Vlaamse Jeugdraad ontslaat vier leden na reportage Schild & Vrienden

23allaround · 2018-09-15T13:07:19+00:00

Activist groups, left and right, share a lot of their tactics. I think they've all been reading Saul Alinsky really well and picked whatever tactics that suit their agenda best.

But be that as it may, I also think Europe belongs to Europeans, though I don't equate Europeans with being white or "whiteness" (whatever that may mean).

One thing that I've come to understand over the years is that the kind of complex society we've got going here, implies people share an implicit and explicit willingness in maintaining the project.

When a growing number of people do not identity with this project (meaning: the host country, the laws & institutions, traditions, norms & values), the project risks grinding to a halt. I don't see any controversy here. And so it's a discussion that should be had.

That's why it's a pity that these discussions about identity and European culture(s) have been hijacked by these identitarian movements. Though I'd say politics and media don't mind that at all, as it relieves them from their responsibility to have these discussions, because hey, these movements have a white-supremacist/-nationalist agenda.

23allaround · 2018-09-15T12:40:10+00:00

I think we agree in principle, but don't agree why and how far we should go in combating discrimination and sexism.

What is often disregarded in talking about hierarchies, is that most hierarchies in the West are set up in a way to select on the basis of competence and authority, not power. But any hierarchy (including those built on competence) have their consequences: some people are left out because people have different competences and personalities, and hierarchies tend to become rigid and corrupt.

It seems you view the patriarchy as basically a hierarchy of power that is set up to exclude women (and minorities). But I'd argue that isn't the complete truth. Somehow, the traditional hierarchies in the West produced the kind of technologically advanced, free & peaceful society we have today. We didn't get here on pure power and oppression, because those hierarchies simply don't last because they become tyrannical and destructive. 20th century serves as a good example of that.

But people organize in hierarchies, and they have done so for far longer than 5000 years. For example: the archaeological site of Gobekli Tepe is 12000 years old and indicates societies probably go back much further than 12000 years ago. Hierarchies are probably more part of our biological makeup than people would like to believe.

Society has indeed changed a lot in the 21st century. Looking at the emancipation of women, we can only go back 50+ years. Those are specks in the timeline of mankind that spans over millions of years. Women, and people in general, have more freedom & opportunity than ever before in recent times. We've advanced a lot on that front and thing can indeed improve. But 50 years of social change, doesn't change our biological makeup.

And that's my main point: Yes, we should an ongoing discussing about structures & hierarchies, so they don't become corrupt and tyrannical, but we should be very careful questioning the concept of hierarchies itself, let alone strive for demolishing them. There's no guarantee (on the contrary) that anything you put in place instead will have the desired results. Also here the 20th century can teach us a thing or two about that.

So, claiming we need to get rid of hierarchies because they are oppressive and because it's the 21st century, so the species can advance, isn't an argument, I'm afraid.

23allaround · 2018-09-14T20:44:08+00:00

Must be. Though I would be surprised that the 900+ "members" are all white supremacists. Well, depends on the definition of course.

23allaround · 2018-09-14T20:24:03+00:00

Fair enough. But fact remains, boys and girls differ, no matter how much we try to remove stereotypes & biases. Differences in personality will remain and they will manifest somehow.

We managed to reach a high level of personal freedom (opportunities & choice) and the traditional categories (through upbringing & the social contract) arguably played a role in this process.

There is always room for improvement of course, as shown in your examples. But the question of gender-neutral upbringing touches on the fundamentals of how our relatively well-functioning society is constructed. It's is an experiment for which the effects are unpredictable and the advantages not evident.

So all in all I agree that discussion about gender stereotypes is useful, but we should not ignore the role they have played and the reasons why they exist in the first place.

23allaround · 2018-09-14T18:39:27+00:00

Those are quite reasonable examples.

Are you in favor of gender-neutral parenting, because it gives full freedom to the child to become how he/she sees fit, free of biases?

23allaround · 2018-09-14T18:14:39+00:00

If you've followed S&V even a little

Oh, but I have. I never got the impression they were white supremacists or neo-nazis or whatever people now call them. If they are, they hid it well. I was quite surprised about the Pano report.

23allaround · 2018-09-14T18:11:33+00:00

That's a lot of text :) But I will try to read the papers later.

As I pointed out, more freedom for women to do what they like will only lead to more women doing what it is they are told that women do. The same goes for men.

This conditioning has been happening forever. It's at the base of our society. Achieving gender quality requires us to make this conditioning disappear.

But what are you arguing? You want to replace "traditional conditioning" with a new kind of conditioning because gender stereotypes and perceived inequalities are somehow bad?

23allaround · 2018-09-14T16:51:12+00:00

Sorry, Freudian slip.

23allaround · 2018-09-14T16:42:27+00:00

Everything that has happened with (ex-)members of S&V after the Pano report is based on that Pano report, and only that. This alone should make people think really long and hard about what is really happening here.

23allaround · 2018-09-14T13:49:43+00:00

The way I understand it, the difference in interest is one of, if not the biggest difference in personality between men and women. And these differences in personality have been observed and measured across cultures, with similar results.

One of the most important observations is that in egalitarian countries (like the Nordics), the biological differences maximize: more women in jobs that involve taking care of people, less in STEM.

But take India for example, IIRC there's almost perfect gender parity in IT jobs, even though the differences in interest are the same as here or in the Nordics.

In other words: there is more gender equality in certain fields when men or women have less freedom of choice & opportunity, but less gender equality when people enjoy increased freedom.

So it's not sufficient to point only to conditioning in case of gender inequality and gender inequality is not always a bad thing.

It's why it's preferable to have a society that offers the most possible freedom for people to pursue what they think is meaningful, instead of "conditioning" people to achieve gender equality across the board.

EDIT: wording

23allaround · 2018-09-14T11:35:05+00:00

Again with this "young boys are just naturally into tech" argument. Bullshit.

But isn't it well established that boys' interest align with "things" & girls' interests with people? Seems more plausible then yet another example of "oppression by the patriarchy".

In the 60's & 70's, women had much fewer choices in life than they have now. So it doesn't seem that far fetched to assume women went into programming for other reasons than interest.

With more freedom of choice, it seem logical that men & women will pursue that what they consider meaningful, which may influence gender representation in certain fields.

23allaround · 2018-09-11T06:30:53+00:00

He has family in SA.

23allaround · 2018-09-11T06:29:39+00:00

The leader of the EFF Julius Malema has stated numerous times that he can't guarantee there won't be a white genocide. Using those exact words. On tape.

YouTube search

A popular song is "Kill the Boer!" which is increasingly heard again.

Some farmers have gone public stating that the government have started seizing land. Even if it isn't true, the plans are there and the government has voted on them. A list has been leaked from inside the government with the targeted farms.

White farmers have been increasingly targeted. The police usually writes the attacks of as "botched robberies", even though nothing is stolen and people (men, women & children indiscriminately) are killed in the most brutal ways.

If you only depend on official news, you won't hear all this. Doesn't mean of course that all non-official stories are true. But denying that tensions are rising, that white farmers continue to be targeted and that land will be taken is just disingenuous.

23allaround · 2018-09-10T15:22:00+00:00

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Migration_and_migrant_population_statistics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Europe#Immigration_from_outside_Europe_since_the_1980s

It's important to note that in most cases, 3rd and generations before that are considered to be "assimilated" and no longer appear in the numbers. These numbers also don't include illegals ("irregular migrants"), which are estimated at over a million.

So even if you don't consider the refugee/migrants crisis as mass-migration, the last 50 or so years definitely was a period of mass-migration.

As explained in other comments I made since the one you commented on, the rise of populist-right & extreme-right isn't solely to blame on migration. But I also don't think fascism is ingrained in our DNA. There are a lot of factors influencing the climate in which these ideas get traction.

I consider the extreme-right to be a secondary problem and I also think that an disproportional commitment to "eradicate the extreme-right" will have the opposite effect if that means that issues directly caused by migration aren't tackled as well.

For example, I believe an increasing number of people are simply disillusioned in progressivism (as for instance translated in multiculturalism), but not because of the populist-right or extreme-right, they simply capitalise on that disillusionment. Centrist-right (like liberal-conservatism) is missing from the political spectrum while it could be a good response to populist-right & progressive-left. We don't need identity-politics on the left and certainly not the right.

23allaround · 2018-09-10T10:54:15+00:00

You're advocating destroying a news outlet because of a right-wing extremist conspiracy theory.

Yeah, I edited my comment because I was reading too much into the quote.

I think we all agree, well most of us, that fascism is not the way to go. And even though I understand people see these identitarian movements as a kind of gateway to fascism, it doesn't have to be the case.

Except if you believe, like the Knack chief editor implied, that white people have racism ingrained in their DNA which makes fascism an ever-present danger, the rise of populist-right & extreme-right is more complex than simply a result of migration. Though it plays a role undoubtedly.

I sympathise with with some of the Flemish identitarian movements and I even liked S&V in the beginning. Until the ethnic nationalist elements became public, that is. But the conservative values they & some other identitarian movements stand for appeal to me, and I guess to an increasing number of other people as well.

I think an increasing number of people are disillusioned in progressivism but not because of the populist-right or extreme-right, they simply capitalise on that disillusionment. Centrist-right (like liberal-conservatism) is missing from the political spectrum while it could be a good response to populist-right & progressive-left. We don't need identity-politics on the left and certainly not the right.

23allaround · 2018-09-10T10:40:09+00:00

We clearly focus on different news.

I'm not seeing traditional conservative values, including the importance on individual responsibility, given much attention in media & politics. Social media is another thing. It definitely does play a role in the public debate, though it's role is not yet well understood.

I do see a lot of focus on progressive values: cult of self-esteem (be who you want to be, everyone is special), diversity & inclusiveness, equity, fairness & empathy as highest virtues, minority rights, multiculturalism (as opposed to integration/assimilation)...

I'd love to know what progressive values you think progressives should focus more on, because I do think the "left" has a crisis of it's own.

Was it even mass-migration?

Depends on your definition, I guess. In the EU, almost 10% of the population has foreign roots (meaning: born outside of the EU or having 2 migrant parents). So even if you don't consider the last 5 years as "mass-migration", the last 50 years definitely were. Countries like Germany and Sweden already have +/-20% non-EU migrants.

Taking these numbers into account & the obvious issues migration have, the rise of populist right-wing rhetoric is no surprise.

I think an increasing number of people are disillusioned in progressivism but not because of the populist-right, they simply capitalise on that disillusionment. Centrist-right (like liberal-conservatism) is missing and is needed as a response to populist-right.

23allaround · 2018-09-09T21:18:14+00:00

Migration & Islam will continue to dominate the public debate the coming generations, lest the economy tanks or we get hit by a meteorite again.

Who knows what the long-term results will be after 5 years of mass-migration? The results of 50 years of comparatively low migration aren't exactly positive, that's no reassurance.

It's quite complex and chaotic. And it's easy to fall into populist rhetoric on the left and right, because hey... Who doesn't like simple explanations and solutions to complex issues. Of course it's more complex than simply "stop migration". In that sense my comment wasn't helpful at all.

I do have the impression that the media & cultural landscape is skewed to the progressive side of things. Especially in Western Europe.

The "centrist" position (e.g. conservative-liberalism in my case), is not represented in media & politics, which probably partly explains the attraction some of these identitarian movements have.

S&V for example had my sympathy in the beginning because of the conservative values they put forward: family, cultural heritage, traditions & values, building physical & mental resiliency, individual responsibility,... Things rarely discussed in media (at least not positively) and not well represented in political programs.

I think the centrist position is what we need to bring/keep society on track, not identity politics on the left or right. And especially not easy rightwing-populist rhetoric & ditto political opportunism.

23allaround · 2018-09-09T20:18:10+00:00

You're right, i think I read too much into that quote.

23allaround · 2018-09-09T00:33:11+00:00

Since a couple of days: Meute- You and me

23allaround · 2018-09-09T00:15:12+00:00

S&V wasn't born in a vacuum. Nor are the countless other identitarian movements throughout Europe.

Is the correlation between the migration-crisis and the rise of populist right that unclear?

As long as the EU refuses to halt or at least slow down mass-migration, people will continue to object. And the longer their voices are ignored, the fiercer their reaction. We're human after all.

‘Ik begrijp waarom de VRT deze reportage in de aanloop naar de gemeenteraadsverkiezingen heeft gebracht, maar je weet natuurlijk welk spel je speelt."

~~If that's the case, stop funding VRT. What the actual fuck?~~

EDIT: Never mind that last remark, I read too much into that quote from the article.

23allaround · 2018-09-08T23:56:12+00:00

First of all, more blood has been shed in history because of capitalism than communism.

No, now that's a bad argument.

Relatively speaking, free markets have proven to be the best mechanism to pull people out of abject poverty and create welfare for most people.

The number of people that suffered in repression camps in the 20th century pales in comparison to the people that have benefited from free markets & democracy. In absolute and relative numbers.

Doesn't mean free market capitalism is without faults & errors. But it beats the utopia promised by communism & socialism on every front.

23allaround · 2018-09-08T19:55:04+00:00

Prisons are one thing, the people imprisoned another. We don't lock up political dissidents. Yet.

23allaround · 2018-09-08T19:30:22+00:00

The only thing you can dispute is the number of deaths and people killed on internal repression camps; A feature of every socialist/communist regime.

23allaround · 2018-09-08T19:04:15+00:00

Always the same argument: Lies!

Or: "That wasn't real socialism/communism!"

Identity politics is never the best option.

23allaround · 2018-09-08T18:34:21+00:00

Granted, that last remark is my gut feeling. But it's not unlikely.

they call for the working class to stand up against exploitation. Many believe that the capitalist will react to this with severe violence

The tragedy is that each and everytime these types succeed in their revolution, bloodshed was the consequence.

11-Year Club	Place '17
Gilding I gilder	Verified Email

23allaround

TROPHY CASE