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

@metatron

Do you believe that the state of Germany, present and past, and German culture lacks racism?
 
@metatron

Do you believe that the state of Germany, present and past, and German culture lacks racism?
I'm calling massively bad faith on your actions now.

You have now invented a position, from whole cloth.
You have assigned this position to some person you appear to intend to talk to (or rant at).
I hazard the guess that this person is supposed to be me.
Though i wouldn't put it past you to have assigned this made up position to YCJ, or to both of us.

And now you are asking a question, presumably not to get an answer but to shoehorn your fabrication into the debate as an implied premise.
 
PS:
I'll restate the portion of my actual position - rather than the one imagined by you - that i guess to be relevant to your complaint and that i also accept to be poorly understood (at best) by you:
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.

I have little hope that this will improve your opining about Muslim Germans in any way, but since the ROI for me enacting labor in response to your comments here is so questionable at the moment it will have to do.
 
I'm calling massively bad faith on your actions now.

You have now invented a position, from whole cloth.
You have assigned this position to some person you appear to intend to talk to (or rant at).
I hazard the guess that this person is supposed to be me.
Though i wouldn't put it past you to have assigned this made up position to YCJ, or to both of us.

And now you are asking a question, presumably not to get an answer but to shoehorn your fabrication into the debate as an implied premise.

Mmm, depends on your definition of bad faith. I think of bad faith as putting up a front, that you’re withholding some portion of your opinion because you think it makes your argument weaker in context. That’s certainly not what I’m doing...

But knowing your positions on other topics, especially feminism, queer activism, and Marxism, I think you might be arguing in bad faith. I think you despise any social justice-based dialogue, and I think as a German you ESPECIALLY despise social-justice based dialogue that might threaten the social status quo in Germany. Like, for example, the explicitly racialized islamophobic, anti-Turkish “cultural” hierarchy that built the modern German state. But I think you know you have to pay lip service to the concept of oppression in order to seem reasonable in a discussion of left-minded folks.

You always seem to chime in that racism is some kind of exclusively English tradition ONLY whenever the discussion is faced towards the continent. As in, whenever people start to criticize racist structures in Germany or France. So I ask again: do you believe Germany and German culture are devoid of racism?
 
But knowing your positions on other topics, especially feminism, queer activism, and Marxism,
You don't.
You always seem to chime in that racism is some kind of exclusively English tradition ONLY whenever the discussion is faced towards the continent.
I really can't be bothered to interject into you guys debating amongst yourself every time.
I don't think that would be particularly welcome either.

What you are doing here, implicitly by your own admission is to identify me as some sort of adversary and infer that i must take the positions that you expect your adversaries to take. Largely based on some buzzwords you elected miscontextualise.

At this point you have pretty much forfeited this opportunity of me telling you about actual racism in Germany, actual majority Muslim minorities in Germany and their interactions with, well, the Kartoffels.
Largely because you got very... excited about defending a rather problematic phantasy.
 
Frankly I don’t think I can trust your perspective on the racism faced by Muslims in Germany, seeing as you seem to think your perfect state is immune to such English vices.
 
Frankly I don’t think I can trust your perspective on the racism faced by Muslims in Germany, seeing as you seem to think your perfect state is immune to such English vices.
If you appreciate what i just wrote it should give you the idea that i am of the view that there is racism Germany (or Denmark for that matter).
Regarding that "state" business... i hope you can appreciate that we all know that you, more than me, have very particular opinions on that matter in the first place, independent of the issue of racism.

My rejection of the liberal* Anglospherian view here is based not in a lack of mistreatment of majority Muslim German minorities. It is based in the inapplicability of the errant view that Anglospherian liberals* seek to assert universally valid.
Them doing this - on this matter as well as other "social justice" issues - is profoundly ignorant, privilegedly lazy and quasi-imperialist.
From this theory-fetishising view stems a profound disinterest in and disregard for the outside world that is in it's absurdity and brutality comparable to the similarly ideology-fueled self-imposed oblivion conservatives wrapped themselves in a decade and a half ago.

*We can negotiate a term there, "fighters against 'Islamophobia' " if you insist.
 
Imperialism? Against Germany? Now I’ve heard it all.

Listen, you really can’t call racism a uniquely anglo phenomenon, nor even American racial structures. They were invented in New Spain and refined in Brazil before they ever even made it to Georgia. Your closest thing to a real position is that non-colonial European powers don’t have as specific or stratified of a racial structure as the Americas, but this is the thing— GERMANY WAS A COLONIAL POWER. I’m sure I don’t need to teach you about the oppression of black people in German African possessions. Unless you’re completely ignorant of your own country’s shame then I hope I don’t need to teach you about segregation and exploitation of Turkish (and other broadly Arab) guest workers within living generational memory and manifesting today.

Nobody is arguing that Germany has an identical concept of race to the US. To argue against that, something nobody has claimed, in such vague ways makes you sound like you believe Germany has NO concept of race.
 
Such a bizarre position that racism is uniquely Anglo... so, what, were the other colonial powers just color blind religious bigots? Even American (continent) racism was originated in the Latin colonial world.

Beyond that, I mean as a German... like, you know that Germany, France, Italy, and Russia all conducted colonial campaigns, right? Have you ever heard of a little giant historical process called the scramble for Africa? More contemporary, the vast exploitation of Muslim and especially Turkish immigrant workers during the postwar rebuilding period? Especially in Germany itself? I might argue that islamophobic racism is even a German invention, seeing as it has its roots in the crusades. Truly a bizarre belief.

And it's not even uniquely White. Look at how some Asian and Middle-Eastern cultures treat other races - even White people, some to this day - and my point will be made.
 
Listen, you really can’t call racism a uniquely anglo phenomenon, nor even American racial structures.
That's not the claim.
The claim is that racism is specific in its modalities and qualities to communities, nations, cultures, groups of cultures.
And that Anglospherians are misrepresenting the rest of the world, partially out of ignorance partially for convenience and congnitive consonance, to justify a contructed belief that the qualities and modalities of the racism that is specific to them were universal, either globally or "The West" or some such.

Note that the operative core of the claim is not to what degrees communalities of racism exist.
It is said misrepresentation and the underappreciation of the modality and quality of racism encountered by majority Muslim minorities in some country or another one has elected to reduce to a cardboard stage prop for the sake of ideological convenience.
 
That's not the claim.
The claim is that racism is specific in its modalities and qualities to communities, nations, cultures, groups of cultures.
And that Anglospherians are misrepresenting the rest of the world, partially out of ignorance partially for convenience and congnitive consonance, to justify a contructed belief that the qualities and modalities of the racism that is specific to them were universal, either globally or "The West" or some such.

Note that the operative core of the claim is not to what degrees communalities of racism exist.
It is said misrepresentation and the underappreciation of the modality and quality of racism encountered by majority Muslim minorities in some country or another one has elected to reduce to a cardboard stage prop for the sake of ideological convenience.

You've turned the "Anglosphere" to a singular, unified, hive-mind bloc in your rhetoric again. You, and a few others, are getting REALLY bad for this repugnant habit of referring to people in "dehumanized bloc viewpoints." I'm asking you nicely to STOP it, and retain some small measure of credibility.
 
Listen, you really can’t call racism a uniquely anglo phenomenon, nor even American racial structures.
That's not the claim.
The claim is that racism is specific in its modalities and qualities to communities, nations, cultures, groups of cultures.
And that Anglospherians are misrepresenting the rest of the world, partially out of ignorance partially for convenience and congnitive consonance, to justify a contructed belief that the qualities and modalities of the racism that is specific to them were universal, either globally or "The West" or some such.
And that this becomes even more distorted once we get to Islamophobia.

Note that the operative core of the claim is not to what degrees communalities of racism exist.
It is said misrepresentation and the underappreciation of the modality and quality of racism encountered by majority Muslim minorities in some country or another one has elected to reduce to a cardboard stage prop for the sake of ideological convenience.

And i remind you again:
By your very actions here you are strengthening the case.
Your lack of faith in my testimony is one thing.
But you would have been free to ask YCJ: "Hey what is this fellow talking about? And since we are here and i care: Tell me about Albanian Germans and Kurdish Germans and Turkish Germans and you all live together and all the rest of it. I'd ask that guy, but he's weird, you know?"
You chose this instead.
You've turned the "Anglosphere" to a singular, unified, hive-mind bloc in your rhetoric again. You, and a few others, are getting REALLY bad for this repugnant habit of referring to people in "dehumanized bloc viewpoints." I'm asking you nicely to STOP it, and retain some small measure of credibility.
I appreciate your point. And it's partially valid in that ´i felt myself forced to opt for a rather blunt usage here.
I do actually assert that there is a sufficiently high communality in the dialogue about Islamophobia between Canada the UK and the US.
It's not identical, of course, but the arguments made by the parties in the dispute (insert various selections of professional havers of opinions) are congruent to a degree that requires that i don't characterise this as a US prenomenon, which i could have done, since i originally spoke to Lexicus.
I appreciate that there are a number of qualifications that you could demand be made, such as the oft-observed mutual influence of US and Canadian media.
I'm not arguing a monolith of that dialogue as a whole here, but a communal disregard for what is outside of the specturm of this dialogue in these countries.

You may accuse me of reckless brevity on that point. But since we have very recently established how closely you read my posts i think we can make a large deduction seeing how this effort at precision might have been rather wasted. No offense.
 
Last edited:
My careful satire:

Spoiler :
It is frankly a form of imperialism for certain Germans to refer to the “Anglosphere”— you see, this is a construct of a GERMAN worldview that categorizes people by the language they speak in the interest of ideologically blaming the United States for the Holocaust.


Anyway I feel comfortable with the position of the discussion. You have at last conceded that Muslims do indeed face racism, which is the point you first disputed against Lexicus. So gg.
 
My careful satire:
It's not good satire.

Btw:
That you guys are so reliably bad at humor is a revealing symptom.
This trait, too, has shifted from conservatives to liberals (whatever labels we may agree upon), and that's systematic.
You have at last conceded that Muslims do indeed face racism, which is the point you first disputed against Lexicus. So gg.
Staggeringly this claim is incorrect on both ends, very much because that is in fact not the disputed point.
 
Last edited:
Ah yes, literally the "left can't meme" argument, as the right devolve into pretending to be clowns.

Merely a quick glance at google shows that Germany too suffers from the issue of racism, like any other european country with ethnic minorities in it. In fact reading some of the incidences of racism in Germany, i'm struck by how similar some of the rhetoric and violence is in comparison to what happens in the uk; telling immigrants, percieved or otherwise, from discrimination to physical violence.

edit:

Why do you refer to germans as "Kartoffels" (potatoes)?

2nd edit:

It seems to be an insult used against ethnic germans by turks. If the implication is that Turks, who are mainly muslim, can be racist against ethnic germans why is assuming the reverse happens some sort of anglo projection?
 
Last edited:
My rejection of the liberal* Anglospherian view here is based not in a lack of mistreatment of majority Muslim German minorities. It is based in the inapplicability of the errant view that Anglospherian liberals* seek to assert universally valid.

Well, when I asked what specific mistakes my application of the "Anglospherian view here" is leading me to make, this was your answer:
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".
You're not causing any terrible outcomes or anything. But you are wasting opportunity for yourself and for your allyship.

As you can see, this didn't really answer my question.

The claim is that racism is specific in its modalities and qualities to communities, nations, cultures, groups of cultures.
And that Anglospherians are misrepresenting the rest of the world, partially out of ignorance partially for convenience and congnitive consonance, to justify a contructed belief that the qualities and modalities of the racism that is specific to them were universal, either globally or "The West" or some such.
And that this becomes even more distorted once we get to Islamophobia.

This is starting to look a lot like "lane" politics, that you just don't want us English-speakers in the German "lane" but you can't actually identify what is substantively wrong with any of what we're saying.

I will point out that I made virtually no specific assertions about "modalities and qualities" of racism faced by Muslims in continental Europe. I simply asserted that Muslims are racialized in Europe and that they face discrimination, a point you now insist you do not disagree with. I am still left wondering what your actual disagreement is.
 
Ok, now it sounds less impressive and more like our derpy thing.

I am still not sure if i understand why the "red block" (right?) is winning the election?
What is the big selling point? It can't be that, can it?
Or is it just that the government is unpopular due to political or economic or moral failings?

The SDs are campaigning on a bunch of other areas. The red block (yes, that's the right term) does have concrete suggestions between its parties. They promise a bunch of different things which I could list, but like, there are five parties atm, whose concrete suggestions would require some work to put together beyond my scope of participation here on CFC. But I should probably do that anyways for the sake of this thread. I'll give myself a deadline by Sunday, and if it's not there then, poke me.

That said, the majority of concrete propositions are exactly due to political, economic and moral failings on the side of the right. Because they're rollbacks or fundamental restructurings of initiatives and cuts already done by the right.

One big point of the SD is that recently, the big state media conglomorate known as Denmark's Radio was heavily cut to the degree that it had to do away with major sections of its production. Like, a 20% cut in budget. That causes chaos. For example, they used to sport around 200 radio drama series if I remember correctly (I might not, but it's not below 100) and they all disappeared during that major cut by the right since the last election. This was largely unpopular, as Denmark's Radio (DR) actually produces a lot of high-quality stuff with a reasonably high degree of journalistic integrity, its bias being effectively neutral to the Danish standard of politics although sometimes caving in to somewhat unimportant news for the sake of viewership. And for the more silly stuff they produce, people care about that. The right doesn't like the Danish status quo, as our state-influenced market economy and tax system is a quite red shade of capitalism, and as such has called DR "de røde lejesvende" or "the red mercenaries" as part of their spin. DR wasn't the only thing to be cut here, they've also heavily went into the budgeting of public transportation and higher education (and education in general). So this is one of SD's suggestions, to get the budget of DR back up to where it used to be, among other things, funded through a tax increase. On immigration, SD is actually near the same side as Venstre (Liberals) and beyond. They also concretely want to increase foreign aid (which has been heavily cut by the right) as a part of their plan to decrease immigration to Denmark, reinvest money into hospitals that the right has cut, etc.

But that's the whole thing, most of the proposals are reactive in nature, which I think is dangeorus. Being reactive makes you seem less powerful. SD are not alone in this, in that a lot of the left's concrete propositions are just reactions to the right's abysmal policies the recent years.

But it might otherwise work. People are drawn to "the good old days" and the social liberal voters of Denmark are quite sick of the state of things. See, the majority of Danes are still abhorred by the racism the right uses to court the poor; their strategy was basically to do that and lower taxes for the middle class to ensure votes. But Danes are actually quite socially aware still, and many dislike that our poor are losing money, it is a big no-no even to a host of the middle class people. I feel there's a sense of rhetoric among people, that they want to get Denmark back into shape by voting left of centre, Making Denmark Great Again, so to speak. Which I find kind of interesting.

Also, btw, the right is expected to land about 39% of the votes according to the latest metric I've read. It's abysmal for their standards and is largely caused by people's abhorrence at stuff like the asylum centres, the burqa ban, the island deportation proposition and the lowering of subsidies to immigrants. Petty stuff, even insignificant stuff like making your police confiscate jewelry from immigrants upon arrival does count in conjuction with people's sense of moralit. At the same time, the right is being radicalized and yes stuff like Stram Kurs is stealing votes from the Danish People's Party.
 
Last edited:
One big point of the SD is that recently, the big state media conglomorate known as Denmark's Radio was heavily cut to the degree that it had to do away with major sections of its production. Like, a 20% cut in budget. That causes chaos. For example, they used to sport around 200 radio drama series if I remember correctly (I might not, but it's not below 100) and they all disappeared during that major cut by the right since the last election. This was largely unpopular, as Denmark's Radio (DR) actually produces a lot of high-quality stuff with a reasonably high degree of journalistic integrity, its bias being effectively neutral to the Danish standard of politics although sometimes caving in to somewhat unimportant news for the sake of viewership. And for the more silly stuff they produce, people care about that. The right doesn't like the Danish status quo, as our state-influenced market economy and tax system is a quite red shade of capitalism, and as such has called DR "de røde lejesvende" or "the red mercenaries" as part of their spin. DR wasn't the only thing to be cut here, they've also heavily went into the budgeting of public transportation and higher education (and education in general). So this is one of SD's suggestions, to get the budget of DR back up to where it used to be, among other things, funded through a tax increase. On immigration, SD is actually near the same side as Venstre (Liberals) and beyond. They also concretely want to increase foreign aid (which has been heavily cut by the right) as a part of their plan to decrease immigration to Denmark, reinvest money into hospitals that the right has cut, etc.

This is really important as immediate prio !
Get control on quality back.
Education to children similar important. Teachers are important. The way children are socialised at early age important for their social values throughout life.
 
Ah yes, literally the "left can't meme" argument, as the right devolve into pretending to be clowns.

Leave it to a GERMANOPHONE to stretch out phrases unnecessarily...
 
Top Bottom