You started a wretched flamewar with this comment. We ban accounts that do this. Please don't do it again.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

"real French" "the kind [of] people that loot trains" As littlestymaar points out, this sounds an awful lot like dog-whistling.

No matter where you were in the developed world, the majority in 1932 (though not necessarily the majority of the elites) would have held similar views or views that were even further away from yours. The US, for instance, had just recently passed an immigration law that was explicitly racist in design, which wasn't repealed until 1965, and even then the proponents of the replacement legislation had to lie through their teeth claiming it would not alter the demographics of the country. England similarly was cracking down on immigration during that period.

>that didn't make any of them right.

Didn't make them right about what?

>The fact that millions of people are still racists nowadays doesn't mean we should accept that either.

You do have to share a country with them, and may rely on them some day to save your skin, so it would probably be a good idea for you to treat them like equals, unless you're looking for a civil war.

>Hopefully, Nazis will be defeated in the long run, but it looks quite far ahead of us unfortunately.

What does that even mean? There are no Nazis today. There's a tiny smattering of people that go around playing dress-up, probably mostly undercover government agents or informants, but the NSDAP is a defunct political organization.

> You do have to share a country with them, and may rely on them some day to save your skin, so it would probably be a good idea for you to treat them like equals, unless you're looking for a civil war.

Interestingly enough, this argument works equally well for immigrants. Some fascists have no problem with the idea of a civil war in that context though…

It is a whole lot easier to expel immigrants than it is to expel a large chunk of the native population, but yes you are correct. Everything I have said applies equally well to immigrants, though immigrants will tend to have fewer expectations about being treated equally.

> > The fact that millions of people are still racists nowadays doesn't mean we should accept that either.

> You do have to share a country with them, and may rely on them some day to save your skin, so it would probably be a good idea for you to treat them like equals, unless you're looking for a civil war.

See I actually think that it's a good thing to call for, say , "stamp out racism". Cause I don't think it's real healthy for a population to just accept racism because, well, you gotta share a country with them.

Would you say this if you believed there was an actual possibility that, one day the target of their racism would be you?

Just imagine that you're living in your country, born there etc, but the brewing racist population happens to not include your particular ethnic group, and it may not be right now, but there is really no reason why they would not continue being racists, well you know, they per definition don't like sharing a country with anyone.

Everywhere in the world and history where such a situation occurred, it happened with some amount of tension and suffering (ranging from economic inequality to holocaust).

I can only imagine someone saying "well they may be racist but you gotta share a country with them" if they were certain to expect to come out on top, given such tensions.

There will also be groups that come out on the bottom, badly. But apparently it doesn't matter if you treat them as equals and share a country with them?

> There are no Nazis today. There's a tiny smattering of people that go around playing dress-up, probably mostly undercover government agents or informants, but the NSDAP is a defunct political organization.

While you are technically correct about the NSDAP ...

I think you're underestimating the amount of neonazis today. Not all of them are quite as on-the-nose with their logo as these guys, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dawn_(political_party)#...

These are not just people playing dress-up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dawn_(political_party)#...

>See I actually think that it's a good thing to call for, say , "stamp out racism".

Does stamping out racism to you involve preventing people from freely and equally participating in the political process? By which I mean being able to utilize the same means to advocate for their interests and political beliefs as any other law-abiding group would be - able to gather in public spaces without fear of physical retaliation, able to utilize the services of major companies that provide electronic resources like payment processing and social media communication and other internet services, and things of that nature.

>Would you say this if you believed there was an actual possibility that, one day the target of their racism would be you?

Yes, I would still say what I have said.

>Just imagine that you're living in your country, born there etc, but the brewing racist population happens to not include your particular ethnic group

Certainly I would not want to share a country with people that thought that way about me. You must be able to rely on your countrymen in times of serious crisis, and obviously I could not rely on those people. I would advocate for physically removing them if I believed that they posed an existential threat to people of my ethnicity and if I believed that such a removal would be feasible. If it was not feasible due to their numbers or influence or whatever I would get out of there for my own safety.

What I would not want under any circumstances is for them to remain in my country but be prevented from advocating for their perceived interests in the same way that everyone else is able, or in other words for them to see that the interests of others are being openly and plainly put ahead of their own perceived interests - if they are not themselves able to advocate for their perceived interests, why should they trust anyone else to further their interests for them, least of all people that are preventing them from advocating for those interests? That is a recipe for civil war, and that is the outcome I would most seek to avoid if I believed they were too powerful to be physically removed.

>but there is really no reason why they would not continue being racists

How many people are you talking about? Enough to influence the outcomes of a democratic government?

>Everywhere in the world and history where such a situation occurred, it happened with some amount of tension and suffering (ranging from economic inequality to holocaust).

What do you think that telling certain people that they can't advocate for their interests using the same means as everyone else is going to do to tensions?

>I think you're underestimating the amount of neonazis today. Not all of them are quite as on-the-nose with their logo as these guys, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dawn_(political_party)#....

A neo-nazi is not a Nazi, and only the dress-up types actually call themselves neo-nazis.

The big issue with your reasoning: racism isn't an opinion, it's a crime. You're talking about freedom, but for good reason you wouldn't give the jihadists the rights you're claiming.

Neither fascists nor Muslim terrorists deserve those rights. And if you say it's not comparable, please reminds that for the past 12 months, there has been more terror attacks committed by white racists than Muslim jihadists in Western countries.

>The big issue with your reasoning: racism isn't an opinion, it's a crime.

Some manifestations of it are in some jurisdictions. How is that an issue with my reasoning?

>You're talking about freedom, but for good reason you wouldn't give the jihadists the rights you're claiming. Neither fascists nor Muslim terrorists deserve those rights.

Do you want a civil war against these "fascists"?

>And if you say it's not comparable, please reminds that for the past 12 months, there has been more terror attacks committed by white racists than Muslim jihadists in Western countries.

How many white racists do you think there are in Western countries?

It would be pretty hypocritical not to.

Ideally, we put ourselves into a situation where it's not a matter of 'giving rights', but removing the ability to remove the ability for people to communicate from people.

Is he wrong though?

Yeah he is. Police have been clashing with Yellow Vest protesters for months. Plenty of 'real French' people there.

Are the yellow vests looting?

I'm not sure if it's just my imagination, but your comment, and especially the “real French” part makes me uneasy.

You aren't implying anything racist are you?

BTW I way less worried about thugs than about antivax mums and other fakemeds enthusiasts believing about conspiracy theory involving “big pharma”.

What's he supposed to do? He went out of his way to put it in the polite way for you. Unless you want to go into complete incomprehensibility, it's a "rock and a hard place" situation.

Personally, I'd prefer such comments not to be made in a euphemistic way and just speak plainly. If you have concerns (valid or not) with immigrants not following the native culture and social norms then say that.

Which method do you think is less likely to result in flags / bans on message boards these days?

Well, looking at this sub-thread, I've just watched you keep your cool while pasabagi throws insults at you. So I would hope their behaviour would be more likely to result in bans.

It looks like even putting it nicely did not save tasogare's comment from our most brave and wonderful moderator.

Many of mine were also flagged, despite me being extremely polite.

> But sure, stating an opinion is the real problem

Where do you get that? All I suggested was you express your opinion clearly, rather than euphemistically.

The way people in a society think influences the character of that society, obviously. Do you disagree with that?

If people in some society like the way their society is, more or less, why should they want to import a whole bunch of people that think very differently from them, who will make their society very different in a way that they are not interested in it becoming? How would that benefit them?

It's a really fundamental tradition of french society, going back to the revolution (or even before) that you can think how you like. If you dislike this foundational principle, then you cannot say you like French society 'how it is'. You are in effect saying you would like to change probably its most fundamental rule.

I don't know if you're using this argument to convince the 'normies', and actually you don't like brown people because they frighten you, or if you actually believe it. People often believe in self-contradictory things, but then again, people with unwarranted self-regard often think they can convince other people with obvious nonsense. Perhaps a bit of both?

>It's a really fundamental tradition of french society, going back to the revolution (or even before) that you can think how you like.

That doesn't mean you have to want people who happen to think very differently to come in. You can like the fact that people in your country are free to think how they like, and also like the fact that most of them happen to like to think certain ways.

>people with unwarranted self-regard often think they can convince other people with obvious nonsense.

Projecting?

Perhaps you should consider that it does make sense, and you simply don't want to understand it. I don't think you're intellectually incapable of understanding it.

Yeah, but that goes against the rules. In civilized conversation, your only choice is to use incomprehensible euphemisms. He did a really great job - there is no kind of dog-whistle or outright strange language ("the urban crowd"). Perhaps he could have wrote 'normal french', but that's honestly a minor gripe.

You really have no choice but to phrase yourself in a way that's only recognizable to the in-crowd. Even here, with the polite expression, he is catching flak.

Personally, I don't discuss politics in real life anymore. Risks are too great. Just the Internet, where on some forums (not this one), you can be honest about what you think.

He's supposed to think the same way as them, of course.