Youths in Germany chanting right-wing slogans attack refugee children

[Deleted]

So then, having a pre-existing condition is a personal bad choice, got it. Considering that people like my brother who's had a pre-existing condition from birth had trouble getting insurance before that "disaster" called the ACA.

So being born in poverty with a disability is a choice?

Even if it isn't, why do you think it gives you the right to go take the money you need from people who neither caused your problem nor are responsible for it?

In a fair system people would help you willingly, through charity and if they don't, thats human nature, nothing you can do about that. Two wrongs wont make a right.

[Deleted]

So you are against personal responsibility. You believe instead that people should suffer for the choices that others made.

I am for personal responsibility. I believe that people should elevate themselves from shitholes their parents brought them into.
Personal example: Leave Poland and earn a better life in 1st world country.

[Wells]

Even if it isn't, why do you think it gives you the right to go take the money you need from people who neither caused your problem nor are responsible for it?

In a fair system people would help you willingly, through charity and if they don't, thats human nature, nothing you can do about that. Two wrongs wont make a right.

Anarcho-Capitalism is no way to live.

[Deleted]

So not their choice then....

I guess I was being a little to snark about it. My apology.
My point is that one cannot blame his current circumstances and act as if that is how their entire life will look life.

[Mayhem]

Even if it isn't, why do you think it gives you the right to go take the money you need from people who neither caused your problem nor are responsible for it?

In a fair system people would help you willingly, through charity and if they don't, thats human nature, nothing you can do about that. Two wrongs wont make a right.

There are a bunch of things we can do about that, what your criticising for example is something we do, because life isn´t fair, but that doesn´t mean we can´t try to make it more fair.

- - - Updated - - -

I am for personal responsibility. I believe that people should elevate themselves from shitholes their parents brought them into.
Personal example: Leave Poland and earn a better life in 1st world country.

And leech of people that elevated their shitholes into better places.

Ah good old hypocricy, you never fail to amaze.

[Ravenblade]

This is Germany - so could be Merkel (who is centre-right)'s slogan: "Wir Schaffen es" :-)

The problem is basically that "right wing" in that sentence provides at most zero information - and removing it would clarify it:
"A group of young people in eastern Germany threatened three Syrian refugee children with a knife and hit them before chanting slogans on Thursday evening, police said."

What some don't realize isn't merely that the label is inaccurate (i.e. some are anti-immigration and economically left) - but more importantly if you put bad and inaccurate labels on people that might cause them to become true. So, by labeling the entire right-wing as anti-immigration and one step from beating refugees that might cause more right-wing persons to become that as part of some "identity politics" - which I don't think was the intention.

It's because the exact meaning is lost in translation. In Germany people use "right wing" liberally for right wing extremists. Ironically it's even shorter to say "right wing extremist" in German ("rechtsextrem"). However since there is even a small party which is called "Die Rechte" it's part of Germany's political culture to have all spectra accept the definition for open far right positions not simply as right wing extremism but simply as right wing too because for the left it's a sort of abbreviation and for the far right it's a sort of appearing moderate.

[Slant]

It's because the exact meaning is lost in translation. In Germany people use "right wing" liberally for right wing extremists. Ironically it's even shorter to say "right wing extremist" in German ("rechtsextrem"). However since there is even a small party which is called "Die Rechte" it's part of Germany's political culture to have all spectra accept the definition for open far right positions not simply as right wing extremism but simply as right wing too because for the left it's a sort of abbreviation and for the far right it's a sort of appearing moderate.

This is correct.

Btw, it's sad that I'm not even shocked anymore at the shit posted in the first page. From endorsing slavery openly to the usual labelling of these people as rapefugees.

[JohnBrown1917]

Yes. Choice of said parents who recklessly bred someone like that into existance.

A disability happens by chance, often.

And how is the child at fault?

- - - Updated - - -

Even if it isn't, why do you think it gives you the right to go take the money you need from people who neither caused your problem nor are responsible for it?

In a fair system people would help you willingly, through charity and if they don't, thats human nature, nothing you can do about that. Two wrongs wont make a right.

I don't believe higher taxes on the rich to be a wrong. Welcome to society, feel free to move to another country.

[Deleted]

I don't believe higher taxes on the rich to be a wrong. Welcome to society, feel free to move to another country.

Why wont you move to Venezuela or some other poor socialist hellhole instead? They already have high taxes on the rich.. win win for everyone, no?

[Deleted]

And leech of people that elevated their shitholes into better places.

Ah good old hypocricy, you never fail to amaze.

I am not sure how did you turned "earn a better life" into "leeching of people".
Im not sure how it looks on your side but where I live it's pretty normal for immigrants to earn their stay by working.

[Mayhem]

I am not sure how did you turned "earn a better life" into "leeching of people".
Im not sure how it looks on your side but where I live it's pretty normal for immigrants to earn their stay by working.

Those great places you propose people should just move to instead of making their place better, were former shitholes at one point in time. That said, i´m not against it, but complaining about your place of origin while not being willing to change anything and simply move is funny.

[Forogil]

It's because the exact meaning is lost in translation.

That Germans have prejudiced language should be a call for changing the German language, not used as an excuse.

However since there is even a small party which is called "Die Rechte" it's part of Germany's political culture to have all spectra accept the definition for open far right positions not simply as right wing extremism but simply as right wing too because for the left it's a sort of abbreviation and for the far right it's a sort of appearing moderate.

Notice what is missing from that list?

Now, consider a scenario where people in a country calls Terrorists for "arabs" (i.e. an analogy with terrorist=Violent anti-immigration, right-wing=arab), and then use that in English and claim that Crusaders and Is are happy with that.

Would you then see a slight problem, and realize that the misuse of language is counter-productive.

[Deleted]

Those great places you propose people should just move to instead of making their place better, were former shitholes at one point in time. That said, i´m not against it, but complaining about your place of origin while not being willing to change anything and simply move is funny.

That may be true but thing about Poland is that it was regularly formatted through out history and some of us are just sick and tired of constantly rebuilding it only to see it getting roflstomped by rest of Europe... again.

[Ravenblade]

That Germans have prejudiced language should be a call for changing the German language, not used as an excuse.

Notice what is missing from that list?

Now, consider a scenario where people in a country calls Terrorists for "arabs" (i.e. an analogy with terrorist=Violent anti-immigration, right-wing=arab), and then use that in English and claim that Crusaders and Is are happy with that.

Would you then see a slight problem, and realize that the misuse of language is counter-productive.

German language is fine. The reason for this wording is due to a mustached dude offering his services to Germany in the 30s. Since then right wing when used in a negative context has become synonymous with right wing extremist. Also since I have been living in the East for all my life I know for sure have a clear imagination about what they yelled. Would be a novelty if they instead just loudly quoted from a Wagner opera. The issue isn't even their use of language, it's their use of physical violence and not just against anyone.

[Forogil]

German language is fine. The reason for this wording is due to a mustached dude offering his services to Germany in the 30s.

Several wrongs, and that is a very bad explanation.

First and foremost the "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" (Socialist German Workers' Party) was neither (or both) "right" nor "left" according to themselves, and during the 30s they had even stronger "left" part.

The US didn't join WWII to fight against "the right".

Since then right wing when used in a negative context has become synonymous with right wing extremist. Also since I have been living in the East for all my life I know for sure have a clear imagination about what they yelled.

In the former East it is obvious that they used propaganda to portray nazis as "right-wing" to show themselves as different.

But propaganda isn't a good foundation for the language - and the more important question: how beneficial do you consider this misuse of the language is, and did you understand the analogy above?

[Deleted]

helping people in need = being a fan of the situation

??

That sounds like a pretty serious psychological condition.

Helping people is an active choice and you are a fan of it if you make that choice.

[Ravenblade]

Several wrongs, and that is a very bad explanation.

First and foremost the "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" (Socialist German Workers' Party) was neither (or both) "right" nor "left" according to themselves, and during the 30s they had even stronger "left" part.

The US didn't join WWII to fight against "the right".

No, it is completely correct. During the Weimar Republic there were a slew of right-leaning parties and it was not a problem to follow one of them.

Of course the Nazis didn't see themselves as either simply because they thought they had done away with the old "parliamentary regime". But we can measure their stance on two factors: one) all parties and movements with völkisch-nationalist issues were located on the right side of the spectrum, two) socalism as a school of thinking was not entirely occupied by leftists up until the end of world war 2, in fact the idea of an anti-liberal and anti-conservative counter-school was popular among both sides of the spectrum, nationalsocialism was just a syncretist movement out of both: völkisch nationalism and socialism

In the former East it is obvious that they used propaganda to portray nazis as "right-wing" to show themselves as different.

But propaganda isn't a good foundation for the language - and the more important question: how beneficial do you consider this misuse of the language is, and did you understand the analogy above?

Yes. I understood but it I think you misunderstood. Being synonymous does not mean there is no further differentiation done at all on higher level. There definitely is. There is still a plenty of use of the term right wing extremist ("rechtsextrem") in the media and in political literature. However in certain contexts there is no use to differentiate further simply because conservatives despite being right of the center are simply referred to as conservatives which means anyone explicitly called right wing is simply one who's more about nationalism or some more brown colours of it.

I don't understand your part about propaganda. Would you care to elaborate what meant in the context of former and now East? Because as far as I know even neonazis would proudly refer to themselves as rightwing at the very least.

[Mayhem]

Helping people is an active choice and you are a fan of it if you make that choice.

Well yes, but i don´t have to be a fan of the situation that caused it. Sure i like to help people, that doesn´t mean i need to help people or i want people to suffer just so i can help them.

[Forogil]

No, it is completely correct. During the Weimar Republic there were a slew of right-leaning parties and it was not a problem to follow one of them.

Of course the Nazis didn't see themselves as either simply because they thought they had done away with the old "parliamentary regime". But we can measure their stance on two factors: one) all parties and movements with völkisch-nationalist issues were located on the right side of the spectrum, two) socalism as a school of thinking was not entirely occupied by leftists up until the end of world war 2, in fact the idea of an anti-liberal and anti-conservative counter-school was popular among both sides of the spectrum, nationalsocialism was just a syncretist movement out of both: völkisch nationalism and socialism

You have still not answered the obvious question from the analogy above, and your circular argument above doesn't help.

And now you are claiming that the nazis were "right-wing socialists" (they weren't entirely; some were more right-wing some more left-wing), and that socialism wasn't left-wing then (it mostly was) - and therefore you call them "right-wing".

That makes zero sense - and makes it clear that the label is applied as propaganda - and it now backfires.

I don't understand your part about propaganda. Would you care to elaborate what meant in the context of former and now East? Because as far as I know even neonazis would proudly refer to themselves as rightwing at the very least.

Asking the neonazis if they are right-wing is like asking IS if they are moderate muslims. And the worst part is that your propaganda is causing more neo-Nazis by combining right-wing and nazism.

[Ravenblade]

You have still not answered the obvious question from the analogy above, and your circular argument above doesn't help.

And now you are claiming that the nazis were "right-wing socialists" (they weren't entirely; some were more right-wing some more left-wing), and that socialism wasn't left-wing then (it mostly was) - and therefore you call them "right-wing".

You are claiming Nazis were neither because they said so as if they were now the only political experts left on Earth. It's like me declaring to be god because I said so. Also I am not saying they were socialists per se, I am saying that socialism at that time didn't necessary violate any right wing principles. In fact during the Weimar Republic there were three different types of right wing: monarchists, burgeoise national-liberals and völkisch nationalists.

I understand your analogy but I think it's misleading. It would be misuse if we had a rich spectrum of right wing parties unfortunately the AfD blew their chance to take a careful middle-stance. They have a lot of vocal members who don't even shy away from open antisemitism and revival of völkisch ideals.

Asking the neonazis if they are right-wing is like asking IS if they are moderate muslims.

Of course, but my point was they wouldn't even declare themselves as politically neutral or left. They like to be right-wing in an attempt to appear moderate.

And the worst part is that your propaganda is causing more neo-Nazis by combining right-wing and nazism.

What propaganda exactly?

I personally make a difference between right-wing and right-wing extremists but that's just me. However I do understand what was meant by "right-wing slogans". It's certainly not constructive criticism voiced in polite manner. It's not even difficult, you have to ask yourself in what way they are differing from and distancing themselves from those who have a lot more radical intentions. Usually the lines at an agitated states are very blurry and not seldomly they are openly heading towards those positions and kind of actions and speech that they would otherwise protest against to be affiliated with. When someone takes up a knife and beats up immigrant kids while shouting "right wing slogans" you may criticize the liberal use of the term "right wing" but it doesn't change what happened.

The AfD in Germany was supposed to give right wing a more serious and more intellectual position without polarization. After the split they have sharply veered off that position and it's back to political status quo and that's because the basis of that party wanted it so and the basis are usually 'common folk'.