i think that's your German perspective. but when i said historical i mean on a grand scale, hundreds or thousands of years. thus phrases like "its in us", aka a anthropological and not a modern history view.

in the 30s and 40s fear of the other was on an absurd scale in Germany, similar to our American slavery or genocide of natives. you've had a shame driven lull post ww2, and the uptick is an over-correction to be sure.

but from an american perspective, even despite deep polarization, we're less radicalized on race as we've ever been. in the 1990s i could walk up to a black person call them a nigger and very little would happen. today its a move that could cost you your financial future. blacks were lynched, crosses were burned, natives were denied just about everything even clean water, police openly attacked minorities, etc. and now we're at a place where deaths by police are at an all time low as a decade, racially motivated attacks are down, interracial marriage is at an all time high, etc. and we of course still have many issues.

but in the same way that the internet is responsible for emboldening radicals who have always been there, it also exposes radials who have always been there. moving forward the only approach that i see working is spotlighting radicals who are behaving badly in non-fatal hate crimes, and burying the existence of radical mass shooters. no one wants to be famous for calling a cashier a nigger, but many want to be famous for shooting up a restaurant.

but if u have specific approaches you think work better let me know.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Feb 20 2020 10:13am

And why is that? Why is "fear of others" having a renaissance all across the Western World? What's your theory on this development?
And is it really a generic "fear of others", or is it directed at specific groups of persons? Do all those "racists" and "xenophobes" really mind immgrants from Norway or Japan? Do they mind Chinese doctors as much as they mind Afghan shepherds?

In my opinion, the common denominator in all those sentiments is a rejection/resistance against two things: 1) poverty immigration and 2) a growing influence of foreign cultures within Western societies. This sentiment is on the rise, but the traditional political forces refuse to address it, so that new parties/politicians emerge which tap into the political vacuum. This theory explains everything, from Trump over Brexit to Orban/Salvini/the AfD, and of course the rise of right-wing attacks.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Feb 20 2020 10:29am

again, trying to downplay it by just applying a larger scale, is irrelevant at best, and really just misleading. don't get me wrong, i'm not saying historic context isn't important, in many ways we have come a long way as societies, but that shouldn't be used as an excuse for developments in the wrong direction imo.
also, you can stop your 'if you have specific approaches, just name them' thingy - if i had a miracle cure against racism, i would have shared it with the world - obviously i don't. it does, however, not follow then that complacency and appeasement is just as promising of an approach as anything.

i think you're severely underestimating the movement that right wing populism has become in the last couple of years. yes, the legal rights and also the social perception of people of colour in america is indeed on a historical high (or at least has been so in 2016), but that does not mean that a whole political movement, and a significant part of america actively fighting back against it, and exploiting racial division for political purposes is therefore negligible, or not even happening. just look at the increased efforts to disenfranchise black and latino voters as one example for that. just because it isn't jim crow doesn't mean we should ignore trends by pointing out that it could be worse - no shit!



i already inb4'd your victim blaming long ago, and would have ignored your repeated attempts to sell that as an 'argument', but that is just too perfect of a post not to reply to:

why that is you ask? because of people like you. people who uncritically accept the moronic narratives of fear mongers and demagogues according to which norwegians and japanese are nothing to worry about, all chinese are doctors, and all afghans are shepherds. because of people so dumb that they proudly and publicly display their bigotry and ignorance, while trying to argue that bigotry and ignorance have nothing to do with it, and their leaders are only addressing legitimate concerns...

im not downplaying anything, im quantifying severity. im not negating a whole political movement, im measuring it's effect.

so for the third time, what specific plan do you have to fight radicalization. whether it be in germany, eu generally, the USA, or a global scale. i can address those specifically, but im not gonna waste my time addressing gripes you have with your impression of my post. give me plans and we can talk about those plans, where they'd work/not work, what hurdles they have. etc. on the topic of how dangerous the alt right is im uninterested, same as when i talk to Viv. thats just not a gap i can cross to even talk about it. but plans, i can talk plans.

again:



you're 'quantifying severity' in a context that is designed to make recent developments look insignificant. to me that is 'downplaying'. i simply don't agree with the approach of suggesting 'it has been significantly worse before, so we might as well chill about a very real and concerning trend and active political efforts in the wrong direction'. once more, you're not wrong historically speaking (at least not in regards to the US), but i personally think it's a stupid approach.

im not asking for a cure. im asking if you were made grand chancellor of the world what measures would you do to improve the situation, and further how much improvement you expect. "I'd enact ____, because i think we can get it done and it would be somewhat effective" & "i'd enact ____, it might not get through and might not be effective but i think its the morally correct thing to do" are both acceptable answers. just fill in the blanks.

as to "insignificant" and other labels you keep tossing on my posts, again, that's your impression. not what im doing at all. we have a problem, dead bodies and tragedies, we simply disagree on which motivation can be combated and to what severity those motivations play a role in these horrid actions. ive already suggested how i'd combat it, for a start, based on my beliefs. i havent read anything like that in your posts, just anger at the state of the world. if u can be more constructive even in a general sense maybe u can find out what i mean on a grand scale instead of ascribing what you think i think. when i post its a mix of what i think is right, controlled by the state of the world, controlled by what i think we can do about it via the govt. yet you tend to post at me as if my personal views arent tempered by reality. as if i have an ideological position that i dont at all have, as if im constantly apologizing for racists, and downplaying violence, etc. putting something in its correct context isnt downplaying, talking about something out of context is upplaying it. that's all.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Feb 20 2020 11:33am

Oh shit we got an edge lord here.

you say 'correct context', but that is just your opinion, not more. just because the context you chose to present this issue in might not be factually wrong, doesn't mean it's chosen wisely, or in a manner that is relevant to the discussion. if we applied you 'historic level' appeasement strategy to other fields, you'd probably realise how misleading it can be: for example, stating that "america is historically prosperous", which is a reasonably correct statement, is a shitty 'argument' to make when talking to people fighting for higher wages.

the last couple of years saw a concerning rise in right wing populism, politically motivated violence, and the public normalisation of racial bigotry amongst a significant part of the population, as well as increased efforts to disenfranchise people of colour and religions other than christianity in western nations. how do you not realise that your 'well, historically it's still on a low level' (which isn't even true for many nations) argument looks like you're trying to downplay that trend?! i mean, what's your point there? i already told you several times that it's true, but not really relevant in my opinion...

i said i dont think its a massive issue,

you said it is, just maybe not on the level of climate change,

i said, it was far worse historically and here we are,

it was far worse for the climate and dinosaurs are extinct now.

when i said it has been far worse i was identifying the far end of the spectrum, then saying it still wasnt existential even in the worst case, then i placed us on the spectrum where we are now. then i acknowledged the uptick.

i dont see how this is anything but objectively placing it in context. i didnt deny an uptick, i didnt say that the historical past was good. or any of that.


i guess i just have to settle on the fact that you're mad, justifiably so given there was a terror attack in your country, and you're looking to squabble over phrases that trigger your justifiable anger. rather than having a discussion on how we can improve the situation. as you havent given even a single idea of how to improve the situation even 1%. bit irronic for someone who likes to post the "we cant do anything (said only country where this happens regularly)" meme the day of terror attacks in the USA.

the iron is hot, let's strike fender. dont get caught up on my approximation of right winged nationalism, recognize we're brothers in arms hating right winged nationalism. work with me comrade on at least talking about how to fix it. or forever be stuck in the "you dont think this is like how i think exactly, so rather than being constructive im going to call you an apologist for racists repeatedly". you control your own destiny. choose your path.

.e. whoop mobile

This post was edited by Knoppie on Feb 20 2020 12:38pm