Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

This did not happen fast though, but over decades.

On one side, the right preparing by slowly taking over positions, on the other side people ignoring the problems of many.

Here in Germany I fear the AfD too may get into power, because instead of fixing the problems that people complained about for decades (costs, bureaucracy, rents, no vision apart from "consume and work") people are fixated on that right wing party itself.

When I did some skydiving in my youth I was fascinated by watching sooo many skydivers barely avoiding the lone single tree near the landing zone. Turns out, if you concentrate on something ("I must avoid that tree I must avoid that tree...") you end up steering towards it. The winning move is to instead concentrate on where you do want to go. There are precious little positive ideas in our politics, it's mostly about what we don't want, or distractions on things that while it sounds nice and it's definitely okay when it gets done should never be the main focus.



> the problems that people complained about for decades (costs, bureaucracy, rents, no vision apart from "consume and work")

Insofar as people are actually going over to AfD (and it's not just exaggerated hysterics, the sky is always falling these days...), it's probably got something to do with the issues which are conspicuously absent from your list, which AfD ostensibly addresses, at least more convincingly than the other parties. Namely, immigration. You may not want to admit that as a real problem at all, but that refusal to engage with the issue is the primary reason people line up for the politicians who at least pretend to care about it.


immigration is a scapegoat. it's not the problem. reducing immigration would not improve anything.


> immigration is a scapegoat. it's not the problem

When you tell people their problem isn't real, you'll more likely drive them to somebody else than gaslight them into siding with you.


> When you tell people their problem isn't real, (...)

Their problems might be real, but they sure are not caused by immigration. The Trump administration boasts about having deported 1M immigrants, and yet everything turned to shit, there are less jobs, pay hasn't increased, and things haven't became more affordable.

The first step to fix a problem is to identify it. Failing to do so risks aggravating the actual problems.


Tons of morons bought the Trump administration lie that Haitian immigrants are eating people’s pets. Their problem isn’t real. They are complete idiots with zero critical thinking skills who have more influence in elections than more rational populations due to this stupid ass country’s prioritizing empty land over actual citizens. Isn’t it funny how when “centrists” compromise with conservatives it always seem ruin things for decades if not centuries?

I had some hope as a millennial youth that we were “evolving” past the conservative mindset. It was insane to me that an ideology that has been consistently wrong from supporting slavery to opposing women’s suffrage would continue to have any support. But here we are still talking about gay marriage again because fucking conservative bigots cannot let anyone live in peace. But I’m sure you consider their “concerns” to be very valid and worth entertaining.


well, the concerns do need to be addressed. it is important that everyone gets an opportunity to voice their grievances and not be ignored. but grievances that come from lack of understanding the reality can only be addressed with education.


[flagged]


you are missing the point. addressing people concerns doesn't mean conceding that they are right about the cause of those concerns. it means listening to them and work with them to find the actual root causes and then fix those. it means taking people seriously with the fact that they have concerns and not ignore them.

ignoring people because you consider their concerns illegitimate doesn't wok when they make up more than 50% of the voters. it doesn't even work when they make up more than say 20% of the voters.

but as i keep repeating, addressing concerns means educating people, not letting them have their way.


i am not telling people that their problem isn't real. i am telling them that their understanding for the cause of their problems isn't what they think it is, or what they are being told it is.

the people who are having problems finding work, facing crime, etc, do not actually have a problem with immigration. they are only getting told by deceptive politicians that dealing with immigration would solve their problems. they are the ones being lied to. that's the nature of a scapegoat.


Tomato, potato. If you refuse to address the issues people have, or even just wrongly feel they have, and the only party that even pretends to care is your spooky boogieman right wing party, and you're so sincerely worried about the implications of that, then pull your head out of your ass and meet people where they are.


well then, what are the problems you are facing? and also tell me how reducing immigration will solve those problems.


Me personally? Right now I'm most bothered by a large splinter in my finger. I'm pretty comfortable and my grander concerns relate not to immigration but rather how America will handle the demise of their global hegemony, if America will go to war with China over Taiwan.. That's what worries me the most.

But concerning immigration, you seem to think that people have other (perhaps even real) problems which they are falsely attributing to immigration. Like "Oh I can't afford a big house because of those damn immigrants" when really the problem is a lack of affordable housing, or some other real issue which you happen to agree is a problem. And to be sure, there is some of that kind of thinking going on. But for the most part, I think people who are upset about immigration really are upset about the immigration itself, particularly from substantially different cultures. There is a prominent belief among anti-immigration people that their governments are trying to ethnically replace them. They want to continue living in the society they grew up in, not in New New Dehli. I suppose you might think they're wrong to want this, we're all one race, the human race, etc. Whatever, all that ideological rhetoric doesn't change the way people vote when they begin to feel like foreigners in their own country.


you seem to think that people have other (perhaps even real) problems which they are falsely attributing to immigration

the only problem that can be directly attributed to immigrants is xenophobia. the solution to xenophobia is education.

really the problem is a lack of affordable housing

and that has to do what with immigrants? no, immigrants are not taking away affordable housing. whatever housing policy is responsible for the lack of affordable housing needs to be changed and can be changed in such a way that there would be enough housing for everyone, including immigrants.

I think people who are upset about immigration really are upset about the immigration itself, particularly from substantially different cultures.

as i said. xenophopia. excuse me if i don't take pity with that. the solution is education, to learn about compassion, care, tolerance, build communities, loving your neighbor, which btw, is a deeply christian value, so before people complain about different cultures how about they actually honor their own culture.

There is a prominent belief among anti-immigration people that their governments are trying to ethnically replace them

and you take this seriously? do you really think people are that dumb, to believe such nonsense?

I suppose you might think they're wrong to want this, we're all one race, the human race, etc. Whatever, all that ideological rhetoric doesn't change the way people vote when they begin to feel like foreigners in their own country.

what then is your proposal to address those issues?

i already shared mine: education, build communities, and fix whatever other real problems people have (housing, jobs, etc)


Most of this is just name calling now, blah blah xenophobia, who cares. I'm talking about the way people feel and you're talking about whether or not they're in the moral right to feel that way. It doesn't matter, people do feel this way and if you refuse to address their concerns then they'll fall in behind others who do.

Remember, the context of this conversation is "Here in Germany I fear the AfD too may get into power, ..."

> muh education though

Do you really believe tha Germans of all people haven't had enough Holocaust Class in school? Get real. You either have to meet people where they are, or accept that they're going to be voting for people that you aren't comfortable with.


what exactly does "meeting people where they are" mean?

if people fear foreign cultures, then the only way to deal with that is to get them in contact with these cultures and learn that these are nice people too. like therapy. that is what i mean by education. not learning about the holocaust, but learning to get along. there is no other way to address this.

you keep telling me that my approach does not work, but i am still waiting for your proposal how to address the issue.


People are tribal, and the clash of values between Islam and postmodern secular Europeans is very real.


again, that clash is not the cause for the problems we are facing.


People/institutions didn't want to fix real problems. This unwillingbess/inability causes problems to spiral and more and more problems to appear. Including the clash.


Cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo weren't killed by capitalism or global climate change.

Personally, I consider the chilling effect of such events on freedom of speech and art quite a huge problem. This freedom was crucial to European prosperity.


But that attack wasn’t representative of any large population, it was the result of terrorists doing terrorist things.


IIRC the results of the "Did they deserve it?" polls among the European Muslim populations weren't particularly encouraging.


What polls?

Well, roots of everything are long. We are a long-lived species and our political attention spans decades or longer. People still think of the Roman Empire and write in Latin alphabet, after all.

But the actual short-term jumps in policy are absolutely wild now. That wasn't the case in the 1990s.


Imagine left leaning orgs being as organized and funded as the right.

GP made the same mistake by putting the AfD on the right and anything else on "the other side that ignores problems". This other side is not the left, its the center or the non-left, which gets good funding too.

The decades of political development were always meant to bolster the current power structures, and i am not talking about pol. parties or the interests of the many and their problems. From that angle, the current political swing is not suprising. Musk and Co are winning their war on the left mind virus, which is much older then them.


The left has a nasty problem with autophagy.

If you are left (I am not, but I have observed it) and you agree with 90 per cent of the ideas of some group, but disagree on the remaining 10 per cent, they will turn on you in fury, denounce you as a traitor, hate you more than an actual opponent. Deviation from orthodoxy is a capital sin.

(This is not new, see how Trotskyists were extirpated by their Stalinist comrades 100 years ago. Heresy is simply not tolerated.)

The right wingers of today are a lot more capable of building a bigger tent, at least right now. Personally, I am somewhat rightwing, but very secular, as usual in Czechia. I still get invited to Christian events even though they know that I am not a believer, and they won't grill me to convert.


The same can be said about the right, but you are correct, infighting is stronger on the left.

But...

Orthodoxy (or better: tribalism) is actually stronger on the right, the key difference is, the right has less political complexity to argue over. "Our pure native culture will fix our problems and the other left outgroups must be suppressed" is pure identity politics, which is imo the core of the right.

The left has, tribalism aside, at least identity independent topics like wealth distribution. Which, unfortunately, threatens the existing power structures.

I can confirm the left ostracizing their own. It happened to me too, but i still consider myself left, because my political ideals are based on more than a group membership.


I think you underestimate the complexity of the right. It is not just secular nationalists all the way down.

First, there are still religious people there, and this very wing is splintered among several groups at least. Famously, many Catholics including JDVance were in a value conflict with their own late Pope Francis. The actual religiously educated people tend to be very good at writing, because the schools that they graduated from are good at teaching persuasion.

Second, there are libertarians, not very numerous but somewhat influential, especially in tech circles.

Then, there still are some trigger-happy neocons, nowadays marginalized, but they may yet come to the fore in case of a bigger war that directly involves the US.

Then, there are reactionary types like Curtis Yarvin, who dismiss any nationalist ideas as blind alley of "demotism".

Even the practical question of "how many people from which country should get a visa yearly and under what conditions" will hit enormous ideological differences in the right-wing tent.


To me, religious people, simple racist and libertarians all suffer from a identity-based cognitive bias. "Our groups or my well being is the ideal to project onto the nation/world." (Neocons dont fit in here, i have to admit. Maybe its abuse of power pleasing the monkey brain, but resulting wealth certainly too.)

I think self-withdrawal is more frequent in left leaning individuals for this exact, more unbiased/intelligent/educated reason.

But you are correct again. There is a lot of complexity on the right, if you look deep enough. But this depth does not cause as much infighting compared to the left, because, again: tribalism taking over higher order reasoning.


> This other side is not the left,

How is that my mistake??? YOU came up with "left". I very deliberately did not say such a ridiculous thing, given that any "left" party has never in power.

I would also appreciate if you did not paraphrase what I wrote when what I wrote still is right there, or at least don't attribute your words to me.

I always find it fascinating, and quite disturbing, how people rewrite what other people wrote to base their "counter-"argument on their rewrite.


You wrote:

> On one side, the right preparing by slowly taking over positions, on the other side people ignoring the problems of many.

You bisected the political landscape, but not into left and right. I did this and, as you may agree on, the center is shifting right too. An aspect i wanted to bring up by adressing your "problems of the many" and where/why the political focus has been on in the past.

Maybe you are familiar with the whole lefty concept of "capitalism inevitably turning into fascism". The right and the status quo center have more in common, so you can group them together and i called it "your mistake".


The reality is that Northern Europe is the safest, most free and wealthiest part of this godforsaken planet. People don't know how good they have it.

It is understandable that Germans voted for the Nazis in 1933. In 2025 they have no excuse. When Germans get grand ideas inside their heads everything always goes bad.


The economic difference between rural former GDR and, say, Denmark, is pretty huge, and AfD mostly dominates in the former GDR regions, where local industries collapsed almost overnight and all talents got picked off by West German employers.

I traveled around most of Europe with a backpack. Former GDR is a dying country, and no amount of subsidies into fixing roads will help it. You cross the border to Poland, nominally you entered a poorer country, but everything is so much more lively there. Poles are so much more optimistic about their future than Germans in general, and East Germans extra.

This psychological difference cannot be appreciated if you only look at GDP per capita tables.


People don't compare themselves with countries on other continents, but with their neighboring countries or with the memories of their own country (how it was in the past).

Swedes look at the statistics of bombing and shooting incidents in this century, while Finns look at economic growth, GDP and salary growth in the last twenty years, especially compared to other Nordic countries.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: