[flagged]
> You are supposed to work with the people you went to school with, and your family connections, all your life
What you describe is common in very closed societies, something we are proud we work not to be. In places where the language doesn’t have a word for networking, we use “networking”. Not sure if it’s the same everywhere, but where I live we have a lot of “new Irish” (as opposed to “born Irish”) and we like to have meet-ups so that all those people who are new to this place can feel welcome.
Yes. We need to have stronger laws to catch those. Not even when they are overtly doing political campaigns, but even when they are just misinforming and radicalizing people for politicians they support. We need to stop that.
I wonder what metric you use for (too many problems). We also jail the most outspoken jihadis, but western Europe has a huge problem with Islamic radicalism anyway.
The far right has fairly high preferences in the last decade or so, so in practice, you have a lot of far right politicians in parliaments and sometimes governments.
Jailing people don't make them disappear, indeed they are good at exploiting the forced pause and radicalizing other people that happen to sit behind the same bars. Which means that their new recruits will stem from the most violent, least socialized subsets of the society.
Ideologies are somewhat contagious. Unless you isolate the carriers socially, which is hard to impossible, they tend to infect new people.
I believe the question here is influence. There is no jihadist party in Europe, but there are plenty of parties (some in governments, some even with almost full control of their countries) that are nazi in everything BUT name.
> The far right has fairly high preferences in the last decade or so, so in practice, you have a lot of far right politicians in parliaments and sometimes governments.
Outrage drives engagement and makes media more profitable. This is why things like Fox News and the Murdochs exist. Now they have discovered they can influence elections as well. We can blame Russia for giving a helping hand to far-right authoritarians aiming to destabilize the EU (and the US, let's not forget that).
> Jailing people don't make them disappear,
No, but it sends a message.
> Ideologies are somewhat contagious. Unless you isolate the carriers socially, which is hard to impossible, they tend to infect new people.
Like any disease, it's hard to fight and, like any contagious and deadly disease, it's worth fighting.
Where I came from "disappeared" means being bundled into a van and turning up dead or not at all.
It's a prime example of corruption, nepotism, subordination, people being jailed, and extradited without prosecution... It's not looking good.
You have a new "deep state" out in the open, composed of billionaires, some of whom got rich through taxpayers' money, you have the President dropping crypto dumps, allowing him to get an influx of cash from undisclosed sources... and isn't he still doing fundraising? For what?
> Not sure what they are planning to gain this way. Just alienate Trump administration and become a subject of government action? That's near certain to happen when you fall out of line.
(Read the article: “disparaging” means quoting what the Quran says about what Muhammad did)
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-fr...
Restrictions on speech always begin by something that many will argue is sensible, then they start growing into what boils down to totalitarianism.
May I introduce you to the Paradox of Tolerance, formulated by the Austrian Karl Popper after seeing the rise of Nazism?
> Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
> In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.
> But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
This seems completely made up.
> Even these ridiculous cases aside, in Europe it's very difficult to fall out of line and question the authority on every level.
What a bunch of nonsense. Exactly because we have things like worker protections we are perfectly fine telling our boss when nonsense comes out. We cant get fired on a whim like Americans, which forces Americans to sycophantic behavior so they wont lose their job and healthcare.
> It takes weeks to build trust with an American, it might take whole life to build trust with a European.
Sounds like a you problem.
I agree. Which European languages? Not English for a start!
The comment is cherry picking bits from different countries and combining them to create a fictional "Europe".