Blaming this on 'racism' is a poor argument. Maybe it has something to do with the incompatible cultures and values.
But the more interesting post is to point out that if you allow racists the power to destroy an entire line of argumentation for all purposes forever by using it, you are ceding to them enormous power to control the discourse, even accidentally, by completely determining the bounds of acceptable debate.
Racism is bad, but the way we treat it as radioactive waste nowadays has itself become a danger to society. It's merely bad. It is not the One True Sin, it is not the cause of all life's problems, it is not the One Temptation in life that if resisted means we can stop worrying about our moral status, it is not something that permanently twists everything it touches into an eternerally-unredeemable black goo, even ye unto a dozen generations. It's merely a bad thing that hurts people. Giving it the power to be those other things is an error too.
So, yes, it is perfectly valid to address the question of "incompatible cultures and values". Of course, it does require one to admit that cultures have values that can differ from one another, which is, admittedly, a door that once you walk through does suddenly make a lot of the prepackaged really "nice" answers in current discourse suddenly obviously too oversimplified to be useful for any purpose, but such is reality.
Art 9. – As an amendment to Article 24 of the law of July 29, 1881 on the freedom of the press, article 24 (a) is as follows written: <<Art. 24 (a). - those who have disputed the existence of one or more crimes against humanity such as they are defined by Article 6 of the statute of the international tribunal military annexed in the agreement of London of August 8, 1945 and which were a carried out either by the members of an organization declared criminal pursuant to Article 9 of the aforementioned statute, or by a person found guilty such crimes by a French or international jurisdiction shall be punished by one month to one year's imprisonment or a fine.
In Turkey you literally can't admit that a genocide happened.
I also wouldn't be welcoming a country that refuses to acknowledge the full independence of another EU member state (Cyprus).
If you want to play the racism/xenophobia card and pretend that these are not the big issues we have against Turkey in EU go ahead, but I can't tell you that you are not convincing anyone.
Really? Because Cyprus would:
>Cyprus is in favor of Turkey's Accession to the EU with the hope it will facilitate a viable and just solution of the Cyprus Problem. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Cyprus#Tu...)
The current situation is just Erdogan having his revenge on Europe for dropping Turkey.
Not to mention the PKK would obviously help end ISIS.
Even Iraqi Kurds trying to ban PKK because they know what's going on in that organization. Even Kurds in turkey are not happy with PKK. They want a reform , but most of them wants stay in turkey, while the "being Turkish citizen definition changed".Look at how popular HDP is in Kurdish areas in Turkey.
You have no clue what are you talking about. for further reference , please read/listen to Henri Barkey from Woodrow Wilson which is well respected political scientist.
This is pure nonsense.
Are you kidding me?
do you have any idea what you are talking about?
You have no clue what are you talking about.
wasting people times in HN
Hard politics isn't a great fit for HN to begin with, but if you're going to contribute to such discussions as inevitably arise, it's important to follow these rules—particularly when others are being wrong and provocative.
(None of this is a comment on your politics, only on how you're presenting them. The same applies to all HN users.)
But in a case like this, dang may be happy to let you edit or delete the comment.
You should email hn@ycombinator.com to request this.
- "How could Isis be eliminated? In the region, everyone knows. All it would really take would be to unleash the largely Kurdish forces of the YPG (Democratic Union party) in Syria, and PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ party) guerillas in Iraq and Turkey. These are, currently, the main forces actually fighting Isis on the ground. They have proved extraordinarily militarily effective and oppose every aspect of Isis’s reactionary ideology." (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/18/turkey-...)
- Erdogan went apeshit after HDP deprived him his parliament majority: "The cynicism behind Erdogan’s calculation to launch a full-scale war against the PKK is stunning." (http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/21/erdogans-deadly-ambition...)
- “'Kurdish people are fighting for our rights, and Turkey is trying to finish us off,' says 53-year-old Ramazon Sakci as he stands in the garden of his home, which is riddled with bullet holes.” (http://www.thenation.com/article/turkey-is-fighting-a-dirty-...)
That's a form of personal attack which is inevitably provocative of a much worse thread. Please edit such rudeness out of your posts here. Your question would have been fine, and less self-undermining, had you done so.
Why? Abuse stays with people during the day, and it is better to ever-so-slightly reflect it back on the abuser, than for it to come out on your employees (or friends, children, dog...)
[1] "You have no clue what are you talking about", "how much people can be stupid and naive", etc.
The big irony is here , how much people can be stupid and naive. My claim wasn't against Chomsky , It is quite opposite , Chomsky is completely right, But you don't know what you are talking about, Chomsky does not support PKK as he multiple times stated PKK have done seriously bad things. but at the other hand Turkish government have done so many bad things too, this is your shallow understanding about politics, which you think in every case there should be Good vs Evil. That is not the case at all . please come to the real world. you don't have clue what you are engaging to. Most of the time (almost 99% time) it is Evil vs Evil and only people got hurt is simple ordinary people.
There is a narrow line between "Erdogan is dictator (which is absolutely correct and turkey law is ridiculously weak in human rights) and PKK is good" and "Erdogan is dictator and PKK does use this opportunity to improve its position, and PKK does not give fuck about Kurds" (which is Noam Chomsky position in this video too, look at how he condemn PKK at to ordinary people, but he dos not attack PKK because he knows establishment media in west will make great deal of it to prove their point which is Chomsky fighting against it). Sadly people like you are incapable of understanding these tactics used by politicians.
if you want to check real protector of Kurd's people, look at HDP (if you do know turkey at all) and don't waste people time.PKK is not popular in east turkey, I have so many friends lives in northern Iraq north-west of iran and east of turkey and most of them (all of them Kurds which do want their rights) don't give fuck about PKK. At the other hand look at how HDP protects and fights for Kurds in right way.
look at this part. it completely proves my point! https://youtu.be/Vbkqk5WLbLs?t=453 How much people like you can be naive.
Chomsky: They’re killing Yazidis. So what do you do? You support the people who are saving the Yazidis. Who happen to be on the US terrorist list.
Hasan: The PKK.
Chomsky: Yes. They are the ones who are primarily responsible for saving the Yazidis.
Hasan: If the Americans say, "We will drop bombs, and they have been working with various Kurdish groups." Do you support that? I’m just wondering. You, as a critic, do you support that?
Chomsky: Support working with the Kurds? Yeah.
[...]
Chomsky: To the extent that they are supporting the Kurds in Rojava, as they call it, so the Kurdish area of Syria, have defended their territory, seem to be developing, as well as you can under these conditions, a fairly decent society, very different from anything else in Syria, they certainly merit support.
Where the terms "multicultural" and "religiously tolerant" apparently mean something quite a bit different from today (just like Athenian democracy from ours, for example).
I know this is a taboo subject, but we should stop acting as if religion was a racial attribute. It's not. Religions are opinions, and people will have to accept that others will take those opinions into account when it comes to forming a political union.
The difficult thing is that only individuals can hold opinions but only countries can join the EU. So we are forced by the very nature of this decision to make a summary judgement that ignores individual opinions and therefore will be very unfair to some.
This is something I am personally struggling with when it comes to Turkish EU membership.