservative. I'm a friend of normal borders and well organizes souveran countries. The best party, to achieve that goal with, is the AfD. If you want to live in a modern state, "Die Linke" or "Die Grünen" is probably the way to go. But I also hate the "gendering" which "Die Grünen" push. Also since those things happened in my neigborhood, I want things a bit more organized.
Fun Fact: Japan was recently known for not taking any refugees and because of that, having no trouble with it. They now admited to have taken a few refugees. 8%(!) are now caught by the police because of rape.
Your Link states, that the AfD is "antidemocratic".
Just funny, because you can read in their party program, that they want to give the people more power. They want to do it like in Switzerland with direct democracy. Most of all, they want to reduce the input of the reigning party on all kinds of institutions.
That's a completely different approach from the other parties. Doesn't seem "antidemocratic" to me.
I could make a partie program about pink unicorns.
Does this mean people who love pink unicorns should vote for me?
I appreciate that you have read the program and compare it with your wishes. Many vote without checking anything no matter if they have anything in common with a party, which is a lot worse.
But it`s a difference to have a program, you really like (or in other words, a program, that people love to read as it sounds so peaceful and organized and easy to move everything to the good) or a program, you might not like to 100% but that is realistic.
In my opinion the AFD program belongs to the first. People, who share their opinion like to read it as it sounds like a beutiful world (I don`t like their content btw., don`t get me wrong). But is it realistic? Far from it imo. They have so many things that could never be made in a realistic world. Also a lot of their content mutually exclusives itself as doing lots of this stuff while reducing incoming money elsewhere is just not possible imo.
Being anti-democratic and giving people more power is possible. People might get more power in some areas but are hugely limited in other areas, which I would call anti-democratic.
And your last little "fun fact" is not funny but actually quite disgusting to even name it "fun" fact. Also mentioning 8% clearly sounds more towards your opinion than writing those 8% are actually 2 people out of 27 refugees. At least I guess this is where you get the 8% from?
Yes, this really shows the point well...2 people are proof enough that they are all bad...Edited by roturn on 25-03-2016 06:44
Disclaimer- Most of my posts are me thinking aloud. And most of what I think is rubbish.
Winner of a FIFA Prediction Fair Play Award (a phrase becoming increasingly ironic) "... Because he (me) has a sound tactical mind in general..." jandal7, at 9:30 am GMT on 12th May 2016
The first link is about Frauke Petry, who is one of the AFD lead in Germany.
The second link is about Jean Christoph Fiedler, who is in a different party NPD (further right even) and only leading the Hesse region for them.
So not ideal to compare those two.
Also praising is possibly the wrong word. Instead of saying thanks really, he said, that he wasn`t conscious after the crash and only heard by the fire men that it were Syrian refugees stopping and doing first aid on him. In this case they did a good human move but as he only heard it by others and media, he does not fully believe in it...
Edited by roturn on 25-03-2016 08:22
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
