EU Lawmakers starting down a slippery slope

[Stacyrect]

This regulation only affects the EU parliament. That said it is already common procedure to sanction racism. Remember when Synadinos called the Turks "dirty and dumb barbarians" who need to be "confronted with the fist". Didn't go down well. In any case I deemed handling such cases on individual basis as sufficient so far.



That is if you can believe sources like Infowars, Prisonplanet and other Non-Fake-News organizations.

I don't read any of those.

However, it seems like 2 issues are going on. The first is that people are making an argument that everything is fine in the EU, their are no problems. Which is categorically false. Their are issues.

The second is really a debate as to the extent of these issues. Both sides are pretty much saying the same thing but defaulting to incorrect assumption about problem 1.

- - - Updated - - -

The only people actually destroying the constitutional protection of free speech in the US is the Trump Administration and their war on the press. In fact, their banning of media they don't like is viewpoint discrimination, a violation of the First Amendment.

No news networks have been banned. A few news organizations weren't invited to a invite only special press gaggle event. The fact that you believe this, is a tribute to how fake news works and why Trump has an issue with the media printing fake news.

[Slant]

We recently had a few people here silenced as well. One veitimize (sp) lady from california and senator warren. If people are out of order sure, that makes sense. They didn't need new rules to combat disruptive members. Given the broad reach of what 'hate speech' is, how can leadership have a constructive discussion when any negative discussion is hate speech?

The problem as I see it, is the culmination of hate speech laws, censorship of information and now political censorship. How can you discuss an issue, when it is illegal to do so. Imagine if the opposite were happening in Europe, that all pro immigration and refugee talk was the target of these laws?

You're making a rather weak argument. Hate speech, as in the actual, literal meaning, not the American interpretation of it, is by definition not constructive. Negative discussion is by definition also not constructive. When you debate with me and all you have to say is to point out what doesn't work or what you hate, that's not a constructive discussion. That's what we usually call "just bitching and whinging".

Since you're American, I will forgive you for using terminology because the drama tickles your fancy. But this is hardly censorship. Papers can still report about it, it is part of the official record.

As for your reverse example about pro immigration and refugee talk... two things, you, like so many others, seem to be under the delusion that anyone here is strictly pro refugee or pro immigration. Nobody is. Without exception, there is not a soul in Europe that says "Gee, immigration sounds like fun, let's get some refugees here, we'll have a real party!" Not a single person says that. What you consider "pro immigration" is more aptly described as "not vehemently against it, given the circumstances." What we say is "Gee, I'd rather not have refugees here, but heck, they're getting slaughtered so let's be actual human beings and help them instead of letting them drown."

Now that your misunderstanding is cleared up, you'll understand why your example doesn't work. Supporting refugees isn't a negative discussion, it's a discussion to solve a problem. That makes it constructive political debate, by definition. Now, if you said "Europe can't support all these refugees, let's find other solutions", you would be taking part in that constructive discussion. If you said "fucking refugee scum, stealing our jobs, raping your girls", you'd be a racist. I don't understand why people feel the need to somehow argue their way around language. It's really not that difficult. Or so I should think, at least for native speakers.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't read any of those.

However, it seems like 2 issues are going on. The first is that people are making an argument that everything is fine in the EU, their are no problems. Which is categorically false. Their are issues.

The second is really a debate as to the extent of these issues. Both sides are pretty much saying the same thing but defaulting to incorrect assumption about problem 1.

There is no real issue in Europe. At least none that we can't deal with at the moment. And unless your location is false and you actually live in Europe, you may want to refrain from making such grand statements. The biggest issue we actually have is people like you telling us we have issues. We do not. Not in the sense that your thirst for drama desires, at least.

[Aggrophobic]

I have been to 5 countries, which includes France, and I have lived in multiple places in the US.

Forgive me I'm wrong here but where has Le Pen advocated for the use of violence in anything?

Not yet. Give it time.
She is head of a party that are as close to nazi as you can come without having that silly little mustasch.

[Dhrizzle]

Chanting fewer, fewer, is hate speech?

Try reading the article and understanding the context of the chant, context really is important.

[Deleted]

You however aren´t pro reading or pro knowledge.

o-kay? The 'you're dumb' approach, interesting. (look below for how original your approach is)

The European Parliament has an awful lot of elections for an "unelected governing body".

beads and mirrors, the 500 head parliament (elected) can only aye or naye at suggestions from the unelected comissioners.

You seem confused, do you need some reading material about the European Parliament, how it is elected and what it does, or is it that you just didn't understand what these changes where and what they do?
Your posts looks like something you found on some random blog and put in this thread by accident, maybe you did a google search for "EU" and found both the blog and this thread? That is as close as you get to "on topic".

You and the article are saying the EU Parliament are heading down a slippery slope, I'm saying they've been base jumping for a while now.(apperantly this opinion upsets you somehow?) Seeing how you write 'where' where you meant were makes me think you should try your googling for other peoples' post idea sometimes.

[Elegiac]

beads and mirrors, the 500 head parliament (elected) can only aye or naye at suggestions from the unelected comissioners.

Who are themselves appointed by elected member governments. What even is indirect democracy?

Also, this is an argument for reform, not abolition.

[Deleted]

Not yet. Give it time.
She is head of a party that are as close to nazi as you can come without having that silly little mustasch.

I like your humorous approach, but calling 'the other side'/the side you don't agree with evil nazi's is basically how a petulant child reacts after not being invited to a kids' party.

Ironically the pro massive immigration PC treehugger people have no problem perpetuating rousing violent godwin sentiments like they're nazi's /populist etc. We've seen where remarks as yours lead in the netherlands in 2002,leading to the saying "the bullet comes from the left". Might want to reflect on that in your morality bubble.

[Triks]

I don´t disagree, i´m all for equal terms regardless if you´re a native or migrant though. But don´t moan about rules not being in place when joining a club knowing full well the liabilities that come with it.

This is not an EU question.

- - - Updated - - -

What about orphans under sixteen?
Should they get benefits?
What when they want to stay in school after turning sixteen?

You are looking for a calf under the ox.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd rather have such a scene be the exception, to be honest.

Why? Bashing the fash and other various racists is fun for all. The people need to understand that we don't tolerate them. The fascists need to understand that their beliefs will be met with hostility. Censoring them gives them ammunition.

[Deleted]

Who are themselves appointed by elected member governments. What even is indirect democracy?

Also, this is an argument for reform, not abolition.

I know two faces from the commision (because why would we know ppl with such authority in 'our europe', amirite).

Theres Juncker who lost the belgium election and went on to take a position in a higher governing body.

Then theres F. Timmermans who got his position making fictious statements in the security counsil on the MH-17 matter, as is known from him in a shakespearian overtly dramatic manner. Then his party went on to be decimated in the election because even his own constituents were fed up with his manchild drama plays.

Finally, if you have enough arguments for reform, that are continiously unheard then sooner than later you go for the abolition option. This monster needs to be broken down before we can build it back up, in a better way.

from the top of my head;
*Overall dismay of democracy;
- I believe the first REJECTEDreferendum on the european constitution was in 2005? They changed the name to a treaty instead of a constitution and got it done that a way.
- Greece bailout was rejected broadly , they did it anyways - greece is now basically insolvent (funny how you dont see any of this on the news.. Probably has nothing to do with the upcomming elections,right? makes the whole trump shouting fake news bs seem a little less like bs)


*Immigration fails (Two days after the turkey immigration deal was signed turkey decided to significantly increase military spending)
*Prolonged economic difficulties with northern europe paying for southern europe debts
*Expansionism
-Despite all these epic fails the answer to everything is more europe, these people are entirely out of touch! With propogandic measures through pro eu eu funded schoollessons the coming years might be the only time in a very long while we have to reject this new third reich.

[Ravenblade]

I don't read any of those.

However, it seems like 2 issues are going on. The first is that people are making an argument that everything is fine in the EU, their are no problems. Which is categorically false. Their are issues.

The second is really a debate as to the extent of these issues. Both sides are pretty much saying the same thing but defaulting to incorrect assumption about problem 1.

People tend to get defensive proportionally to what has been flung against them. Want them in denial then throw some absurdities like "Germany is crumbling under refugees" at them. Nobody is denying problems but people need to stick to the facts which are usually pointing at another source that is the cause for them. Germany is a country that is neither economically nor demographically homogeneous in fact it's quite lopsided when it comes to this. This can be said about the US by the way. The more populous areas are the ones which are also affected by crimes most, not just by migrant-based crimes but in general too and yet you don't see them crumbling. People want to see a catastrophe where there are just issues because mere issues are boring. It doesn't cause high levels of rage. It needs to have cataclysmic levels in order to justify some outrage so people get inventive with cherry-picking and depicting things disproportionally in a way that you can get real riled up when hearing it. It's kind of like looking at Detroit or St. Louis and saying: "US population is dwindling at the rates of murders!" or "The US should lock up its entire population given how dangerous it is!".

[Deleted]

EU is starting to fall apart under the weight of migration

Hahahaha

Sorry, it's quite difficult to participate in such a thread after someone says something like this.

[Slant]

Why? Bashing the fash and other various racists is fun for all. The people need to understand that we don't tolerate them. The fascists need to understand that their beliefs will be met with hostility. Censoring them gives them ammunition.

I meant, I'd have these extremists outbursts in the EP be the exception rather than the norm.

[Mayhem]

o-kay? The 'you're dumb' approach, interesting. (look below for how original your approach is)

Well since what you wrote isn´t what actually happens, my approach wasn´t meant to be original but more silly and pointing you to read a bit into what is happening here.

You seem not to care enough about the EU (as some well known other posters here) to read into the topic but just go by an article and be happy you can rant about something you clearly have no knowledge about.

- - - Updated - - -

This is not an EU question.

Funny enough, the not EU questions always come up in EU threads.

- - - Updated - - -

Censoring them gives them ammunition.

Everything gives them ammunition.

[Stacyrect]

Not yet. Give it time.
She is head of a party that are as close to nazi as you can come without having that silly little mustasch.

Yeah, anyone who apparently gives a shit about their culture and themselves days is a "nazi" or "fascist". How dare they put their culture and themselves first. All their woes are unfounded. How dare they not want to live in a multi-cultural utopia.

- - - Updated - - -

Try reading the article and understanding the context of the chant, context really is important.

So wanting fewer Moroccans in your country is hate speech?

[Triks]

Well since what you wrote isn´t what actually happens, my approach wasn´t meant to be original but more silly and pointing you to read a bit into what is happening here.

You seem not to care enough about the EU (as some well known other posters here) to read into the topic but just go by an article and be happy you can rant about something you clearly have no knowledge about.

- - - Updated - - -



Funny enough, the not EU questions always come up in EU threads.

- - - Updated - - -



Everything gives them ammunition.

It comes up in EU threads because it highlights how governments refuse to build legislation around the challenges that the EU poses.

Not really. People lash out against you if you don't give them a venue to speak. Prohibition doesn't work. Debate does.

- - - Updated - - -

I meant, I'd have these extremists outbursts in the EP be the exception rather than the norm.

Yeah, agreed.

[Stacyrect]

People tend to get defensive proportionally to what has been flung against them. Want them in denial then throw some absurdities like "Germany is crumbling under refugees" at them. Nobody is denying problems but people need to stick to the facts which are usually pointing at another source that is the cause for them. Germany is a country that is neither economically nor demographically homogeneous in fact it's quite lopsided when it comes to this. This can be said about the US by the way. The more populous areas are the ones which are also affected by crimes most, not just by migrant-based crimes but in general too and yet you don't see them crumbling. People want to see a catastrophe where there are just issues because mere issues are boring. It doesn't cause high levels of rage. It needs to have cataclysmic levels in order to justify some outrage so people get inventive with cherry-picking and depicting things disproportionally in a way that you can get real riled up when hearing it. It's kind of like looking at Detroit or St. Louis and saying: "US population is dwindling at the rates of murders!" or "The US should lock up its entire population given how dangerous it is!".

Was a good post, thank you. The catastrophe as you say is that their is little response from their leadership, largely because they don't really seem to know what to do about these problems besides trying to minimalize these situations and hoping they will go away.

Anytime anyone brings issues up, their concerns are being dismissed or mollified by brands of being racist, xenophobic, yadda yadda. Riots are breaking out, there are no go zones, and the message from leadership is everything is fine here, stop worrying so much. If you are the victim of a crime, tough shit. People are afraid to speak out which is why political parties like Wilders and Le Pen have gained traction.

I doubt the EU planned for a refugee crisis, as it has been handled extremely irresponsibly. Even though they have the best of intentions in mind, they are literally failing their citizens. Confidence has been shaken to the point other countries are planning on pulling out of the EU. The message shouldn't be this isn't a big deal, it should have always have been we are working on it.

Seeing as it says you are located in germany what are your thoughts about the proposed plan to give migrants voting rights before citizenship?

[jugzilla]

America was built on immigrants.

What makes this different? EU lawmakers are onto something when they want more immigration to take place.

The US was built on immigrants from Europe, for whatever the truth is worth. Yeah, slavery and all...terrible idea for starters, but the meteorical rise of the US occurred only after this practice was abolished. Only until about 100 or so years ago, the US had a lot of empty land, and a lot of labor jobs that needed to be filled. None of these conditions exist anymore, in either continent. The EU, and to a lesser degree, every western country, has created conditions were procreation is subdued. Our systems only seem to work, when there are impoverished breeding pools of humans in third world countries that can keep our labor force filled, through immigration. That is the the actual problem.

[jugzilla]

Europe suffers from lack of populations to fill in those jobs. Which is exactly why they are welcoming immigrants. They know that nothing boost the economy like immigration at the operational level.

They are not welcoming immigrants to BOOST their economy. They are welcoming immigrants because they decided not to have children and need the immigrants to keep the trains running.

The US has a fundamentally unfair advantage over the EU, our cheap labour comes from South America, and not North Africa.

[Deleted]

Debunked as fake news:
http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...pe-Issues-quot

Oh my friend. Unless you consider BRÅs statistics to be faulty idk what you mean by debunked...

Check out pages 6 and 10

But then again I don't ever see you actually partake in honest discussion as you always just leap in with your emotions and bicker with other people about their feels.

[Dhrizzle]

So wanting fewer Moroccans in your country is hate speech?

You're getting there, try reading it a few more times and you might finally understand the situation surrounding the controversy and reasons that charges were brought (also known as "context," which is important.)