# Would you approve this political party



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

Tangled Kite said:


> @Lakigigar Thanks for the overview. I know Europe is having a severe reaction to all the refugees flooding in. Somehow I thought the Netherlands would have largely escaped the xenophobia, along with the Nordic/Scandinavian countries, but then I don't pretend to know a lot about the specifics of the political goings on in much of Europe. I get the idea though that it mirrors what's going on here (U.S.). I only hope that this doesn't keep escalating into another World War.


you'll have it everywhere, and the only thing to combat xenophobia is education.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

It says no more windmills. What kind of backwards rooting tooting party are you rooting touting here?


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

meaningless said:


> The parties ideas sound absolutely absurd. I wonder why they ban Islam but not Judaism or Christianity?


Hmm, maybe it has something to do with current events...?

(lol)



Simpson17866 said:


> *alleged* Islamic problem


#JustSimpsonThings


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

It's an okay platform. Along the right lines. Their heart is in the right place, at least. Some of the policies are hamfisted and others are transparent pandering.

Taxing headscarves and outright banning the Quran go too far and seem pretty silly. They are not necessary to achieve their goals and they compromise some core Western values of freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Despite my disagreement, obviously I see why they feel such drastic measures are necessary. I just think there are better, more subtle ways of accomplishing the same goals without compromising such vital core values.

The pandering to the gay lobby on the other hand is pathetic, although again I see why they think it is a necessary political move. The Jewish pandering is more funny than anything because of how thickly and urgently they laid it on.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

backdrop12 said:


> also somehow I am the only person who supports FULL OPEN BORDERS . Traveling to different countries should be a right and not a privilege .


Do you realize that "full open borders" means unlimited immigration, not just traveling? Do you understand how many people want to move to Western countries and enjoy the public benefits that Western people have built and Western taxpayers maintain? We're not talking about a few people here. Hundreds of millions of people would migrate if they had the chance. Where would you put them? What would you have them do? How would you feed and house and employ them? How would you integrate them all into your society? Can you conceive of what a complete disaster that would be? Can you imagine the ghettos and the poverty and the instability and the cultural barriers and the language barriers and the crime?

Grow up and stop spewing this childish idealism. Living in my country or in my living room is not a human right. You're not entitled to use the roads and public facilities someone else made half a world away.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

Riven said:


> Orthodox Judaism and Christianity (e.g. Methodism, JW, Mormons, Salvation Army) are probably as bad as Islam in most majority Muslim countries that have sharia law.


This just isn't true. I know it's human nature to seek fairness and compromise and say all religions are equally bad, but let's be real here. JW is terrible, but they don't go around blowing themselves up and preaching to children that God Himself is pleased with cold-blooded murder-suicide. They are not even remotely close to the same level of abominable that Islamism is.

Notice I'm talking about Islamism, not all Islam. It just happens to be a very popular movement within Islam right now. Unfortunately, it appears to be an idea whose time has come.

To any reasonable Muslim who cares for his/her Ummah, I would suggest that the times call for major ijtihad which has not been seen for a thousand years. Fundamentalism is clearly no path forward, and the mujahideen will not win their struggle against the West. Islam is an adaptable, useful, and successful ideology, but it stands at a crossroads. Many have chosen the simple path of literal interpretation without revision, but this is not the future of Islam and it will lead only to their self destruction. Without modern ijtihad, Islam will not find a place at the table of the brotherhood of nations. It will be consumed by the fires of fundamentalism or else fade away into the oblivion of secular atheism.


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

Dutch far-right leader Geert Wilders will face trial for hate speech | The Economist






That's the party leader, he said very racist things!


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

leictreon said:


> I actually want to see an alt-right dominated world... just to see how it would _look_.


Saudi Arabia Travel Guide and Travel Information


----------



## leictreon (Jan 4, 2016)

Chesire Tower said:


> Saudi Arabia Travel Guide and Travel Information


Why do alt-righters hate arabs? I mean they share ideologies.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

leictreon said:


> Why do alt-righters hate *arabs*? I mean they share ideologies.


Don't you mean "Muslims"?


----------



## Asmodaeus (Feb 15, 2015)

Except for a few policy proposals I don’t agree with, the overall political platform seems generally attractive…


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Simpson17866 said:


> As always, there's an XKCD about that:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


more frequently what they criticize is 
"girls are great at math! that's a stereotype!"
*girl making this claim sucks at math*

people are going to look at that like "lol, okay....prove it". on the other hand, most people are more likely to take seriously something along the lines of "women can be good at math too. check out this degree in engineering". 

to use a slightly more extreme example: two gay men are speaking out against stereotypes in the gay community
Gay Man #1: is well dressed (suit and tie), speaks in a slow cadence, 
Gay Man #2: speaks with a lisp, varies pitch exaggeratedly, is dressed in overly bright clothing and wears a glittery ring on his finger

....who are people going to take more seriously? someone who embodies all of the stereotypes he's swearing up and down don't exist, or the one who actually looks like a normal person? 

PS: for clarification I'm not saying that all minorities and women have some duty to actively break stereotypes about their respective demographics. for example, I am a gay man who uses facial masks and tries to dress fashionably, but people would rightfully look at me like I was crazy if I said something like "gay people aren't elitist, what are you talking about?". 

PPS: this bit ended up turning into a slightly more heated mini-rant that started to veer off topic, so I decided to just wrap it in spoiler tags. it's not really directed at you anyway 

* *




however, you _do_ become responsible for representing your demographic the moment you become seriously involved in advocacy. this is why black lives matter is so disgusting. they make the black community look like a bunch of hateful, violent, anti-intellectual terrorist (the specific stereotype itself also matters. obviously, I would have no issue with BLM members being fond of fried chicken, church BBQs or Aretha Franklin, but I judge the shit out of them when they drive a stake further into the racial divide by painting black people as property-destroying ruffians. that is fucked up).


----------



## Endologic (Feb 14, 2015)

Lakigigar said:


> Dutch far-right leader Geert Wilders will face trial for hate speech | The Economist
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And here I thought Gene Wilder was dead!


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Lakigigar said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Freedom#Party_platform


I would never vote for them, but as talking points I love the fact that they exist, because it targets the many inherit hypocrisies of both sides of the debate. Right off the bat:



> Harsh punishment of violence against Jews and the LGBT community, which it claims particularly comes from the Islamic corner


The people who tend to reinforce the notion of hate crimes in the first place, and view themselves as protective of minorities and LGBT, should be in favor of this, but many won't be because the party openly declares it's doing so to target Muslims.



> Taxes on the Islamic headscarf and prohibition of the Koran.


The people fighting for liberal ideals should be against this as censoring books and laws about what you can't wear would be a massive blow to freedom of speech, but many will be in favor, precisely because it targets Muslims.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

leictreon said:


> Why do alt-righters hate arabs? I mean they share ideologies.


Nationalists never hate each other unless there is a very specific feud between their nations. The paradigm of nationalism sees other nations as rivals at worst and brothers at best. I don't know what precisely is meant by "alt-right," but I don't think people have a problem with Arab nationalism.

The problem is that the line between Arab nationalism and Sunni (or Shia) nationalism is blurred in many parts of the world and that Sunni nationalism specifically amounts to Caliphate, which entails expansionary conquest and empire irrespective of national lines.


----------

