Is anti-theocracy considered a "far right" position, e.g. the Netherlands

[icehorse]

The irony of this post, and your obvious building frustrating in resorting to this cheap tactic, indicate that your use of an emoji here is just you desperately trying to pretend you aren't getting very, very badly rattled at having been exposed so badly.

Don't quit your day job to become a mind reader, you suck at it

 

[icehorse]

My point is:

The vast majority of countries outside Europe are not prosperous. There are almost no muslim majority countries in Europe and many of them are outside Europe. Therefore, it is no surprise there is hardly any prosperous muslim majority country in the world.

Ah got it, thanks.

So for the sake of discussion we can artificially remove Europe from the world. I think we should also remove those countries that have been blessed with oil. (Although it might be interesting to compare Nordic countries blessed with oil to ME countries blessed with oil.)

Then we can split the remaining parts of the world into two categories:

- Muslim majority
- Other

I think when we do that we'll see that there are many prosperous countries in the "other" category and very few in the Muslim majority category.

 

[Koldo]

Ah got it, thanks.

So for the sake of discussion we can artificially remove Europe from the world. I think we should also remove those countries that have been blessed with oil. (Although it might be interesting to compare Nordic countries blessed with oil to ME countries blessed with oil.)

Then we can split the remaining parts of the world into two categories:

- Muslim majority
- Other

I think when we do that we'll see that there are many prosperous countries in the "other" category and very few in the Muslim majority category.

If we remove both massive oil exporters and Europe then, out of the top of my head, I can only think of, as prosperous countries: Hong Kong, Australia, Singapore, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, and Israel. Maybe China and Taiwan too. None of them with a muslim majority, but that is only 7 (or 9) countries across the entire world. This means 0 countries in North and South America and 0 countries in Africa.

 

[icehorse]

If we remove both massive oil exporters and Europe then, out of the top of my head, I can only think of, as prosperous countries: Hong Kong, Australia, Singapore, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, and Israel. Maybe China and Taiwan too. None of them with a muslim majority, but that is only 7 (or 9) countries across the entire world. This means 0 countries in North and South America and 0 countries in Africa.

Here's an interesting map. Of course defining "prosperity" is not perfectly objective. Africa and the ME rate the poorest. Everywhere else their are examples of "prosperity" - based on their definition (i.e. green, light pink and yellow are varying degrees of "prosperous")

Maps on the Web

 

[Koldo]

Here's an interesting map. Of course defining "prosperity" is not perfectly objective. Africa and the ME rate the poorest. Everywhere else their are examples of "prosperity" - based on their definition (i.e. green, light pink and yellow are varying degrees of "prosperous")

Maps on the Web

That's pretty much in line with what I have said. I didn't mention the USA and Canada because they are massive oil exporters. As you can see, the biggest prosperity predictor is being in Europe.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Don't quit your day job to become a mind reader, you suck at it

No, you're right. When somebody can't answer simple questions and throws a tantrum at being asked to provide facts to support their arguments, it's a clear sign that said person is entirely secure in their position.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I just went back and watched the clip again. The "journalist" referred to Wilders many times as far right. But the ONLY explicit position of Wilders that he mentioned was his stance on Islamic immigrants.

So at best this is a sin of omission.

Again, no. That Wilders is far-right is common knowledge over here.
He even literally opens with the sentence "Wilders, who is the leader of the far-right party pvv..."
He goes on to say the party's been around since 2006 as part of the opposition and that the party is controversial because it is considered far right.
He then says Wilders is known to have controversial opinions and illustrates that with an excerpt from a speech where is rants against moroccans (not muslims, moroccans)

Then, as an additional example, he says he is also very anti-islam.
So by no means is this clip "only" about his anti-islam views.

Nothing in the clip is saying this is so because of their views on islam.

In fact, in the entire 5 minute clip, his views on islam are mentioned only twice. Next to that, it's also about immigration in general and his many controversial and radical points of view.

In this video clip, the most parsimonious interpretation is that wanting to stop Islamic immigration is a far right stance.

This is simply not true. Again, nothing in this clip states he is far right because of his anti-islamic views.
It is stated that he is far-right as a premise, as a fact known about him and his party. A fact that was known from 2006 already, when the PVV saw the light of day.

You are misrepresenting it.

Mindless identity politics (IP) is everywhere. People trying to jam others into categories that do not fit so that they can criticize them. The example in this clip is the strong inference that if you want to stop Islamic immigration, you're part of the far right. That's nonsense.

Not at all. Either you are seriously miscomprehending the clip or you are being seriously obtuse or at worst dishonest.

It could be that you're correct. But that is not the point of the OP.

The point of your OP is wrong.
It misrepresents the very sources you are posting.

The point of the OP is to show another example of how "journalists" (and others), dishonestly use IP to slur their opponents.

And it's a false point. This is not what happened in the clip.

The journalist could have taken 15 seconds to list Wilders' other bad actions, but he did not.

He did. It's a 5 minute clip. He mention his anti-islam views only twice.

He focused only on immigration. That was deliiberate.

You know what kind of people always focus on immigration? Far righters.

 

[icehorse]

No, you're right. When somebody can't answer simple questions and throws a tantrum at being asked to provide facts to support their arguments, it's a clear sign that said person is entirely secure in their position.

pot, meet kettle

and stop with your lazy tactics

 

[icehorse]

Either you are seriously miscomprehending the clip or you are being seriously obtuse or at worst dishonest.

Stop it.

We're having a debate, we disagree, that's it. I will not be called dishonest.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Stop it.

We're having a debate, we disagree, that's it. I will not be called dishonest.

I didn't call you dishonest. I merely listed it as an option.

You misrepresented the videoclip. You did this either by honest misunderstanding, or on purpose.
It matters little which it is.

The main point is that the clip does not say what you claim it said. And I've explained multiple times now how it doesn't say what you claim it said.

 

[icehorse]

I didn't call you dishonest. I merely listed it as an option.

Thin ice, but I'll proceed in good faith..

You misrepresented the videoclip. You did this either by honest misunderstanding, or on purpose.
It matters little which it is.

The main point is that the clip does not say what you claim it said. And I've explained multiple times now how it doesn't say what you claim it said.

I think this is a matter of context. If I understand you, you think that we must watch the video with the context that we already know Wilders' politics, is that correct?

My point is that if ALL we have to go on is that video, then we can conclude that the journalist believes the title of the OP, which is that if you hold an anti-theocracy view, that puts you in the far right category.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think this is a matter of context. If I understand you, you think that we must watch the video with the context that we already know Wilders' politics, is that correct?

Not even that. It certainly helps to understand the background, but nevertheless, nowhere in the clip is it said that he is far-right "because" he is anti-islam.

My point is that if ALL we have to go on is that video, then we can conclude that the journalist believes the title of the OP, which is that if you hold an anti-theocracy view, that puts you in the far right category.

No.

 

[icehorse]

Not even that. It certainly helps to understand the background, but nevertheless, nowhere in the clip is it said that he is far-right "because" he is anti-islam.


No.

As is typical with much of what passes as "journalism" these days, the video in general avoids making too many falsifiable claims. That said, it strongly implies the conclusion I draw from the video, while perhaps not saying it directly.

Again, this thread is not some sort of defense of Wilders - it is a criticism of bad, agenda-driven "journalism".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As is typical with much of what passes as "journalism" these days, the video in general avoids making too many falsifiable claims.

So you acknowledge that this is not something being said in the video and that it is something YOU are reading into it?

That said, it strongly implies the conclusion I draw from the video, while perhaps not saying it directly.

So now you are moving from your claim and saying it is "implied" instead.
I disagree with that also. I watched the entire thing 2 times now. I see no such implication.
What I see, is the explicit mention of the PVV / Wilders being "far right" as a premise, as a known fact.
At no point do I see the reporter implying this is so because they are anti-islam.

Again, this thread is not some sort of defense of Wilders - it is a criticism of bad, agenda-driven "journalism".

And I'm informing you that your criticism is invalid.


Feel free to share a time-stamp in the video to statements where you feel like any of these supposed implications are present.

 

[icehorse]

I disagree with that also. I watched the entire thing 2 times now. I see no such implication.

So we've both watched it twice and we come to different conclusions. We'll probably have to agree to disagree, but I will say that you've made it clear that you came to video with a strong bias. I'm happy to grant you that your bias is accurate, but IMO it still colored your take on the video.

So, unless you have other thoughts, it seems we're at an impasse?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So we've both watched it twice and we come to different conclusions. We'll probably have to agree to disagree, but I will say that you've made it clear that you came to video with a strong bias.

Sounds like clear projection on your part.
I note you didn't bother sharing any timestamps to statements where you feel the implications are present.
I on the other hand, in a previous post, did share timestamps to support what I said about it.

So, unless you have other thoughts, it seems we're at an impasse?

It's only an "impasse" because you refuse to argue your case with evidence and instead just stick to your bare claims.

 

[icehorse]

Sounds like clear projection on your part.
I note you didn't bother sharing any timestamps to statements where you feel the implications are present.
I on the other hand, in a previous post, did share timestamps to support what I said about it.

You're asking me to timestamp the lack of a thing, can you see how that would be hard

Again, my claim is that the only specific reason given for Wilders' to be categorized as "far right" is his stance on Islam.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Again, my claim is that the only specific reason given for Wilders' to be categorized as "far right" is his stance on Islam.

If I describe Donald Trump as "a Republican" and go on to subsequently describe his numerous criminal allegations, would you interpret that as me saying that the specific reason he's a Republican is because of his criminal allegations?

If I described Barack Obama as "a black former president" and go on to subsequently describe his use of drone strikes, would you interpret that as me saying that the specific reason he's a black former president is because of his use of drone strikes?

If I said my friend was tall and go on to subsequently describe that he likes lasagne, would you interpret that as me saying that the specific reason he's tall is because he likes lasagne?

This goes beyond basic logic and messaging. This is basic comprehension.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You're asking me to timestamp the lack of a thing, can you see how that would be hard

Again, my claim is that the only specific reason given for Wilders' to be categorized as "far right" is his stance on Islam.

See how these sentences are contradicting?
You say you can't share timestamps to statements in the video because you claim the "lack" of someting.
And in the next sentence you say that you claim his islamophobia is the reason given for him being far right.

I say this is not so. I say neither of these things are ever stated in that video as one being the result from another.

The video is 2 parts. First it introduces Wilders. It lists a few facts about the person and the party. When it was founded, how performed historically, where it falls on the political spectrum (=> far right), the fact that he has radical viewpoints followed by a few examples (he wants less moroccans in a city and he is islamophobic)...

Then in the second part they proceed explaining a theory of how he managed to gain these additional votes and grow so much in the last election.


At no point in the video is it said or otherwise implied that his islamophobia is the reason, let alone the 'only' reason, he is categorized far right.


If you disagree, please point me to the timestamp where this is said or implied.

 

[icehorse]

If I describe Donald Trump as "a Republican" and go on to subsequently describe his numerous criminal allegations, would you interpret that as me saying that the specific reason he's a Republican is because of his criminal allegations?

If I described Barack Obama as "a black former president" and go on to subsequently describe his use of drone strikes, would you interpret that as me saying that the specific reason he's a black former president is because of his use of drone strikes?

If I said my friend was tall and go on to subsequently describe that he likes lasagne, would you interpret that as me saying that the specific reason he's tall is because he likes lasagne?

This goes beyond basic logic and messaging. This is basic comprehension.

If you repeated it, then yes, a reasonable inference could be made.