Danish far-right party calling for Muslim deportation to stand in election

no doubt racists will latch onto the 'us & them' inherent to the clash of civilizations but then why do people of the same 'race' as Muslims dislike Islam?

It's exactly the same with Christianity and all it's various sects. It's a mixture of politics and history.
 
Just wanted to "???" at this. The Danish social liberal left is the foundation of the country's economic structure. The Danish left shouldn't "learn" to have a platform from the US, the parties have had each of their specific electory platforms for decades (well, those that existed for so long at least). I'm actually really confused what you mean. I know that you aren't saying that the non-American world is just passively staring at the US to learn their policies, but it reads like that. So I wanted to exclaim my confusion and/or answer what you might have meant:
Sorry if I wasn't clear. The lesson from 2016 in the US IMO was focusing too much on the negative on the opposition rather than solid policies that resonated with people is why the election was lost.

If people are resorting to fear-mongering and scapegoating it's a symptom of a larger problem. Condemning the "deplorables" (to use Hillary's word) doesn't solve the problem.

I know pretty much nothing about Danish politics. Cheers.

I share the same sentiment with Lexicus and I believe Cloud_Strife also the same from the discussion about race with "hehehe" in the past thread, we believe the concept of race itself is arbitrary, there is no such thing as race. It is an obsolete concept that essentially that not only inapplicable to the Muslim, but to everyone in general. But that doesn't mean racism do not exist, it is exist through action, not depend with the existence of race itself as a variable. Peuri has demonstrate a good analogy about this using the example of unicorn.
I don't see anyone (at least in this thread) arguing that racism doesn't exist. Or even that it doesn't overlap with anti-religious sentiments.
 
no doubt racists will latch onto the 'us & them' inherent to the clash of civilizations but then why do people of the same 'race' as Muslims dislike Islam?
Probably for the same reason kids who grew up Christian often become angry atheists. Because it's a backwards way to think and inherently at odds with progress.
 
Comes from near enough the same place.
Dunno about that. Deriding someone for their beliefs is more justifiable than their physical characteristic or ansectory (which is nonsensical and not justifiable).

It's a matter of choice. Of course if you live in a country that can put you to death for being atheist I can understand you don't really have a choice.
 
There's always a rationalization.
 
I mean, this is quite an amusing exchange:

Islam may not be a race, but Muslims do tend to be People of Colour, which probably factors into it. ["Liked" by Lexicus]

Muslims are generally racialized by European societies.

To me, making a big deal out of how Muslims tend to be “people of color” is like saying Muslims tend to smoke or eat spicy food or something.

People can be very prejudiced against people of a different ethnic group who share a similar skin tone, so I don’t really see why this is so significant.

It's not, it's just pure pedantry to detract from the real issue of discrimination and prejudice.

Like... you did get that that was a criticism of what you were doing right? So agreeing with it is kind of weird. But amusing :)
 
Peuri has demonstrate a good analogy about this using the example of unicorn.

My favorite analogy is the concept of noble blood, blessed by the gods! We all know that no one really has "noble blood," but that doesn't mean hereditary aristocracies based on the concept never existed....

you just can't help but make an idiot of yourself

you're an idiot

I know pretty much nothing about Danish politics. Cheers.

Cheers
 
What does this actually mean? What am I actually, substantively, getting wrong here in this discussion?
You are trying to apply your frame and that of your culture, with some modifications for cultures you are familiar enough with - primarily the UK.

The frame doesn't fit in many other places. For one, the concept of race that your culture has isn't universal. We've talked about this a couple of times now.
For another, the issues around majority Muslim communities' place in society differ from country to country.
You can find all the things you may be looking for in most of them. But in many cases they are just not that terribly relevant.

E.g. "race" or quasi "race" or whatever, religion and the latter as proxy for the former technically apply in most places.
But in many other issues dominate the negotiation of majority Muslim communities' standing to a degree that is very different to said negotiation in the US, or even the UK.
Like class, class based "culture", nationalism etc.
The Danish left shouldn't "learn" to have a platform from the US, the parties have had each of their specific electory platforms for decades (well, those that existed for so long at least). I'm actually really confused what you mean. I know that you aren't saying that the non-American world is just passively staring at the US to learn their policies, but it reads like that. So I wanted to exclaim my confusion and/or answer what you might have meant:

If this is about having a platform about race/immigration.

1. No, Narz doesn't mean what you interpreted.
He means that left-of-centre politicians, parties, what-have-you, should have their voice be mostly about clear cut causes of concrete socio-economic impact.
That can be something about money.
That can be something elemental that affects a clearly defined and sizeable class of persons, like marriage equality for LGB persons.
It should not be something symbolic that affects a small subset of some small class suffering from percieved or actual oppression.
The latter may be worthy of doing in its own right - it depends on the case - but it's not a substitute for substantial policies in the electoral arena.

Like, what are Social Democrats in Denmark running on?
I'm genuinely asking - i don't know.

2. What's the background of Muslim Danes anyway? And, presuming there are groups with different roles in political discourse which ones is this about?
You mentioned Somali Danes. Naive old me was under the impression that most Muslim Danes had some form of a Turkish, Kurdish or Iraqi background.

So can you tell us a bit about all of that?
I share the same sentiment with Lexicus and I believe Cloud_Strife also the same from the discussion about race with "hehehe" in the past thread, we believe the concept of race itself is arbitrary, there is no such thing as race.
Yeah, that's exactly why the concept is all kinds of malleable and doesn't work out the same in every culture just because that would be convenient to someone or another's worldview.

Like, nobody actually passed photographs of the unicorn around.
Because it doesn't exist.
There were drawings. And confusion. And some cultures have, like, tiny chequered unicorns with gills and whatnot.
(Meta said, gently testing the durability of the metaphor).
 
Last edited:
It’s not even very traditional to the US idea of race. People of middle eastern and North African ancestry are classified as white according to census and were traditionally grouped together with white people. I think even south Asian people were at one point, probably because the white/Black grouping was the more typical way of looking at race in America, at least in places where there weren’t many American Indians and Mexicans.
 
I admit what subjects I know nothing about (notice I'm not discussing politics in Denmark) whereas you blather on with trite generalizations regardless of any knowledge. Embarrassing. :(

Amazing you're so disingenuous even with a one word post! :D
 
1. No, Narz doesn't mean what you interpreted.
He means that left-of-centre politicians, parties, what-have-you, should have their voice be mostly about clear cut causes of concrete socio-economic impact.
That can be something about money.
That can be someething elemental that effects a clearly defined and sizeable class of persons, like marriage equality for LGB persons.
It should not be something symbolic that affects a small subset of some small class suffering from percieved or actual oppression.
The latter may be worthy of doing in its own right - it depends on the case - but it's not a substitute for substantial policies in the electoral arena.
Well put.

Like, what are Social Democrats in Denmark running on?
I'm genuinely asking - i don't know.
Ask Lexius, he clearly knows tons about Danish politics :lol: and shame on you for admitting you don't know everything
 
How realistic of a chance does this party have to win and gain power?
 
How realistic of a chance does this party have to win and gain power?
As i understand it: None.

It's not even a relevant angle whether the other right-of-centre parties refuse to be supported by them in any way shape and form.
To my understanding they are losing the election - and power - and will not get to a majority with or without this fellow and his dubious party.

(Disclaimer:
I'm sure @Angst can be more precise. But it's night here, so... i'm basically hedging for your wait time, the flow of the conversation etc. Angst may correct me.)
 
I hope you're right.
 
I hope all of the below answers stuff. If you have more questions, let me know, I'll try my best to answer.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The lesson from 2016 in the US IMO was focusing too much on the negative on the opposition rather than solid policies that resonated with people is why the election was lost.

If people are resorting to fear-mongering and scapegoating it's a symptom of a larger problem. Condemning the "deplorables" (to use Hillary's word) doesn't solve the problem.

I know pretty much nothing about Danish politics. Cheers.

That makes sense. I'll add to this below.

1. No, Narz doesn't mean what you interpreted.
He means that left-of-centre politicians, parties, what-have-you, should have their voice be mostly about clear cut causes of concrete socio-economic impact.
That can be something about money.
That can be something elemental that affects a clearly defined and sizeable class of persons, like marriage equality for LGB persons.
It should not be something symbolic that affects a small subset of some small class suffering from percieved or actual oppression.
The latter may be worthy of doing in its own right - it depends on the case - but it's not a substitute for substantial policies in the electoral arena.

Like, what are Social Democrats in Denmark running on?
I'm genuinely asking - i don't know.

Yea that makes sense. The left is actually - mostly - quite clear cut about what they want to do with immigration, there are very immediate things that is doable and in the eye of the left. Better rights for inhabitants of asylum centres (regardless of what your attitude towards immigrants is, the centres are pretty much madness factories), and removing the cuts that the right recently did to immigration subsidies, all that jazz. Besides that, yes, more money to hospitals, climate-friendly reforms, more money and liberties to the poor. Depends on the party.

But the left is mostly spending its time saying what doesn't work and rolling back right initiatives. It makes them seem less powerful and reactive to an active right, and the latter speaks to the lizard brain in all of us, the same brain that tends towards racism. It's similar to the mechanics outlined here (part of a great series btw, everyone sick or scared by right populism should watch it).

The Social Democrats, however... They're kind of an enigma, and not particularly social democratic [sic] anymore. Thing is, their base has evolved into a centre leaning middle class, so they vote right on most issues both with or without a right wing coalition ruling the nation, stuff that gives short term voter support such as tax cuts and cheaper cars (yes) and even (reasonably moderate) anti-immigration. The latter is primarily a reaction to their underclass being stolen by the Danish People's Party, but there has been buzz about the two parties forming a government, which naturally will be the end of the world and all good things and Roskilde Fjord will turn into blood etc.

To be more serious, the Social Democrats are pretty much under an internal split where most of its underbelly, particularly its youth, are very much left-leaning, but the leadership are moving right. They still do form centre-left coalitions, however, and they still run on concrete policies such as better hospitals, more money to schools, and, well, reasonably fair immigration laws, like moderate strictness. Which should answer the point about Hillary. It's just problematic for them because the policies they're running on is stuff they've often voted against in practice in the recent years, and people are catching on.

(And Sanders supporters and similar should note: we have plenty of parties that are social democratic in all but name. One shouldn't underestimate massive progress the Social Democrats did with the succesful Danish welfare state before they started moving right)

2. What's the background of Muslim Danes anyway? And, presuming there are groups with different roles in political discourse which ones is this about?
You mentioned Somali Danes. Naive old me was under the impression that most Muslim Danes had some form of a Turkish, Kurdish or Iraqi background.

So can you tell us a bit about all of that?

You're completely right about the background of Muslim Danes (although you forgot Iranians, who make out a massive part of the migrants). The Somali are a tiny, tiny minority but the thing is that they score horribly in most metrics. As such, the right usually make them examples of poor immigration even if they barely matter on a statistical level. As such, they're brought up every once in a while, and basically all the time among the more nasty parts of Facebook.

As i understand it: None.

It's not even a relevant angle whether the other right-of-centre parties refuse to be supported by them in any way shape and form.
To my understanding they are losing the election - and power - and will not get to a majority with or without this fellow and his dubious party.

(Disclaimer:
I'm sure @Angst can be more precise. But it's night here, so... i'm basically hedging for your wait time, the flow of the conversation etc. Angst may correct me.)

This is true but it is troubling that the right is probably going to run with the party when the pendule swings back to a liberal government. I'm not a political commentator or anything, but even though they don't say it outright it fits with their recent behavior and policy.
 
Last edited:
You are trying to apply your frame and that of your culture, with some modifications for cultures you are familiar enough with - primarily the UK.

The frame doesn't fit in many other places. For one, the concept of race that your culture has isn't universal. We've talked about this a couple of times now.
For another, the issues around majority Muslim communities' place in society differ from country to country.
You can find all the things you may be looking for in most of them. But in many cases they are just not that terribly relevant.

E.g. "race" or quasi "race" or whatever, religion and the latter as proxy for the former technically apply in most places.
But in many other issues dominate the negotiation of majority Muslim communities' standing to a degree that is very different to said negotiation in the US, or even the UK.
Like class, class based "culture", nationalism etc.

Yeah, I know this is what you think I'm doing on a meta-level. What I'm curious about is what you think are the substantive mistakes I'm making because I'm "using my frame and that of my culture". I haven't really offered much of substance in this thread, so I'll save you the time and just put it to you that you are projecting onto me some caricature that you have constructed from Twitter threads and Youtube videos.

This is true but it is troubling that the right is probably going to run with the party when the pendule swings back to a liberal government. I'm not a political commentator or anything, but even though they don't say it outright it fits with their recent behavior and policy.

That would fit in with the general trend in most of Europe. The real problem as far as I can tell is not so much the far-right actually getting into governing coalitions, although that's obviously happened in a few countries, it's that the far-right seems to be the driver of political dynamism, and is changing the narratives in such a way that the respectable center is moving steadily rightward.
 
It's similar to the mechanics outlined here (part of a great series btw, everyone sick or scared by right populism should watch it).
Hard pass.
Like... wow... this guy manages a remarkable density of BS.
You'd need five minutes per minute to address all this manipulative junk.

Oh... and i made the mistake to check out the rest of the channel.
What a dumpster fire. :nono:
The Social Democrats, however... They're kind of an enigma, and not particularly social democratic [sic] anymore. Thing is, their base has evolved into a centre leaning middle class, so they vote right on most issues both with or without a right wing coalition ruling the nation, stuff that gives short term voter support such as tax cuts and cheaper cars (yes) and even (reasonably moderate) anti-immigration.
Sounds like our pathetic losers Social Democrats. :)
The latter is primarily a reaction to their underclass being stolen by the Danish People's Party, but there has been buzz about the two parties forming a government, which naturally will be the end of the world and all good things and Roskilde Fjord will turn into blood etc.
Ok, that sounds really foreign. :)
You're completely right about the background of Muslim Danes (although you forgot Iranians, who make out a massive part of the migrants). The Somali are a tiny, tiny minority but the thing is that they score horribly in most metrics. As such, the right usually make them examples of poor immigration even if they barely matter on a statistical level. As such, they're brought up every once in a while, and basically all the time among the more nasty parts of Facebook.
Oh, i see.
This is true but it is troubling that the right is probably going to run with the party when the pendule swings back to a liberal government. I'm not a political commentator or anything, but even though they don't say it outright it fits with their recent behavior and policy.
What's their plan anyway?
I mean having this loony party around is beneficial to them in the short run: They look less problematic.
But in the long run this is just competition for them, and in case of the DPP someone stealing their brand, isn't it?
So do they not have every interest to sideline them?

Anyway, our question kind of was:
What's the thing the Social Democrats are selling right now?
Like, do they have one or two big things that the campaign is supposed to be all about?
Like... "We have to reform [thing X] and spend more money on it. Because it's a nice thing for people. And we are Social Democrats and that's what we do."
Yeah, I know this is what you think I'm doing on a meta-level. What I'm curious about is what you think are the substantive mistakes I'm making because I'm "using my frame and that of my culture". I haven't really offered much of substance in this thread, so I'll save you the time and just put it to you that you are projecting onto me some caricature that you have constructed from Twitter threads and Youtube videos.
You're not causing any terrible outcomes or anything. But you are wasting opportunity for yourself and for your allyship.
I don't do twitter. And i know at least something about your views, which doesn't mean i can't be wrong, obviously.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom