I thought the only reason people voted for the AfD was because they didn't read the program, but apparently I was wrong. Anyway, main points from the program include:
- Children should not be tought about sex in school anymore. They believe this destroys the traditional family model and makes children insecure about their sexual orientation - as long as you don't tell them they can be gay, no-one will be gay!
- Individuality is bad. Women that only stay at home should be appreciated more.
- Single parents are not normal and should not get support from the state if they chose that themselves. Getting a divorce should be harder, and in every divorce it should be determined whose fault it is.
- CO2 isn't bad for the environment, neither is nuclear power. All measures towards lowering CO2 emission will be stopped, and we will revert back to nuclear power.
- Alcoholics or drug addicts or mentally ill convicts should not be treated in mental health hospitals anymore, they should be locked away. Criminal foreigners, that can't be kicked out (e.g. because their country of origin is at war) should be kicked out anyway.
- We should not be reminded of Nazi Germany so much - Germany also has more genocide to offer, like in Namibia.
- Development support should be only be given if Germany can financially benefit from it.
Dippofix wrote:
I thought the only reason people voted for the AfD was because they didn't read the program, but apparently I was wrong. Anyway, main points from the program include:
- Children should not be tought about sex in school anymore. They believe this destroys the traditional family model and makes children insecure about their sexual orientation - as long as you don't tell them they can be gay, no-one will be gay!
- Individuality is bad. Women that only stay at home should be appreciated more.
- Single parents are not normal and should not get support from the state if they chose that themselves. Getting a divorce should be harder, and in every divorce it should be determined whose fault it is.
- CO2 isn't bad for the environment, neither is nuclear power. All measures towards lowering CO2 emission will be stopped, and we will revert back to nuclear power.
- Alcoholics or drug addicts or mentally ill convicts should not be treated in mental health hospitals anymore, they should be locked away. Criminal foreigners, that can't be kicked out (e.g. because their country of origin is at war) should be kicked out anyway.
- We should not be reminded of Nazi Germany so much - Germany also has more genocide to offer, like in Namibia.
- Development support should be only be given if Germany can financially benefit from it.
They sound like the usual right wing idiots we see flourish all over Europe.
- Children should not be tought about sex in school anymore. They believe this destroys the traditional family model and makes children insecure about their sexual orientation - as long as you don't tell them they can be gay, no-one will be gay!
I could actually cry right now. I spend so much time on these posts, just so someone comes around, doesn't read the program. Doesn't even care to look at it, and acts like he did...Children shall be teached about sex in school. But not before puberty. Some gay-extremists handed out flyers about teaching 3 year olds how to masturbate, which isn't right, IMO. Chilren shall learn everything about sex, but at a given time, when their bodys and minds are ready to understand this.
- Individuality is bad. Women that only stay at home should be appreciated more.
Nope, again only a half truth. Women who only stay at home, should be appreciated more, yes. Nothing wrong with that. But they didn't say,thta individuality is bad. They also support women, who stride after a career.
- Single parents are not normal and should not get support from the state if they chose that themselves. Getting a divorce should be harder, and in every divorce it should be determined whose fault it is.
Single parents should be given the support they need. They even acknowledged the fact, that living alone with a children is much harder and that the parent needs more help. And on your 2nd sentence...isn't that good anyway? Currently, if I would be rich, some girl could marry me, divorce and get a huge chunk of money, which isn't right at all.
- CO2 isn't bad for the environment, neither is nuclear power. All measures towards lowering CO2 emission will be stopped, and we will revert back to nuclear power.
They want to stop nuclear power, when the renewable sources are enough to keep us going. As long as they can't we need to research on nuclear powers, to make them more efficient. f.e. less nuclear trash. They pla on stopping all nuclear plants by 2022.
- Alcoholics or drug addicts or mentally ill convicts should not be treated in mental health hospitals anymore, they should be locked away. Criminal foreigners, that can't be kicked out (e.g. because their country of origin is at war) should be kicked out anyway.
I totally agree with the 2nd one. Or would you go into a peacefully country, just to steal, rape and murder? (I'm not generalizing here. I know most people don't do this.) The first sentence, is all about extreme cases. Please tell me, that the people "who want to eat kids" should be treated in health hospitals. 96% of the cases who get released of a mental health hospital, become criminals again.
- We should not be reminded of Nazi Germany so much - Germany also has more genocide to offer, like in Namibia.
We shouldn't be reminded of Nazi Germany, that much. Yes. Because our actual policy is like: "Sorry we did all that stuff 70 years back." I didn't do anything like that, you sure hadn't anything to do with it either, but we germany mostly get reduced to the holocoust and the world wars.
- Development support should be only be given if Germany can financially benefit from it.
We have big big debt. Why do we still support companies, who can't pay for themselves?
Again, thanks for not really reading the party program. You seemingly didn't even properly read your own damn links.
Also, you cried about me using "unserious" sources, hence you use the "Spiegel" and Vice. Vice is like "Bild" on the internet. Like "LeFloid"... And the "Spiegel" changes it's opinion every 3 hours.
Also, this is my last post in this thread.
Edited by Paul23 on 25-03-2016 13:29
- Children should not be tought about sex in school anymore. They believe this destroys the traditional family model and makes children insecure about their sexual orientation - as long as you don't tell them they can be gay, no-one will be gay!
I could actually cry right now. I spend so much time on these posts, just so someone comes around, doesn't read the program. Doesn't even care to look at it, and acts like he did...Children shall be teached about sex in school. But not before puberty. Some gay-extremists handed out flyers about teaching 3 year olds how to masturbate, which isn't right, IMO. Chilren shall learn everything about sex, but at a given time, when their bodys and minds are ready to understand this.
Nowhere does it say anything like that. It just says that they are against "propagating" homo and transsexuality in school. No age limit on a statement like that.
- Individuality is bad. Women that only stay at home should be appreciated more.
Nope, again only a half truth. Women who only stay at home, should be appreciated more, yes. Nothing wrong with that. But they didn't say,thta individuality is bad. They also support women, who stride after a career.
"die generelle Betonung der Individualität untergraben die Familie als wertegebende gesellschaftliche Grundeinheit."
They literally say that individuality destroys the concept of families as the normative base of society.
- Single parents are not normal and should not get support from the state if they chose that themselves. Getting a divorce should be harder, and in every divorce it should be determined whose fault it is.
Single parents should be given the support they need. They even acknowledged the fact, that living alone with a children is much harder and that the parent needs more help. And on your 2nd sentence...isn't that good anyway? Currently, if I would be rich, some girl could marry me, divorce and get a huge chunk of money, which isn't right at all.
Interestingly they want to scrap that part anyway, now that Frauke Petry is getting a divorce.
And they said they are strictly against single parents being seen as normal:
"Wir wenden uns entschieden gegen Versuche von Organisationen, Medien und Politik, Alleinerziehende als normalen, fortschrittlichen oder gar erstrebenswerten Lebensentwurf zu propagieren.
- CO2 isn't bad for the environment, neither is nuclear power. All measures towards lowering CO2 emission will be stopped, and we will revert back to nuclear power.
They want to stop nuclear power, when the renewable sources are enough to keep us going. As long as they can't we need to research on nuclear powers, to make them more efficient. f.e. less nuclear trash. They pla on stopping all nuclear plants by 2022.
Nothing on when they plan to stop using nuclear power. And even an efficient nuclear plant is really, really dangerous if something goes wrong. And why they think CO2 is fine is beyond me.
- Alcoholics or drug addicts or mentally ill convicts should not be treated in mental health hospitals anymore, they should be locked away. Criminal foreigners, that can't be kicked out (e.g. because their country of origin is at war) should be kicked out anyway.
I totally agree with the 2nd one. Or would you go into a peacefully country, just to steal, rape and murder? (I'm not generalizing here. I know most people don't do this.) The first sentence, is all about extreme cases. Please tell me, that the people "who want to eat kids" should be treated in health hospitals. 96% of the cases who get released of a mental health hospital, become criminals again.
I'd like to see the stats for those 96%. And the second one is just completely unrealistic. Why would a third country randomly decide to take in prisoners from Germany?
- We should not be reminded of Nazi Germany so much - Germany also has more genocide to offer, like in Namibia.
We shouldn't be reminded of Nazi Germany, that much. Yes. Because our actual policy is like: "Sorry we did all that stuff 70 years back." I didn't do anything like that, you sure hadn't anything to do with it either, but we germany mostly get reduced to the holocoust and the world wars.
As far as I've noticed so far, nobody is made to feel overly guilty. It's just important to remember these things.
- Development support should be only be given if Germany can financially benefit from it.
We have big big debt. Why do we still support companies, who can't pay for themselves?
Again, thanks for not really reading the party program. You seemingly didn't even properly read your own damn links.
Also, you cried about me using "unserious" sources, hence you use the "Spiegel" and Vice. Vice is like "Bild" on the internet. Like "LeFloid"... And the "Spiegel" changes it's opinion every 3 hours.
So isn't it a good thing Spiegel doesn't have an opinion? And while Vice isn't really a news site, I'd trust them to directly quote something.
I'm left worried why you take an such an unfair approach.
Why not translate what's written in the programm itself and comment on that? As Paul stated it sounds like you hadn't read it yourself, but interpret based on the vice-interpretation.
e.g. the whole paragraph about family as a role model is in the spoiler
Spoiler
6.1 Bekenntnis zur traditionellen Familie als Leitbild
Die Wertschätzung für die traditionelle Familie geht in Deutschland zunehmend verloren. Die Familie aus Vater, Mutter und Kindern als Keimzelle der Gesellschaft zu verstehen und den Bedürfnissen der Kinder und Eltern gerecht zu werden, muss wieder Mittelpunkt der Familienpolitik werden.
Staatliche Institutionen wie Krippen, Ganztagsschulen, Jugendämter und Familiengerichte greifen zu sehr in das Erziehungrecht der Eltern ein. Gender Mainstreaming und die generelle Betonung der Individualität untergraben die Familie als wertegebende gesellschaftliche Grundeinheit. Die Wirtschaft will Frauen als Arbeitskraft. Ein falsch verstandener Feminismus schätzt einseitig Frauen im Erwerbsleben, nicht aber Frauen, die “nur” Mutter und Hausfrau sind. Diese erfahren häufig geringere Anerkennung und werden finanziell benachteiligt.
Die Alternative für Deutschland bekennt sich zur traditionellen Familie als Leitbild. Ehe und Familie stehen unter dem besonderen Schutz des Grundgesetzes. In der Familie sorgen Mutter und Vater in dauerhafter gemeinsamer Verantwortung für ihre Kinder. Diese natürliche Gemeinschaft bildet das Fundament unserer Gesellschaft. Die originären Bedürfnisse der Kinder, die Zeit und Zuwendung ihrer Eltern brauchen, stehen dabei im Mittelpunkt.
Es sollte wieder erstrebenswert sein, eine Ehe einzugehen, Kinder zu erziehen und möglichst viel Zeit mit diesen zu verbringen. Die AfD möchte eine gesellschaftliche Wertediskussion zur Stärkung der Elternrolle und gegen die vom Gender Mainstreaming propagierte Stigmatisierung traditioneller Geschlechterrollen anstoßen. Kinder sind kein karrierehemmender Ballast, sondern unsere Zukunft.
Wenn ein Elternteil die Erziehungsleistung allein tragen muss, bedarf es besonderer Unterstützung.
How on earth could you summerize it with "individuality is bad"??? I just read that they sense and don't like that the argument of individuality is used to downvalue the family.
You may can criticize that the AfD wants to higher value traditionel families than homosexual partnerships, but they didn't write they are opposing individuality.
You don't need to be untrue about the programm to find flaws. It would've been more honest to open: This is my take on the AfD programm" than to write: "...main points from the program include".
As others stated, it can be doubted that they stay true to their programm when in power, anyway. Almost every political party veils their real political agenda until elected and I don't know why it should be different with the AfD.
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."
I admit that I went a bit to far here. You don't need to declare that at every possible opportunity. But I've read a few articles on Trump by them, and his remarks didn't come up once. Which leads me to believe they don't think it's worth mentioning -> don't have a problem with it. Which I find problematic.
Also, you accuse me (perhaps rightfully) of making the connection that someone who doesn't criticize a racist is a racist, but in turn you imply that someone can't be a racist because he's endorsed by people who aren't? Even if you assume that Blacks or Jews couldn't possibly be adverse to their own group (which I doubt) or at least be opportunistic, I think there's a fallacy here.
And I agree, often times it's really not simple. But sometimes it is. Sometimes, someone who appears racist actually is.
Thanks. I like Hagen Rether indeed, and I enjoyed the video. And I find those covers and their implications highly problematic, borderline malicious, no doubt. But then there are also lots of different articles, comments and essays that call on their readers to not be prejudiced, and not judge every Muslim on guilt by association. Which is why I think those Spiegel covers are "just" bad journalism (which is bad enough), and not bad journalism coupled with racist or anti-Islam tendencies. Compact lacks that kind of diversity.
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"
Thanks for clarifying. Makes more sense now.
Paul23 wrote:
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!"
It was an answer to a Facebook post. She could have easily chosen to ignore it, but she didn't. She expressed her opinion. No pressure whatsoever.
Paul23 wrote:
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?
I understand the sentiment. Violence should not be tolerated. But to answer your question, no, I wouldn't stop them if shooting them is the only option. I'd rather have 100.000 illegal immigrants in the country than having all of them at the border with gunshot wounds (quite a few of them dead. There are bound to be shots that don't hit the legs, but the upper body or head as well). Maybe you see that differently. If you do, then it also makes sense for you to consider it in accordance with the law. But then, frankly, I would think that you have a serious lack of empathy.
And to clarify: I don't want 100.000 illegal immigrants in the country. I want there to be regulations at the border, however difficult they may be to install. The only thing is that I think shooting someone should only be done if you fear for your own life, because you always risk taking someone else's.
Paul23 wrote:
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)
Albrecht Glaser and Alexander Gauland have been CDU-politicians for over 30 years, spending several years in political offices. Beatrix von Storch has been active in political organisations (though not parties) for some 20 years. They are the vice leaders of the party.
Also, isn't their outspokenness one of their main arguments? That they don't "talk around problems"? If you invoke that as a strength, you have to own that and take responsibility for your words.
As Dippofix said, I'd be very interested in that 96% relapse number of mentally ill criminals. Also, please, please, please don't think of the remembrance of the Holocaust as guilt. Maybe some bad teachers phrase it that way, but that's really not what it's about. It's about being conscious of the evil things humans are capable of, and being conscious of what a society can become if they let demagogues take over. I'm explicitly not comparing the AfD to the NSDAP, but remembering what fear and dislike towards strangers or minorities can eventually amount to is just so incredibly important these days!
Also, please don't stop posting here. Even if we disagree, I still appreciate the time you take to voice your opinions. Don't be discouraged if you find yourself alone or in the minority. Isn't that one of the main problems in the political discourse these days? That too many people don't value other people's opinion, and too many people don't care to express their opinions anymore because they feel they're not being heard? I feel like so far that wasn't the case here, which is a rare thing and why I enjoy this thread so much.
cunego59 wrote:
I admit that I went a bit to far here. You don't need to declare that at every possible opportunity. But I've read a few articles on Trump by them, and his remarks didn't come up once. Which leads me to believe they don't think it's worth mentioning -> don't have a problem with it. Which I find problematic.
Also, you accuse me (perhaps rightfully) of making the connection that someone who doesn't criticize a racist is a racist, but in turn you imply that someone can't be a racist because he's endorsed by people who aren't? Even if you assume that Blacks or Jews couldn't possibly be adverse to their own group (which I doubt) or at least be opportunistic, I think there's a fallacy here.
And I agree, often times it's really not simple. But sometimes it is. Sometimes, someone who appears racist actually is.
Can agree that a non-racist endorsing a racist doesn't make the racist a non-racist. (it's meant serious, but had to admit I needed to lol while writing this)
And you are right, there are people adversing the ethnic group or nationality they belong to.
What I wanted to say is that:
a) that Ben Carson presumably knows Donald Trump better than we do and it's tough to me to imagine that he even takes the risk to support a racist
b) if you're xenophobic you most liely won't voluntary employ foreigners
(I know this no proof and one always can say these guys are schizophrenic, too)
To make it clear. What I dislike is the way the rule of law is turned upside down.
Nowadays you make an assertion and if it isn't codemned by the victim it turns into truth.
If someone would call me a racist or xenophobic I would be deeply hurt and I hope you would feel the same way, too. An assertion like that can destroy careers and private lives. I just want to see it used in a responsible manner with clear proof.
On Spiegel:
It is save to say it is not racist. Back in 2007 it was widespread mainstream in western media to do "islam-bashing", because we were at the brink of another middle-eastern war with either Iran (fear of a nuclear weapon threat, crazy Ahmadinedschad, seizure of Royal Navy soldiers) or Pakistan (state of emergency, series of suicide attacks, Benazir Bhutto threat).
Imo it is a typical behaviour of many media outlets to dehumanize the predestined 'enemy' in these kind of situations to support the political mainstream. Almost no one wants war, but if you declare a devil some are even willing to start preemptive strikes.
Spiegel today has made a 180 degree turn regarding Islam... like Merkel (Multikulti ist gescheitert). Hard to say what's their true agenda, but pretty much save to say they are not following their own beliefs.
cunego59 wrote:
Also, please don't stop posting here. Even if we disagree, I still appreciate the time you take to voice your opinions. Don't be discouraged if you find yourself alone or in the minority. Isn't that one of the main problems in the political discourse these days? That too many people don't value other people's opinion, and too many people don't care to express their opinions anymore because they feel they're not being heard? I feel like so far that wasn't the case here, which is a rare thing and why I enjoy this thread so much.
Margh Norway wrote:
To make it clear. What I dislike is the way the rule of law is turned upside down.
Nowadays you make an assertion and if it isn't codemned by the victim it turns into truth.
If someone would call me a racist or xenophobic I would be deeply hurt and I hope you would feel the same way, too. An assertion like that can destroy careers and private lives. I just want to see it used in a responsible manner with clear proof.
I understand that. I agree that many assertions today are cast prematurely. I'm aware of the terrible impact false accusations can have on people's lives.
However, it's tough to get "clear proof" about someone's mindset. And sure, maybe one could argue that because of that, unless a person admits, for instance, to be racist, it's wrong to accuse someone of it.
But at some point, even if I'm careful with accusations, there is enough of at least circumstantial evidence in the form of words and actions that allows me to make a judgment.
Plus: If it's just anybody in my environment, I could just avoid him and withhold my thoughts on the off-chance I might be wrong about it. But we're talking about a man who wants to become "the leader of the free world". Having a racist in office because too many people thought "well, yes, he says racist stuff, but we can't be sure he's a racist, can we?" wouldn't be a risk I was willing to take, and I'm not even an American
(If people don't think his statements are racist, I may not understand that but so be it. What grinds my gears is people who recognize the racism and aren't racist themselves but don't consequentially oppose Trump because of sentiments like the one above.)
As for Carson, I don't think of him very highly and as far as I'm concerned, his endorsing of Trump is just plain opportunism. But imo that's a minor point that I don't want to spend time discussing Same with the Spiegel who I think doesn't have "an agenda" but is just sometimes good at what it does and sometimes not so much. But that would potentially open the discussion of evil, controlled media, so I'll leave it at that.
Edited by cunego59 on 25-03-2016 18:44
Think we can agree that something like this is a racist remark:
"Americans are higher valued than Mexicans, because all Mexicans are alcoholics and lazy."
And people repeatedly making comments like that can be called racist.
The most provoking and embarrassing quote by Donald Trump I just could find is:
Donald Trump:
When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending the best. They're not sending you, they're sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. ... And some, I assume, are good people.
It's one of the most unpleasant statements I've read from a politician, even when knowing he likes to shock his audience, but...
... per definition it isn't racist.
(please tell if one knows better fitting quotes)
I can imagine why you think a guy making comments like that "deserves" to be named a racist, but (no offense) it stays a false accusation.
Trump provides so many weaknesses, why even try to play the racist card and not embarras him on the issues.
And if worst case happens, Trump becomes president and turns out a racist I'm optimistic the Americans will take care of him.
Der Spiegel has changed his views a lot (maybe not every three hours, like Paul said ), but we could indeed lay him down to rest... like it's readers did.
Unrelated, but a Difficult Topic, too.
Rare view into Saudi Arabia (warning: shocking stories)
Margh Norway wrote:
Think we can agree that something like this is a racist remark:
"Americans are higher valued than Mexicans, because all Mexicans are alcoholics and lazy."
“I have black guys counting my money. … I hate it,” Trump told John R. O’Donnell, the former president of Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino, according O’Donnell’s account in his 1991 book “Trumped!” “The only guys I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes all day.”
Trump, according to O’Donnell, went on to say, “‘Laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that.”
In an interview with Playboy in 1999, Trump remarked that “[t]he stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true. The guy’s a f—-g loser. A f—-g loser."
Trump provides so many weaknesses, why even try to play the racist card and not embarras him on the issues.
But that's just it: It's not a card to play. It's not a ploy to defame him. It's not a tool out of the political toolbox. It's just calling a racist a racist.
I totally agree. I know a guy that likes Trump, and every time I point out his racist or sexist remarks he claims I'm giving in to political correctness.
I hate political correctness, and I think it's not way too far in our contemporary culture. I even made a speech about it earlier in the school year. But these kind of remarks are not about political correctness or having to censor yourself. It's being racist. There''s a legitimate difference. Not being blatantly racist is not politically correct, it's just correct.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
Thanks for the additional quotes, cunego.
Guess I it, we are simply using different definitions on what a racist is.
The Hitler example is a very common way in Germany to learn how racism is defined. It's been years, but it worked roughly like this:
a) believe in the own supremacy --> Hitler promotes German/Aryans
b) valuation of different races --> e.g. Russians are subhumans
c) generalizations --> e.g. all Jews are evil
Was Hitler a racist? Of course he was.
From a scientific standpoint all indicators combined classify as a racist. It actually isn't very easy to become a racist, at least you won't by accident.
Imo Trump doesn't fit into this definition. In the two recent speeches I heard of him he pretty much held Americans accountable for why the country sucks these days and he wants "to make America great again". From a scientific point of view a racist won't do something like this.
As you said it's almost impossible to find clear evidence about this subject. Guess we could name plenty of signs for both theses. The problem is in a fair trial the job of the prosecutor is much tougher.
Where I come from generalizations like you quoted (blacks are lazy or jews are great in accounting) are prejudices and in combination with negative attributes even more nasty.
Short story:
I remember more than one rant of my grandma about the noisy kids from a neighbouring Croatian family. In essence she said: Yugos are reckless people without manners.
I fear she could've been a racist in your eyes?
I may exaggerate, but by lowering the standards it seems to be way to easy to become a racist nowadays. We're creating a generation biting their tongue, afraid to say something too offensive.
From a moral standpoint you may be right to call Trump a racist if you think and feel he deserves it. Many people are doing it.
Please correct me if I totally misunderstood what you think makes Trump a racist.
I think there is a difference in what you term a racist and what most people term a racist. Yes a dictionary definition would probably make Trump not a racist, but by a dictionary definition almost no-one would be a racist. The common, and imo more correct, definition of racist fits Trump to absolute perfection.
Probably what you'd term Trump is a xenophobe with prejudice, by definition. But frankly to most people that is being a racist and really that should be what the modern definition of racism should be.
Legaly, a racist is a person convicted for racism. Since a lot of countries have different laws, it's hard for an international forum define what is racism. I'm pretty sure Trump would be convicted for what he said in Belgium.
TheManxMissile wrote:
I think there is a difference in what you term a racist and what most people term a racist. Yes a dictionary definition would probably make Trump not a racist, but by a dictionary definition almost no-one would be a racist. The common, and imo more correct, definition of racist fits Trump to absolute perfection.
Probably what you'd term Trump is a xenophobe with prejudice, by definition. But frankly to most people that is being a racist and really that should be what the modern definition of racism should be.
Correct.
It isn't I care a lot about Trump being called a racist, but the negative consequences by the inflatory use of the term reflecting into our private lives.
@ Ollfarth
Really? In Germany most likely the racist-caller will be sentenced for insult or false accusations. Afaik courts here are orientate on the less "modern" interpretation.
Margh Norway wrote:
Short story:
I remember more than one rant of my grandma about the noisy kids from a neighbouring Croatian family. In essence she said: Yugos are reckless people without manners.
I fear she could've been a racist in your eyes?
Yeah, she probably would be. But maybe we get to the bottom of our differences here: I may label your grandma racist, but that doesn't necessarily mean she's a bad person. She probably won't become my best friend, but she still may be a good grandmother. The point is that she would make a terrible president.
Many people are racist in my opinion. Maybe more than in yours. There always will be racists. I have a problem with those people, but I don't judge them as bad people per se. However, how people can rally behind a racist to make him president is completely beyond me. That's the main point I'm trying to get across.
Margh Norway wrote:
I may exaggerate, but by lowering the standards it seems to be way to easy to become a racist nowadays. We're creating a generation biting their tongue, afraid to say something too offensive.
And I'm hoping we're creating a generation that is conscious of what they're saying, because they're aware of the enormous impact words can have
cunego59 wrote:
And I'm hoping we're creating a generation that is conscious of what they're saying, because they're aware of the enormous impact words can have
Well, it won't hurt to be aware of our words and their impact.
But by changing the definition of the racist term the opposite is the case.
By lifting them on the same level and calling all of them (my grandma, Trump and Hitler) racist and you're (I guess unintended) marginalizing the term.
Same with the Spiegel who I think doesn't have "an agenda" but is just sometimes good at what it does and sometimes not so much. But that would potentially open the discussion of evil, controlled media, so I'll leave it at that.
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
