Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Pudge you don't know what you are talking about.
    Megret is a bona fide neo-nazi. His ideas are abject and should be fought relentlessly. And yes they make him a slimy bastard. And yes I hate him.
    These people do not participate in Democracy, they just spread hatred and madness.
    BTW there were anti-national front demonstrations every day for 2 weeks in every major city in France, more than a million people marched on May 1rst, and there were virtually no incidents, contrary to what happen a few years ago when n
    --
    mirod
    • Whatever his ideas are, are not the issue. Whether or not he wishes a free exchange of ideas, is not the issue. Granted, his ideas suck, and would go against everything France is supposed to stand for. So? Do you not trust the people to see that and vote accordingly? If not, what are you doing bothering with democracy for?

      And I am not saying there shouldn't be protests, demonstrations, or marches. I am saying that people don't have to get hysterical. I am saying that people don't have to get violent
      • My point is that megret's quote should be put in context: it comes from a neo-nazi, after 2 weeks of incredibly pacific demonstrations in the street against what he represents. There were no calls for violence against the national front in France, just calls for people to vote. Hence what he says is just not true. What happened in The Netherlands has no relation to the French situation. This is just the usual rethoric of a paranoid mind that likes to appear as a victim and is quick to use any opportunity to
        --
        mirod
        • I didn't mean specifically that the French people in general, or the demonstrators in general, or you in particular, wanted or called for violence. However, I do agree with him that "hysterical" positions do often lead to violence (note that I took that in my original post and generalized it so as to not make it specific to any group), and this is what I am decrying. People were basically going nuts over the viewpoints of this man, hating him, and being filled with vitriol toward him and his party. That'
          • Hate is dangerous, and should not be fought with more hate. I realize that Le Pen is an evil rat bastard Nazi. But I believe that it has only short-term benefit, if that, to hating him, defeating him and his ideas with hate, to attempting to incite vitriol for him and his party.

            Did I miss some news? As I understood it, Le Pen did unexpectedly well in the initial balloting because there were a slew of candidates to split the left. He beat the PM, whom people had assumed was a shoo-in for the runoff, beca
            • Regardless, I thought I had made it perfectly clear several times -- apparently not? -- that I am talking about the overall feeling that I get, not anything in particular done by the French people. The demonstrations were good. I was very pleased to see people come out in force to speak and vote against Le Pen's candidacy. Perhaps the lack of provided context or example confused my intention: whether it is Mir saying he hates Le Pen, or other people I've seen expressing extreme hatred and vitrol toward h
              • I agree with you on a number of points here (and elsewhere), but I think there are a number of nuances to be made.

                To begin with, keep in mind that in Europe the WWII trauma is still very much alive. Even a young guy like me (25) knows first hand accounts from the war. My family is not part of any minority that was specifically targetted by nazism, but nevertheless many of my family members were killed or tortured by the nazis. My grandparents and my great-grandparents were part of the first wave of resistants, before the Resistance was truly organized. As a result, at the end of the war, all of their friends save a few had been killed by the Gestapo.

                The fact that genuine nazis would make a come-back with some success does, indeed, sicken me. I know it's an emotional reaction more than anything else, but the wounds of WWII run deep.

                I'm not especially sick at the people that voted thus. I do understand that the world is a complex and scary place, and that that troubles people. However, I have more trouble understanding how they can be so oblivious. Or so stupid. Or so fascist (depending on voters).

                Also, I feel there's one nuance you are failing to make (or that I missed): the difference between hatred and anger. It is customary of me to use strong words when angry, but I do not hate anyone. I think a lot of other French people felt the same (to talk only about the area I know). People are very very angry, and while of course assassination was frequently mentionned as a way out I know for sure that none of those people supported that idea, it was mostly a way to release anger (which is good imho).

                I won't weep for someone that propagates hatred and gets bitten by hatred. I won't say that the assassination was deserved -- of course not -- but hatred is not a monster that can be mastered, or not long.

                Having the courage to go talk with the people that voted FN is difficult because it means that you have to be ready to face someone supportive -- consciously or not -- of some of the darkest things known to man. But I feel it is necessary to try, and whenever I get a chance I do.

                Maybe I am especially sensitive to this because in the US, I am villified because I want to end federal welfare, make abortion illegal, increase military spending

                That's something I can understand. I get regularly villified (by a variety of people) because I am supportive of various things such as homosexual marriage, different types of families, increase in military spending (which looks weird to a number of leftists), strongly increased welfare, etc. Few are those from any political side that are ready to discuss their disagreements (especially when it touches sensitive subjects, such as abortion, or irrational topics such as familial politics). People are entrenched on all sides, it just shows less when they agree with you ;-)

                I will easily agree to discuss the topics you name (as well as those I name), if only because I know that some of them have blurry angles and often amount to a political choice between two evils (eg abortion). I certainly don't enjoy being called a murderer, a pervert, or a threat to the stability of society, and thus I won't use words such as fascist or nazi lightly. Nazism, however, is not something that I will discuss as if I were arguing over the best way to paint the bike shed. I do attempt to muster the courage to talk to people that support it indirectly because I want to hope that there's something they haven't seen due to the indirection. But there's a step beyond which no discussion is possible.

                On a different note, I must second Michel in saying that your quote was poorly chosen. You might extract what you want from it to support your point but the quote remains in itself a lie (when read inside its own context) which means that you are in fact not really using that quote in an honest way, making it apply to something else. Tsssss, you damn post-modernist spitting in the face of authorial intent (* darobin ducks).

                --

                -- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]

                • No, I did not distinguish between hatred and anger, but I do think I see the difference, and I do think I've seen a lot of the hatred I've mentioned. And I agree with you: I won't weep for "Nazis" who are killed. What I weep for is what that assassination means, what effects it will have on everyone else, how it will shape society. It won't be positive.

                  And that's the second time this week, in two completely different contexts, that I've been called a postmodernist. Hmmm. ;-) Regardless, I just saw the