A new study found that, on TikTok and Elon Musk's Twitter, nearly 3/4 of all partisan content being pushed algorithmically to German users favored the party best known for its ties to neo-Nazis.
I have, and I think you are wrong. However both of us are using very vague words like “appeasement” and I’m beginning to think we’re not using the same definitions. We might be remembering the facts which align with our narrative and ignoring those which do not. The truth might lie somewhere in between.
Brexit happened because David Cameron needed to appease the right wing of his party. That is a fact, and I won’t be ceding any ground there. It looks like you might try and rewrite history next, and I had taken you for someone who just didn’t know, rather than someone spreading lies.
Brexit happened because successive neoliberal governments ground low and middle class workers into dust. The two party system provided no alternative to voters than the two neoliberal governments. So when voters got the chance, they burned a cherished institution to the ground in protest. The issue here is decades of neglecting the wellbeing of citizens, and I’m dismayed that you would argue the issue might be actually listening to voters for the first time in generations. It is the exact opposite that is needed in the UK and around Europe.
The issue here is decades of neglecting the wellbeing of citizens
Yes? But what does this have to do with immigration? Do you genuinely believe that immigrants are what’s causing the decay of citizen wellbeing and not as you say “neoliberal governments grounding low and middle class workers into dust”?
You see the issue but you side with the neoliberals on their preferred solution?
Yes? But what does this have to do with immigration?
I’m not making that link. The user above argued Brexit was caused by appeasement. I was addressing that specific claim.
I generally side against the neoliberals. In this case, they have been tirelessly fighting for globalisation and high immigration. Like all economic policies, it comes with some good and some bad. It has certainly resulted in a lot of top line wealth generation. The problem is that most of it has been accrued at the top. This is not sustainable. I think this is why we are seeing a general backlash to globalisation: the experiment hurt a lot of middle and lower class people.
So you’re acknowledging that it’s a problem of wealth extraction but your proposed solution is for left wing parties to adopt a more anti-immigration stance instead of resolving the issue of inequality?
Right wing parties platform on isolationist policies (Brexit) while massively boosting globalization (how there’s now more migration post-Brexit than pre) and using migrants as a scapegoat for people’s economic issues.
Pinning the issue of globalization on migrants is like putting the blame on the exploited for the crimes of the exploiters.
Globalization isn’t bad because it allows people to resettle, escape political and environmental instability in their own countries - but because neoliberal interests specifically funnel away wealth from their local lower classes and destabilize poorer foreign nations to provide cheap labour for their businesses at home.
So instead of saying how great Denmark is for adopting “zero asylum” policies why not spend your energy advocating for wealth redistribution on a global scale? I agree, ideally people wouldn’t need to migrate to richer counties - but I don’t see the same “anti-globalist” parties advocating for paying reparations or providing zero debt aid to poorer nations instead either.
Denmark’s approach seems to prioritize protecting their domestic welfare system rather than addressing the global systems that create inequality. They’ve maintained many of the same neoliberal international policies while building higher walls around their own social safety net - exemplifying a “freedom for me, but not for thee” approach.
Which leads to the real crux of the issue - can a truly progressive approach stop at national borders, or does it require addressing the international systems that create inequality and drive migration in the first place?
I was clearly talking about telling the far right “no”, not the voters.
If you don’t see how Brexit was caused by appeasing the right wing then you aren’t in possession of all the facts, as it is a fact. Go read about it.
I have, and I think you are wrong. However both of us are using very vague words like “appeasement” and I’m beginning to think we’re not using the same definitions. We might be remembering the facts which align with our narrative and ignoring those which do not. The truth might lie somewhere in between.
Brexit happened because David Cameron needed to appease the right wing of his party. That is a fact, and I won’t be ceding any ground there. It looks like you might try and rewrite history next, and I had taken you for someone who just didn’t know, rather than someone spreading lies.
Brexit happened because successive neoliberal governments ground low and middle class workers into dust. The two party system provided no alternative to voters than the two neoliberal governments. So when voters got the chance, they burned a cherished institution to the ground in protest. The issue here is decades of neglecting the wellbeing of citizens, and I’m dismayed that you would argue the issue might be actually listening to voters for the first time in generations. It is the exact opposite that is needed in the UK and around Europe.
Yes? But what does this have to do with immigration? Do you genuinely believe that immigrants are what’s causing the decay of citizen wellbeing and not as you say “neoliberal governments grounding low and middle class workers into dust”?
You see the issue but you side with the neoliberals on their preferred solution?
I’m not making that link. The user above argued Brexit was caused by appeasement. I was addressing that specific claim.
I generally side against the neoliberals. In this case, they have been tirelessly fighting for globalisation and high immigration. Like all economic policies, it comes with some good and some bad. It has certainly resulted in a lot of top line wealth generation. The problem is that most of it has been accrued at the top. This is not sustainable. I think this is why we are seeing a general backlash to globalisation: the experiment hurt a lot of middle and lower class people.
So you’re acknowledging that it’s a problem of wealth extraction but your proposed solution is for left wing parties to adopt a more anti-immigration stance instead of resolving the issue of inequality?
Right wing parties platform on isolationist policies (Brexit) while massively boosting globalization (how there’s now more migration post-Brexit than pre) and using migrants as a scapegoat for people’s economic issues.
Pinning the issue of globalization on migrants is like putting the blame on the exploited for the crimes of the exploiters.
Globalization isn’t bad because it allows people to resettle, escape political and environmental instability in their own countries - but because neoliberal interests specifically funnel away wealth from their local lower classes and destabilize poorer foreign nations to provide cheap labour for their businesses at home.
So instead of saying how great Denmark is for adopting “zero asylum” policies why not spend your energy advocating for wealth redistribution on a global scale? I agree, ideally people wouldn’t need to migrate to richer counties - but I don’t see the same “anti-globalist” parties advocating for paying reparations or providing zero debt aid to poorer nations instead either.
Denmark’s approach seems to prioritize protecting their domestic welfare system rather than addressing the global systems that create inequality. They’ve maintained many of the same neoliberal international policies while building higher walls around their own social safety net - exemplifying a “freedom for me, but not for thee” approach.
Which leads to the real crux of the issue - can a truly progressive approach stop at national borders, or does it require addressing the international systems that create inequality and drive migration in the first place?
Yep. Rewriting history.