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

> deliberately ignoring some major factor which a lot of the voters care about.

Is it that so, or is it that hate-based shallow arguments appeal to a particular audience more than "more reasonable" policies or discourse?

> once the centrists switched their stance against immigration

Then the far-right would have won and turned the political mainstream into xenophobes. Not a great outcome for the society as a whole. Would arguments centered on supporting immigrants (and refugees fleeing humanitarian crisis) and integrating them into their host society have the same appeal for people who have been fed a diet of fear and hatred?

There has to be a line that should never be crossed in any democratic society. The far right has crossed it.



Either way, banning a political party is just going to feed the flame.

Also, speech you hate ≠ hate speech.


We must be careful with this kind of argument, as it is very similar to blackmail. “If you ban my party, it’ll be much worse”.


> There has to be a line that should never be crossed in any democratic society.

I agree, but...

Does it cross that line to say that too much immigration, too fast, causes some definite, specific negative effects on society?

Does it cross that line to say that therefore we should accept less immigration?

(It definitely crosses that line to say that immigrants are evil, or worse, subhuman.)




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

Search: