I don’t know what you think you’re proving with that link. Do you think I’m arguing that political advertising isn’t real? Because I never argued that. Cambridge Analytica scraped a lot of Facebook data, and it is claimed they used that data to advertise to potential voters. So what? That’s how democracy works: convincing potential voters of the righteousness of your cause. Are you arguing that people should no longer be allowed to debate and inform each other in a democracy?
I’m not sure if you read your sources but you are only corroborating what I argued. It’s a lot of empty talk. None of them are willing to act. Take the example of the border security. It’s theatre. Even if an illegal immigrant is stopped, they still have the right to reside in the country for many years, and indefinitely if they refuse to leave in most circumstances. All of this is paid for by German citizens. I can’t believe you would use the Greens as an example of a party getting tough on immigration. They have zero policies to reduce immigration.
To summarise your sources: not a single party is willing to act on immigration. Don’t be surprised when people vote for parties which will.
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.
Spending X on advertising will increase your product sales by Y.
Because it exposes products to customers who were otherwise unaware of their existence or features, not because advertising has special brainwashing powers.
I think there is an implied argument you are making that unless people vote the “correct” way, they’re misinformed. I think some people just have different priorities. They care about different things and for this reason, consume different media. I was horrified to learn my wife clicks on ads when she’s shopping. Apparently that works for her. It doesn’t mean she’s wrong. Just that she’s not as rigorous about her selection process because she’s ultimately happy with the outcome.
Popper’s paradox of tolerance gives in my view pretty clear guidelines on what to protect and what not to tolerate. I believe that if we held onto that, fascism would have a much harder time.
Popper did make his line clear: physical violence.
“I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.”
So I agree with you. Tolerate up to the point of people using physical violence to enact their political aims.
I think you are falsely equating the choice not to seek out new knowledge with the belief that the adverts one sees on TikTok are all correct. I understand you believe the latter is a serious problem. I just do not. I have much more respect and faith in the average person.
Privacy laws are poor in Europe in general. Companies are required to facilitate the access of data for governments. The only way to prevent this is to encrypt all data before upload and use a VPN for all access to the cloud to avoid a potential raid at your home. Users will be quick to argue “well if you’ve got nothing to hide you’ve got nothing to fear!” I have never found that a compelling argument.
No. Advertising exists to inform people about products and services. I do not subscribe to the notion that advertising can convince an average voter to vote against their best interests or contra to facts. Not in a Western society in which one can easily obtain the facts on the internet. This might be true in a country like China where the internet is tightly controlled and facts aren’t easy to obtain.
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.
I don’t think that’s accurate. You can see voter turnout for the 2015 and 2019 elections here. It’s true that some voters went to KF and Nye Borgerlige, but even more voters went to RV and SF. I think you are right to argue it caused more people to vote for parties further on the left and right, but the far left appears to be the aggregate winner.
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.
That’s probably a fair and nuanced take. Perhaps some voters are swayed by TikTok ads. I suppose I believe this contingent is small and inconsequential, while the person above believes it is large and consequential. Perhaps my perception is coloured by my belief in the principles of free speech. I think it is essential to the functioning of a democracy, and for science. Free speech only exists if we protect speech we don’t like. I grow very uneasy with equivocating over which political dissent is allowed. History has taught us that it is inevitably used for nefarious purposes eventually.
Voters are not asking for temporary border patrols. They want lasting solutions. This is at best political theatre because even if an illegal immigrant is detected, they are still permitted to apply for asylum and will be given free accommodation for many years at minimum. The CDU reduced refugee benefits by less than 4%. They retain all their other benefits like free and subsidised housing, free medical care, free education, and free daycare in most states and very cheap in all others. These measures are not addressing the root cause. They aren’t going to make any lasting change. The social benefit change was only enacted last month. It’s far too little, far too late. As long as incumbents refuse to listen to the needs of voters, the AfD will continue to gain in popularity.
Apparently telling voters “no” is working terribly because right wing parties keep rising in polls. The evidence directly contradicts your claim. I don’t see how Brexit was caused in any way by appeasement. If anything, Brexit was caused by derision and dismissal, leaving low socioeconomic voters in particular no other way to vent their anger than by burning an institution to the ground. If you don’t give voters what they want they will vote extremists into power, or vote for extreme solutions out of spite.
Broadly speaking I find the argument of telling voters “no” in a democracy absurd and authoritarian.
No, but I don’t believe voters are mindless drones which vote for whatever they are told to. Do you? This contempt for voter agency is a major reason the AfD is polling so well.
because all major parties in Germany are now tougher on immigration
But they aren’t. Only the CDU has proposed some changes which they haven’t implemented, and aren’t expected to make any measurable impact. It is far too little, far too late.
But it’s not just one case. The German officials themselves admit they “successfully” prosecute 750 people each year. That’s literally in the article.
As for the newspaper, you appear to be arguing that it’s a good thing now that political opposition be shut down, rather than discrediting the claim itself. If you like it, why accuse the user of propaganda? Surely you would be happy that they’re advertising the good thing you agree with? I think you know it’s wrong to shut down free speech in a democracy, even if you don’t like how they’re funded.
I think that’s your opinion and you’re making a claim for which you don’t have any evidence. We have real world evidence that giving voters what they want wins elections. I cited the Danish example. The Social Democrats adopted slightly tougher immigration policies after the 2015 election, in which the right wing Danish People’s Party (DF) won 21.1% of the votes. Following these changes, the DF lost most of their votes, dropping to 8.7% in 2019. I would hardly call Denmark a right wing hellscape today.
I take issue at your broader contention that it’s somehow wrong to give voters what they want. That’s how democracy works.
“Hey boss I lost the election to right wing xenophobes.”
“Why?”
“I refused to give voters what they want in a democracy.”
Feel free to stay on your high horse. That doesn’t win election and I promise you, milquetoast immigration reform is better than what AfD is planning.
No, please, continue to support my arguments. I very much appreciate it.