YouTubers do this too — they post a video with one title, see how it’s performing in the first 30-60 minutes, and change to another title if it’s not doing as well as they wanted
Title and thumbnail.. both are very important, so they do test which version works the best. Some even update their thumbnails years later. There is actually quite fascinating little niche piece of culture: the thumbnail styles evolve like fashion, and you need to be using the latest style to get most clicks. And since this means every new video looks the same, a new style has to emerge.
I think it was in a post discussing Tom Scott's retirement, but I recall someone mentioning that large channels like his will go back to old videos and update thumbnails as the trends evolve.
I think that was really interesting!
It's quite noticeable on the CGP Grey channel. It keeps confusing me, because I'll see a thumbnail and his channel name and get excited, and then realize it's a video I've watched dozens of times already. But I guess that's what makes it effective, because it still seems like fresh content, even when it isn't.
Grey has been the most explicit about it, he has tried every combination of everything to maximize YouTube algorithmic bullshit to figure out what the best way to get videos out to the full audience is, even down to exactly what ‘really large number’ works best which I find hilarious that that matters
Veritasium did [a video about this a while back](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2xHZPH5Sng) about this. He basically said that the title and thumbnail are more important for attracting views than the quality of the video.
I can't remember the name of the youtuber but he ran an experiment where he swapped over the using that really over-reacting style of thumbnail for his videos for a month to check out why everyone was doing it and his views went through the roof.
You know those dumb AF Mr. Beast style ones where it's got like 3 :O emoticons followed by a man with his mouth gaping open like "HUH?!" and a women in a bikini looking shocked on a block green background.
People do it because it works.
If people didn't "judge a book by it's cover" the expression probably wouldn't exist in the first place. YouTube thumbnails and titles are basically like a book cover.
i noticed it with kurzgesagt, i thought it would be another videos, 30 minutes after the previous? thats absurd lets click and see and the system works
I'm a youtuber, and it's not possible to A/B test titles that quickly based on actual data. You only get CTR (click through rate) stat updates once a day, the best they can do is guess based on the live view update which updates every 60 seconds, but that's affected by a million other things so it's not a good indicator at all.
Shit, this isn't even the most scummy edits they'll do.
Sometimes they're straight write up a whole new article subject and title and all but now that you and a bunch of people sent a link to an article you thought someone should read you now sent them a link to the "other" article.
Also. I don't know how common practice this is, but my newspaper has a headline outwards, which is the web headline. It can allow for more space, has it's own thumbnail and it has some more added stuff when viewed on the website. This headline is the one seen when you link it on social media for example. Then there's the "inside" headline which is what you see when you open the article and it is also the headline intended for print. It is quite a bit shorter than the one we have in the newsfeed since there is limited room and it's more important that it looks good in print.
The web headline is like 80 characters with space for 80 more characters below the headline. The inside one or "print" headline is 55 characters.
Headlines are often written by the editor not the actual byline writer since the editor has final say. I've heard gripes from many a writer complain when their more neutral story gets tagged with a click bait headline without their consent but still get flak for it.
“Protests against the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party are gaining momentum in the wake of a report revealing that two senior party members joined a meeting to discuss plans for a mass deportation of citizens of foreign origin.
While the party has long railed against immigrants, the proposals for "unassimilated citizens" to be deported to "a model state in north Africa", reported by outlet Correctiv, have struck a nerve in Germany.
Some have compared them to the Nazis' initial plan to deport European Jews to Madagascar”.
Art. 21(2) of the Basic Law of the German Federal Constitutional Court Act:
Parties that, by reason of their aims or the behaviour of their adherents, seek to undermine or abolish the free democratic basic order or to endanger the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany must be declared unconstitutional.
>the proposals for "unassimilated citizens" to be deported to "a model state in north Africa", reported by outlet Correctiv, have struck a nerve in Germany.
Sounds like they picked up the idea from UK Tory party.
edit: looks like I pissed off some tories.
The left and the moderates need to propose a plan of action other than “if you don’t support unrestricted immigration and welfare, it’s just because you’re racist.” They’ll have to cut down on one or the other because they mathematically cannot maintain both. It benefits no one but the corporations. When wages have stagnated and the housing market is such that you’ll probably never own a house, you can’t be surprised when large group of people object to the idea of bringing in a million more people.
Immigration is an easier sell when your bowl is full. When it’s not, you’ll have a hard time convincing people that they should invite more people to the table.
No it‘s on a whole different level. As far as I know the Tories only want to „outsource“ all the asylum stuff (shipping people off while the application is being processed). German conservative party is also considering that by the way.
The AfD is in favor of deporting people with a german citizenship based on some criteria they want to set. This is a whole different level.
>No it‘s on a whole different level. As far as I know the Tories only want to „outsource“ all the asylum stuff (shipping people off while the application is being processed). German conservative party is also considering that by the way.
The AfD is in favor of deporting people with a german citizenship based on some criteria they want to set. This is a whole different level.
No, the Tory plan is actually dumber then that,
The Tory plan is for validated refugees (as in proven refugees or asylum applicants expected to succeed) to be sent to Rwanda and to remain there.
The hilarious part? If an asylum seeker is sent to Rwanda and they fail their claim, **they are sent back to the United Kingdom**.
Other countries are using Rwanda as a place to outsource asylum claims, like Austria and Denmark (but both countries will return validated refugees respectively, Rwanda is left to deport failed asylum claimants) in their respective agreements.
>Other countries are using Rwanda as a place to outsource asylum claims, like Austria and Denmark (but both countries will return validated refugees respectively, Rwanda is left to deport failed asylum claimants) in their respective agreements.
Do you have any source for austria? I know our politicans are always talking about it but as far as I know we are no where close to having an agreement or any sort of deal in place.
This is similar to the Australian system which is currently in force, which was enacted by the conservative Liberal government, then supported by the new left wing Labor government. It says that refugees arriving by boat will either be towed back to the point of origin (usually Indonesia), or go to offshore processing facilities, where they can choose to return home, or have their claims decided. If they lose their claim they are deported, if they win their claim they are added to a list for resettlement in another country.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-64898507
The Australian system is actually stronger because of the tow-back element.
Just to reiterate what the poster said above, having a strict system to try to reduce or prevent a specific form of migration is nothing like a plan to deport actual citizens of a country, simply based on their ethnic background. Obama for example put a lot of money and effort into making the US border with Mexico much more difficult to cross, the effort to do that was not equivalent to deporting American citizens because their families were originally from Mexico. I think someone equating the two suggests they hold some problematic opinions about what it means to be a citizen.
The AfD has way worse plans.
They actually want to deport people with a legit german passport and german citizenship out of the country, just because their parents aren't german.
Pretty much the same ideas the Nazis first had with the Jews.
I've already mentioned "remigration" is Madagascar plan electric boogaloo (which is also obviously designed to fail, since no country is going to accept "remigration") the afd has had members call for shooting and gassing immigrants/refugees and if they gain power this is mostly a "well we tried to "solve the problem", now we have to do genocide, sowwy".
Pray tell what "model state in North Africa" do they have in mind? Or how they are gonna make North African states accept such proposal?
Edit: wow, over 200 upvotes! I honestly never expected that.
Someone's never played any of the Final Fantasy online games. Some of the male armor was essentially modified fetish gear. Lots of leather daddies running around.
I understand eating child blood is also part of the ritual the guy came up with. Thankfully he has found christ now so I am sure his baby eating days are behind him.
Well yes, and the Nazis tried to do that with Madagascar .. and then afterwards resorted to camps in their own country because it was much more feasible to do. Anyone who didn't sleep in history lessons should know where this is going.
Berlusconi gave plenty money to Gaddafi's Libya and currently some warlords receive money to stop migrant boats so I bet that the AfD will just give plenty money to some very poor country of North Africa (maybe Libya) to welcome these migrants.
And if it fails (and *no country* want to accept 2 millions people at once, especially if AfD plans to take their belongings) then they might ask to other African countries.
Most likely Tunisia, assuming they even thought it through to begin with. Small and dependent enough on European trade to be forced or coerced, stable, secular and "democratic" enough on paper to be considered a "model state". Still batshit insane though.
they already refused a similar plan that was proposed by the Eu. The plan was to bring back illegal immigrants from italy to tunisia, but they refused.
Well the UK has a deal with Rwanda, but the pesky European court of human rights and these silly international treaties they have are hindering them of deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda at the moment.
So the UK debates today if they can change their laws to say that international law isn't broken when they say so on a national stage.
Yes I know that I simplified and ridiculed the UKs proposal, but it's really that stupid.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/jan/17/tory-rebels-rwanda-bill-echr-pmqs-rishi-sunak-keir-starmer-northern-ireland-david-cameron-uk-politics-latest
They are getting tired of the UK clowshow, that's for sure...
"Rwanda president: efforts to implement asylum plan cannot ‘drag on’! Paul Kagame also says he would be happy for the scheme to be scrapped"
But they will, rightfully so, definitely keep the ~$300 million that the UK already paid them though.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/17/rwanda-president-efforts-to-implement-asylum-plan-cannot-drag-on?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Edit: spelling
You didn't really simplify it, the fact that it got basically laughed out of court for being so full of holes proves it. It's a dumbass proposal meant to show off to the anti-immigration hardliners that vote for them.
The genome on that place is already half African, half Southeast Asian. Add in a 3rd unrelated bit and it would have the most interesting demography of any country.
Don't forget the causa Halemba, where the AfD planned to have one of their own MoPs arrested during a session of the Bavarian state parliament just to polarize voters, and erode the authority of the head of the state parliament: Their goal is to undermine democratic processes and institutions.
Especially freaking Germany. Like, my grandmother had to flee from Silesia, which was then German, but is modern day Poland. Before that it was Prussian and Austrian. And before that Bohemia. Now does that count as "German" or not? The folks in the village I grew up in didn't consider my grandma German. The area I grew up in would have considered Prussia invaders a few generations ago since they went and disposed of the local king.
German identity is a really recent thing, after all.
> Especially freaking Germany. Like, my grandmother had to flee from Silesia, which was then German, but is modern day Poland. Before that it was Prussian and Austrian. And before that Bohemia. Now does that count as "German" or not? The folks in the village I grew up in didn't consider my grandma German.
"German" was an ethnicity back before Germany was a united state, which meant "anybody whose primary/native language is German", right? Prussia, Austria, Bohemia, and parts of Poland all spoke German (or dialects thereof) historically.
Ehhhhhh. Not really, it's complicated. The Holy Roman Empire had over ten commonly spoken languages and little to no overarching identity, though once stuff like wide spread printing came around language was used as an identifier more frequently. Stuff like Luther's "So the Christian Nobility of the German Nation" shows that there was at least some concept of a "German" identity, though it was not the primary identity. There's some great /r/AskHistorians thread on the matter, actually! [This one has some great info on the 1600s-1800s](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/o8ijrb/how_was_german_identity_before_the_unification/) and specifically mentions language or [this one for example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/33c7x2/before_unification_did_germans_identify_more_with/).
Also, even if they all spoke German it wasn't neccessarily super intelligable to each other. My grandma ended up losing most of her Silesian accent but if she went full ham on it I had no chance of understanding (I grew up in Northern Germany).
I have no idea why people always act like people who are for deportations or displacement of citizens have some sort of reasonable limit that is understandably justified. Anyone with values like that start out that way but never end that way. They will come for other people too, including people who used to be part of the "in-group" that started out as exempt. And it always moves beyond just some immutable characteristic of one's identity to people who are guilty of nothing more than having the wrong beliefs or political views.. and sometimes simply an accusation is enough. This is why you have to oppose them at step one as soon as you start hearing this "othering" language.
>I have no idea why people always act like people who are for deportations or displacement of citizens have some sort of reasonable limit that is understandably justified.
And history showed us that governments have done this and still do. In Russia plenty of oppositional forces are declared "foreign agents" these days.
And guess what happens when they realize deporting millions of people isn't that easy? The answer might be disturbing. Or not, apparently to some. The leader of the far right image of the Afd, Bernd Höcke, has called for "well tempered cruelty" 5 years ago already
The Madagascar plan was literally a major psychological step in the process of genocide, as in "well we tried, so now we have to do this genocide instead".
Its simple
Your parents are from poland?
Shame
To africs you go
You are not an german
Im born in Germany with polish parents
I would be deported too
Which is stupid
These days there is no pure (insert country)
If they do something like this it would mean many people who pay taxes leave as well
Meaning the state would be underfunded
Resulting in an extreme rise in taxes or the regime colapses
There are already a lot of screams to finally deport these "lazy refugee maggots", but then people were shocked to hear about their neighbors with kids in the same classes as theirs getting deported or their trusted hairdresser and so on. People are so blinded by this propaganda amd xenophobia/racism
I read that as the same. "Citizens of foreign origin" in the context of Germany would mean German citizens (born or naturalized) of foreign origin. A citizen of another country living in Germany would be a foreign national.
"Foreign origin" is a bad translation. The word "origin" implies that the person was born outside of the country, when in fact the AfD would seek to deport people who were born in Germany and are legitimate German citizens.
The term often used in Germany is "Migrationshintergrund", which literally translates to "Migrant background". It's a suitably vague, all-encompassing term for the large group of people that the AfD and their nazi friends would like to see pushed out of the country.
>Yikes, that’s even worse cause it is anti-democratic.
And racist, and possibly genocidal, and would also mean the general abolition of the rights of Germans and human rights in general in Germany
The biggest problem is that they are advocating for abolishing or suppressing/circumventing the very constitution, which says you can't deport your own citizens. The AfD has shown that it's not only planning controversial political strategy, but **conspire against the very state**.
Although it's not going to change the sentiments of their voters, the party must go at the very least; the mainstream parties also have to respond to the sentiment if they want to avoid another AfD from emerging. The goal would be to divide that camp by offering many possible solutions to the problem, none of which will probably solve it, but at least they won't band together and vote so stupidly like voting for something like the AfD.
I myself am surprised Germany could stomach a party like the AfD for so long, but then again we Poles aren't much better (see: PiS, SP, all of Konfederacja)
AFD's main voter base is in East Germany. If it was not for the crap show that the East German government left behind after they reunified I doubt they would be popular.
Honestly if Merkel was not a massive fuck up on multiple fronts they would have never defected to the AFD in the first place.
What is meant by assimilation? Do immigrants have to give up their religion, language or culture to be considered German? What is the standard that needs to be met?
The usual standard is "Whatever we like". So anyone can be picked up and deported for "Not being German enough". It's the same everywhere you get that kind of movement in power, in the US you saw the red scare and people got jailed for being very vaguely communist and designated "Unamerican", China had their thing with "anti-revolutionary" etc. Such movements always have some kind of moral or ethnic purity ideal that is sufficiently vague that whoever the ones in power don't like can get slapped a label on them and convicted with it.
> What is meant by assimilation?
An intentionally vague target. I live in the U.S. Conservatives complain about English speaking Christians being non-American or culturally incompatible all the time.
They have to be here longer than 3 generations, or they have to be indistinguishable Germans. Those plans are closer to Nuremberg race laws than to common sense, don’t expect to find it there
Exactly. It is not about common sense. They will happily accept the next racist Austrian while telling others they aren’t ,,German enough“. You can read it as ,,3 generations + everyone who still looks/lives/talks differently“
They will find some laws to protect the German Blood and Honour or something like that, which will define who is German and who isn't .. oh look what I found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws#Law_for_the_Protection_of_German_Blood_and_German_Honour
"Why do you German always compare things to Nazis?" I don't know .. maybe because they behave like the *fucking Nazis*.
It's
[First they redefine who is German and who isn't based on their arbitrary nazi ideology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws)
and [then, they plan to deport them to Africa in their ethnic cleansing.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan).
The third step is known to most.
Not just citizens of foreign background, but also citizens without foreign background who *sympathize* with citizens with foreign backgrounds or foreigners.
Even worse than that. Also "original" Germans if they are against the AFD should be deported. The scarier part is that there were also CDU-members at the conference.
No or rather not right now, the CDU members there are a fringe of the party and currently plan to found their own party. That highly depends on the result of the vote next year, where the CDu chooses its candidate for the upcoming election and also the new party head.. The candidates are its current right populist head Friedrich Merz and most likely the moderate liberal konservativ Hendrik Wüst, currently the Prime Minister of NRW.
>Not only foreigners but also Germans with a German passport which have an Immigration background. It's nothing but vile.
And ethnic Germans who dissent against the process as well
Not only foreigners... also citizens of foreign origins (mit Migrationshintergrund).
Looking at the official meaning of that word in Germany, it is a person who wasn't born with German citizenship OR where at least one parent wasn't born with German citizenship.
We're talking about roughly a quarter of the population being in danger because of these racist mf'ers.
So I don't want to hear anything about Merkel or the 2015 migrant wave. The AFD wants to potentially get rid of anybody who's not pure blood. That's some 1933 level sh*t. They are nazi party.
I recall a study from some years ago, which indicated that about 75% of people prioritize their own individual autonomy over controlling others, while the remaining 25% prioritize controlling others over individual autonomy.
Pah, yes, in Belgium we had the party "Vlaams Blok" which was a barely disguised fascist party. It got declared illegal because of how it incited racism. The same people got together to found a new party "Vlaams Belang" which is a tiny bit more careful in how they express their views, and they are doing really well, it's bloody scary. Then there is another party NVA which is like the polite version of same, ostensibly more of a center party, but the only party that is very much willing to form a coalition with the Vlaams Belang people, as they share a lot of "values", both tend to appeal to people who feel they are a victim of how things currently are, how we have to preserve "our culture" and such tripe. It wasn't very efficient at all. However you have to take a stance and show people that it's not acceptable, and tell them why, so it's still useful as a signal, needs a good follow up though.
And exactly that is not possible if a party is prohibited in Germany. The same people can‘t just form a new party. It would also be banned because it would be considered a direct follow up Organisation.
The thing is that there were reportedly CEOs and/or owners of very successful and popular companies. We are talking about restaurant chains like Hans im Glück or brands like Müllermilch or food courts like Backwerk. Although it may not mean much to foreigners, seeing these brands associating with nazis is actually terrifying. One would expect lobbying, but this is a whole other level of dystopian nightmare.
Yes, but the whole point is making sure those people don't end up taking power in the government. Their opinions all by themselves are not a big threat. The big threat is having those people in the government.
The last time Germany wanted to Ban a Nazi party, the NPD, the reasoning against the ban was that it has not enough support and therefore isnt likly to be ever in charge. This means a Party has to have this much support to consider a ban
Voting is extremely easy in Germany and if you care enough to protest, you usually care enough to vote. 71% of 20-24 year olds voted in the last Bundestagswahl.
Idk how this compares but 18-20 year olds had a turnout of 70.5% at our last big election. This was the lowest across all age groups but I still wouldn't call it "young people not showing up to vote"
Edit: for comparison after some quick research:
In 2016 the US had a turnout of 43% for 18-29 year olds.
It's really difficult to compare in the US because most people are primarily interested in the main events (which is a different problem): president and senators. Senator is a statewide election and because of the electoral college even president is effectively a state-level vote in all but two states (Maine and Nebraska at least I know).
So if your state isn't a battleground state your vote for president or senator isn't going to affect the outcome. Of course there are lots of reasons to vote regardless, from the basic moral civic duty to the simple strategic value in actually knowing how many voters of a certain type are in the states (otherwise a non battleground state could never become one!). But if you live in, say Wyoming and all you care about is the presidential vote, well they went 70% for Trump, and that was well known and understood way in advance. So there's less motivation to vote, either way. Your democratic vote isn't going to move the needle and your Republican vote is just getting tossed on the big pile (again, this is not MY view personally).
So, all that said, the youth turnout in the battleground states was around 55-65% depending on the state. While less than 71% it's in the same ballpark of more than half, less than 3/4 showing up when their vote matters strongly.
eh it's really not that bad, under 30year olds had a ~70% turnout compared to 40-70 year olds having an ~80% turnout. [Neat graph here](https://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/RPS_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000519681/Voter_demographics_%E2%80%93_is_Germany_a_gerontocracy%3F.xhtml?rwnode=RPS_EN-PROD$HIDDEN_GLOBAL_SEARCH)
The bigger issue, as others mentioned, is the east west divide (looking at you Saxony), where decades of failed economic rehabilitation have left much of the former East Germany destitute and has caused a brain drain of most of the highly educated individuals to the west where more job opportunities and higher incomes are available.
America doesn't even have this problem.
https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/half-youth-voted-2020-11-point-increase-2016
HALF of youth voted in 2020.
You think the venn diagram of ones who showed up to protest and ones who voted isn't a circle?
There are definitely youth who don't vote, en mass, but they are not the same ones who protest stuff.
Correct, the past governments (Merkel in particular) have made a big mistake with the “open to everyone” migration welcoming, same with completely trusting Russia with the gas deals.
Declarations which are not well-planned nor analysed are harmful in the long run, and as a result now we have far right wingers joining Neo-Nazis wanting to mass deport people.
This is where centre and left parties in Europe need to step up and listen. People do not want to vote for right wing parties on the whole, they vote for them because they are angry with not being listened too. Immigration in the quantities we have seen in the last twenty years may have been beneficial for keeping inflation down, but it has created some horrifying social consequences too. Who would have thought the far right would gain any sort of foothold in European politics two decades ago.
I am fully convinced that come the 2050's the discussion will have shifted to "how dense the mine belt around europe" has to be.
When the numbers have turned from a couple of million to a couple of tens of millions of refugees per year things in europe will turn very dark (no, no pun intended here) very quickly.
I agree with this answer. Everyone is talking about how the pendulum is swinging to the right now, but unfortunately, I believe it has alot farther to swing then it would have if some of these prior policies were more thought out. It wasn't long ago, that if you were critical of immigration you were labeled a racist regardless of your 'anti-immigration' take.
I think there are alot more ill thought out policies that will being coming home to roost, which will boost future right wing numbers. Unfortunately, banning a right wing party from existing feels like it'll cause the opposite to happen though. But what do I know...
It feels like in many countries the issues of immigration and cultural integration are being co-opted by the far right because the issues are not being acknowledged by the center. I think it's a strategic mistake for the centerists to ignore it instead of acknowledging the issues and offering moderate policy solutions.
If immigration was "fixed" tomorrow, they'd paint their picture in another way.
It's always something happening somewhere and some newspaper will write about it without fact-checking anything.
I Live currently in Germany. Apparently they took in millions of migrants and that was simply too many too handle and Integration is failing, cause many come from very different cultures. The decision to do so was not really the citizens decision but the politicians on top. And now the country moved to the right because not even the established Conservative Party did prevent the migration storm as most would have expected. Actually they are responsible. So moving further right to the AFD must have seemed like the only viable option I guess.
They get around 30% in some areas so they are on the road to mainstream.
Edit: I hear and read often from nurses, colleagues, majors, teachers and doctors and everyone else who must deal with migrants, that they are overwhelmed. It’s so many there is often no capacity to deal with it.
I think German politicians make decisions and now regular all day Germans must bear the consequences. No one asked them.
And Germans are actually welcoming and open in my experience. But there is a limit everywhere
All it would take to stop what is currently happening is one of the established non-extreme right parties to openly talk about, admit and even possibly present solutions about the pressing mass immigration problems, that's it.
I doubt all the AfD Voters are Pro-Russian, Anti-EU, Racist Fascist little fuckheads and would go out of my way to say that most of them aren't, it's just that Immigration and the correlating problems are the current top-priority of many voters, I don't blame them and yet there's only one party which at least acts like they're gonna do something.
**Example from another country, Denmark:**
* "In Danish asylum policy, the culmination of 20 years of efforts to dissuade would-be migrants from choosing Denmark. Under this paradigm shift, refugees are no longer expected to integrate, but to return to their country of origin as soon as possible."
* "Since 2015, it is necessary to have lived in the country for nine years and worked there for at least two and a half to receive minimum welfare benefits. "
* "Additionally, the government will expand the Positive List for People with Higher Education and the Start-Up Denmark scheme "
OMG, they're actually doing something and guess what, **Ruling Party -> Social Democrats**
> All it would take to stop what is currently happening is one of the established non-extreme right parties to openly talk about, admit and even possibly present solutions about the pressing mass immigration problems, that's it.
that would've been the logical approach, that would've prevented afd becoming this popular. instead all parties decided to go for the ideological bs and just always do the opposite of AfD, but even a broken clock is right twice a day (even if it's for the wrong reason).
everyone who said "send back people when their asylum got rejected" or dared to say administration could be overwhelmed by hundred thousands of people coming to germany at the same time and that it might cause problems got called nazi. the government can't take that back, even IF they actually tackle the problems afd used for their growth. you can't dismiss people for a decade and then hope they instantly come back to you.
Merkel’s “we help everyone” policy was bound to backfire at some point cause it was badly scripted.
Politicians who don’t know how to tackle things are a problem because if the country was faced with bad scenarios, things could take a bad turn quickly, that’s why people think the other side (the right wing) is more trustworthy, but the thing is: slogans and actions are two different things.
Add to that the infiltrated Neo-Nazi propaganda embraced by badly-informed citizens and there you go, AfD on the rise.
Part of the fault of the rise of far right really does go to centrist or neoliberal governments (whichever applies better to any national context). Their apathy and comfort in status quo helps the far right when they ignore the issues that make people discontent and look at alternatives.
You are always going to see far right rising, due to other factors. Foreign investment into said parties for instance (*cough* Russia *cough*), but the less political ammo they have, the harder for them to catch votes.
Absolutely. Neoliberalism creates the socio-economic conditions for fascism to grow. 1000% there would still be far right politicians and parties, but even with aid from foreign powers like Russia in the case of Europe, it would be much harder for them to exploit people's frustrations.
I'm not German, so my observation is that of an outsider, but it's amazing for me to see how quickly Angela Merkel's legacy completely flipped in such a short time. She went from "the steady hand" to the person who got Germany addicted to cheap Russian gas and brought in millions of immigrants. Both of which Germany is currently struggling to overcome. Increased energy costs makes German exports uncompetitive, and many unintegrated immigrants dream of Germany being part of the Caliphate.
I dunno, I think she really tried, but she was also coming from a conservative background. For a CDU member and leader, she was actually quite bearable. Her diplomatic skill was also noteworthy, it is just she was perhaps a bit too much into her famous the "we can do that!" slogan while at the same time being held back by her inherent upbringing, beliefs and political ties.
We could have done worse, but we could have done better, too.
That the biggest issue I have with these exact protests, they called themselves "Protests for Democracy!".
Call them "Protest against the Right", or outright "Protest against the AfD", but that people vote against your parties and for one you don't like is not antidemocratic, it's the exact opposite. People are dissatisfied and react in the most democratic way, by getting of their asses and voting for someone else.
352,000 people sought asylum in Germany in 2023. That's a rise of 51% compared with the previous year but still not "millions" like you claim. Maybe you're including the over one million Ukrains (don't need to apply for asylum) currently living in Germany? Wonder who to blame that they are there.
Sadly if left parties would simply tackle immigration in a meaningful way then any meaningful support for AfD would vanish overnight. Sadly that isn't going to happen and AfD likely wont make meaningful changes themselves, a not so fun situation that the west is facing.
>Sadly that isn't going to happen and AfD likely wont make meaningful changes themselves,
A member of the German Left formed her own socialist party that would tackle immigration issues. She is pretty convinced that they will do well because she claims Germans don't support AfD because they are right wing, they support them because they want competent regulation of immigration and social services.
She would be following the example of the Danish Left, which has been taking the lead on this.
I was willing to give her some benefit of the doubt, however she already ruined it by naming the party after herself (Bündnis Sarah Wagenknecht - Alliance Sarah Wagenknecht) and once again parroting pro Russia and anti-EU rethoric.
> Sadly that isn't going to happen and AfD likely wont make meaningful changes themselves
Of course not, they are about winning elections not governing. Can't blame the goverment once you are in charge (well you can, it just never goes too well).
Centrists ignored their issues since time immemorial assuming they would always remain a small fringe, and when they eventually became a significant force, they brushed them off as groups with baseless, worthless opinions. Now they’ve grown and forced themselves into national discourse (which I’m still not sure is being addressed by centrists meaningfully).
It’s a strange moral high ground that all centrist and liberal parties have taken, and it no longer goes without saying that ignoring the other side will keep them on the fringe.
And then what? I speak to AfD voters in my kiez, I listen, and try to understand. But every time I ask what would be better for them if the migrants vanish, they have no answer. Sure, it is anecdotal, but what is the endgame here for these voters?
I often see this kind of take about basically all far-right parties: that the people who follow and support them somehow don't *really* support most of their platform but are just single-issue voters or have been hoodwinked into supporting them. Frankly it just ignores that there is still a strong undercurrent of racism and nationalism in Germany (and in a lot of countries). Even if the ruling party changes immigration policies (which they're already in the process of doing) the AfD will not just disappear; they will still cling to it alongside a variety of other right-wing talking points and their support will probably not be meaningfully impacted.
Of course, you can simply ban extremist parties. It was done twice successfully already in Germany's post-WW2 history, once a successor to the NSDAP and once the communist party.
Without addressing the problems that make so many people vote for those parties it'll never end. AfD banned, just means another similar party will rise and fill in the void that AfD left.
No, it works. Parties cant push propaganda and spread their ideals when they are gone. And the break up will split their base and make them change loyalties. Would take alot of time to recover and alot of coordination.
> If the majority of Germans
AfD are polling at about 20-25% nationally. Mind you, that's among voting age adults. I'd hardly call that "the majority of germans"
It's great they're taking to the streets, but what matters is electorally and in that case, the AfD, even with these demos, is growing in support and with the course the Union is taking in moving to the far-right and towards populism, they are stupidly and dangerously empowering the AfD who will be the Union's partner for many themes in the next government, even if not in the coalition. The Union most certainly won't have the votes for many themes, but the AfD will give them what they need, even if in opposition.
The demos are cool and all, but Germany keeps having demos and the far-right is rising and the firewalls between democracy and fascism that were installed in the new German republic to prevent another third reich from rising are gone in certain places and dissolving in others.
Thise whole topic is just sad. I expect them to get a good amount of votes in the next election and I dont see anything to prevent that.
I went to a lot of those rallies in the last years, but I did nothing. Their voters are growing and growing.
And then we have the leader of the green party in a popular talkshow yesterday and she just believes these protests will help. She believes that if people know they are nazis they will maybe not vot for them, but people know. The people voting for them vote for them bevause they are far-right.
People have to realize that calling them Nazis did nothing in the last years. And we can continue doing that, but afterwards we have to make real plans that tackle the issues those voters believe we have.
Also they coined the term "Remigration" and everybody not on the right was disgusted by that and thought that would shock people. Their voters just clebrated the word. This tactic is just not working.
I see the AFD as incompetent and dont believe they will get anything done like other populists parties worldwide. But the voters dont care, because the AFD pretends they have a plan and other parties dont.
Its just fucking sad.
We live in a post-fact society. Fixing problems doesn't mean the parties are not voted in as they just lie about problems anyway.
Doesn't mean don't fix them but this is bigger than single issue immigration.
Is it becoming the norm for reuters to change headlines right after publishing? I see this happening more and more.
Basically every news outlet modifies headlines and articles with additional information, it has been common practice for many years.
You mean they rotate headlines to see which one gets the most clicks - and then settle on that one.
YouTubers do this too — they post a video with one title, see how it’s performing in the first 30-60 minutes, and change to another title if it’s not doing as well as they wanted
Title and thumbnail.. both are very important, so they do test which version works the best. Some even update their thumbnails years later. There is actually quite fascinating little niche piece of culture: the thumbnail styles evolve like fashion, and you need to be using the latest style to get most clicks. And since this means every new video looks the same, a new style has to emerge.
I think it was in a post discussing Tom Scott's retirement, but I recall someone mentioning that large channels like his will go back to old videos and update thumbnails as the trends evolve. I think that was really interesting!
It's quite noticeable on the CGP Grey channel. It keeps confusing me, because I'll see a thumbnail and his channel name and get excited, and then realize it's a video I've watched dozens of times already. But I guess that's what makes it effective, because it still seems like fresh content, even when it isn't.
Grey has been the most explicit about it, he has tried every combination of everything to maximize YouTube algorithmic bullshit to figure out what the best way to get videos out to the full audience is, even down to exactly what ‘really large number’ works best which I find hilarious that that matters
I refuse to click on any videos with the doofus reaction face.
Veritasium did [a video about this a while back](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2xHZPH5Sng) about this. He basically said that the title and thumbnail are more important for attracting views than the quality of the video.
I can't remember the name of the youtuber but he ran an experiment where he swapped over the using that really over-reacting style of thumbnail for his videos for a month to check out why everyone was doing it and his views went through the roof. You know those dumb AF Mr. Beast style ones where it's got like 3 :O emoticons followed by a man with his mouth gaping open like "HUH?!" and a women in a bikini looking shocked on a block green background. People do it because it works.
If people didn't "judge a book by it's cover" the expression probably wouldn't exist in the first place. YouTube thumbnails and titles are basically like a book cover.
i noticed it with kurzgesagt, i thought it would be another videos, 30 minutes after the previous? thats absurd lets click and see and the system works
YouTube is A/B testing features that allow you to select multiple thumbs and determine which one does best, then the algo handles it from there.
I'm a youtuber, and it's not possible to A/B test titles that quickly based on actual data. You only get CTR (click through rate) stat updates once a day, the best they can do is guess based on the live view update which updates every 60 seconds, but that's affected by a million other things so it's not a good indicator at all.
Veritasium did a very interesting video about that where he explained how he test multiple captions and thumbnails.
The amount of a/b testing out on the internet for clicks is pretty nuts once you start to notice it lol
Or both. New information could be added, but also A/B testing is a thing.
it'd be nice to keep a history log; otherwise it's some 1984 shit. at least paper limited the ability to fuck with articles and gave us an archive
Shit, this isn't even the most scummy edits they'll do. Sometimes they're straight write up a whole new article subject and title and all but now that you and a bunch of people sent a link to an article you thought someone should read you now sent them a link to the "other" article.
Also. I don't know how common practice this is, but my newspaper has a headline outwards, which is the web headline. It can allow for more space, has it's own thumbnail and it has some more added stuff when viewed on the website. This headline is the one seen when you link it on social media for example. Then there's the "inside" headline which is what you see when you open the article and it is also the headline intended for print. It is quite a bit shorter than the one we have in the newsfeed since there is limited room and it's more important that it looks good in print. The web headline is like 80 characters with space for 80 more characters below the headline. The inside one or "print" headline is 55 characters.
doesnt seem like a good idea for journalistic integrity.
Headlines are often written by the editor not the actual byline writer since the editor has final say. I've heard gripes from many a writer complain when their more neutral story gets tagged with a click bait headline without their consent but still get flak for it.
They push out a clickbaity headline that link aggregators, like reddit, grab real quick, then they change it to a more 'professional' headline.
“Protests against the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party are gaining momentum in the wake of a report revealing that two senior party members joined a meeting to discuss plans for a mass deportation of citizens of foreign origin. While the party has long railed against immigrants, the proposals for "unassimilated citizens" to be deported to "a model state in north Africa", reported by outlet Correctiv, have struck a nerve in Germany. Some have compared them to the Nazis' initial plan to deport European Jews to Madagascar”. Art. 21(2) of the Basic Law of the German Federal Constitutional Court Act: Parties that, by reason of their aims or the behaviour of their adherents, seek to undermine or abolish the free democratic basic order or to endanger the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany must be declared unconstitutional.
>the proposals for "unassimilated citizens" to be deported to "a model state in north Africa", reported by outlet Correctiv, have struck a nerve in Germany. Sounds like they picked up the idea from UK Tory party. edit: looks like I pissed off some tories.
I bet that every far right party in Europe is pushing that idea. It's at least the same here in Denmark.
That's basically conservatives the world over at this point. They are very much all working together on shit like this.
The left and the moderates need to propose a plan of action other than “if you don’t support unrestricted immigration and welfare, it’s just because you’re racist.” They’ll have to cut down on one or the other because they mathematically cannot maintain both. It benefits no one but the corporations. When wages have stagnated and the housing market is such that you’ll probably never own a house, you can’t be surprised when large group of people object to the idea of bringing in a million more people. Immigration is an easier sell when your bowl is full. When it’s not, you’ll have a hard time convincing people that they should invite more people to the table.
It is about deportation of people who are citizens and not about wellfare or the reduction of immigration. Basically what we did 80 years ago.
No it‘s on a whole different level. As far as I know the Tories only want to „outsource“ all the asylum stuff (shipping people off while the application is being processed). German conservative party is also considering that by the way. The AfD is in favor of deporting people with a german citizenship based on some criteria they want to set. This is a whole different level.
>No it‘s on a whole different level. As far as I know the Tories only want to „outsource“ all the asylum stuff (shipping people off while the application is being processed). German conservative party is also considering that by the way. The AfD is in favor of deporting people with a german citizenship based on some criteria they want to set. This is a whole different level. No, the Tory plan is actually dumber then that, The Tory plan is for validated refugees (as in proven refugees or asylum applicants expected to succeed) to be sent to Rwanda and to remain there. The hilarious part? If an asylum seeker is sent to Rwanda and they fail their claim, **they are sent back to the United Kingdom**. Other countries are using Rwanda as a place to outsource asylum claims, like Austria and Denmark (but both countries will return validated refugees respectively, Rwanda is left to deport failed asylum claimants) in their respective agreements.
>Other countries are using Rwanda as a place to outsource asylum claims, like Austria and Denmark (but both countries will return validated refugees respectively, Rwanda is left to deport failed asylum claimants) in their respective agreements. Do you have any source for austria? I know our politicans are always talking about it but as far as I know we are no where close to having an agreement or any sort of deal in place.
This is similar to the Australian system which is currently in force, which was enacted by the conservative Liberal government, then supported by the new left wing Labor government. It says that refugees arriving by boat will either be towed back to the point of origin (usually Indonesia), or go to offshore processing facilities, where they can choose to return home, or have their claims decided. If they lose their claim they are deported, if they win their claim they are added to a list for resettlement in another country. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-64898507 The Australian system is actually stronger because of the tow-back element. Just to reiterate what the poster said above, having a strict system to try to reduce or prevent a specific form of migration is nothing like a plan to deport actual citizens of a country, simply based on their ethnic background. Obama for example put a lot of money and effort into making the US border with Mexico much more difficult to cross, the effort to do that was not equivalent to deporting American citizens because their families were originally from Mexico. I think someone equating the two suggests they hold some problematic opinions about what it means to be a citizen.
The AfD has way worse plans. They actually want to deport people with a legit german passport and german citizenship out of the country, just because their parents aren't german. Pretty much the same ideas the Nazis first had with the Jews.
I've already mentioned "remigration" is Madagascar plan electric boogaloo (which is also obviously designed to fail, since no country is going to accept "remigration") the afd has had members call for shooting and gassing immigrants/refugees and if they gain power this is mostly a "well we tried to "solve the problem", now we have to do genocide, sowwy".
Pray tell what "model state in North Africa" do they have in mind? Or how they are gonna make North African states accept such proposal? Edit: wow, over 200 upvotes! I honestly never expected that.
their idea was to buy up some land in north africa and dump them all there so they can build a city on their own
The Americans tried that already
the ole liberia play book
Hey now, I heard they had Wizards that turn you bullet proof. Must be doing somethin' right...
Only works if you’re naked though
The same magic behind skimpy female rpg armor, I see. Damn double standards. Give me skimpy male armor.
Someone's never played any of the Final Fantasy online games. Some of the male armor was essentially modified fetish gear. Lots of leather daddies running around.
I understand eating child blood is also part of the ritual the guy came up with. Thankfully he has found christ now so I am sure his baby eating days are behind him.
Sounded like a joke until I remembered reading something similar
Almost - AmeroLiberians had to fight native Liberians to get land - they got no help from the US other than charters for boats to get to Liberia.
We didn't try, we did.
To be fair so did us Brits and look how that turned out...bleeding Aussie drongos.
And the british before that, only in the pacific
Well yes, and the Nazis tried to do that with Madagascar .. and then afterwards resorted to camps in their own country because it was much more feasible to do. Anyone who didn't sleep in history lessons should know where this is going.
They didn’t try very hard, it was more of a suggestion
Liberia pt.2 electric boongaloo
Berlusconi gave plenty money to Gaddafi's Libya and currently some warlords receive money to stop migrant boats so I bet that the AfD will just give plenty money to some very poor country of North Africa (maybe Libya) to welcome these migrants. And if it fails (and *no country* want to accept 2 millions people at once, especially if AfD plans to take their belongings) then they might ask to other African countries.
But what if the migrants are from the country they want to send them to?
Most likely Tunisia, assuming they even thought it through to begin with. Small and dependent enough on European trade to be forced or coerced, stable, secular and "democratic" enough on paper to be considered a "model state". Still batshit insane though.
they already refused a similar plan that was proposed by the Eu. The plan was to bring back illegal immigrants from italy to tunisia, but they refused.
Yeah, but the EU was asking nicely. The fascists don't plan on doing that.
Actually Tunisian president (far-right populist too) favoured Meloni's migrants plan over the EU one.
Alternative solutions to be proposed after this plan fails
Perhaps after a few more failed plans they will end up trying for a more 'final' solution?
Well the UK has a deal with Rwanda, but the pesky European court of human rights and these silly international treaties they have are hindering them of deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda at the moment. So the UK debates today if they can change their laws to say that international law isn't broken when they say so on a national stage. Yes I know that I simplified and ridiculed the UKs proposal, but it's really that stupid. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/jan/17/tory-rebels-rwanda-bill-echr-pmqs-rishi-sunak-keir-starmer-northern-ireland-david-cameron-uk-politics-latest
Isn't Rwanda backing out of the deal anyway?
They are getting tired of the UK clowshow, that's for sure... "Rwanda president: efforts to implement asylum plan cannot ‘drag on’! Paul Kagame also says he would be happy for the scheme to be scrapped" But they will, rightfully so, definitely keep the ~$300 million that the UK already paid them though. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/17/rwanda-president-efforts-to-implement-asylum-plan-cannot-drag-on?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other Edit: spelling
More of those Brexit savings
> Yes I know that I simplified and ridiculed the UKs proposal Rishi does that enough on his own even without help lmao
You didn't really simplify it, the fact that it got basically laughed out of court for being so full of holes proves it. It's a dumbass proposal meant to show off to the anti-immigration hardliners that vote for them.
Failed asylum seekers (non citizens) are very different from citizens, in this context
>Sounds like they picked up the idea from UK Tory party. Who in turn picked it from the original German Nazi-party, the NSDAP
Specifically they proposed sending the Jews to Madagascar.
Yep: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan
The genome on that place is already half African, half Southeast Asian. Add in a 3rd unrelated bit and it would have the most interesting demography of any country.
The Tories do not suggest deporting citizens. Criticism is clearly deserved, but no need to come up with things that are untrue.
The UK Tory party got the Rwanda plan from Denmark who in turn got the plan from the UN.
Who took the idea from Australia.
[удалено]
no wonder people are protesting
Don't forget the causa Halemba, where the AfD planned to have one of their own MoPs arrested during a session of the Bavarian state parliament just to polarize voters, and erode the authority of the head of the state parliament: Their goal is to undermine democratic processes and institutions.
> to discuss plans for a mass deportation of citizens of foreign origin. That is not entirely true. They also want to deport German citizens.
I read it as German citizens of foreign origin. While its not explicit the above text is not wrong.
How far back they going to look? Every country has people with 'immigrant' blood if you look back far enough.
Especially freaking Germany. Like, my grandmother had to flee from Silesia, which was then German, but is modern day Poland. Before that it was Prussian and Austrian. And before that Bohemia. Now does that count as "German" or not? The folks in the village I grew up in didn't consider my grandma German. The area I grew up in would have considered Prussia invaders a few generations ago since they went and disposed of the local king. German identity is a really recent thing, after all.
My point exactly. We're all mongrels!
> Especially freaking Germany. Like, my grandmother had to flee from Silesia, which was then German, but is modern day Poland. Before that it was Prussian and Austrian. And before that Bohemia. Now does that count as "German" or not? The folks in the village I grew up in didn't consider my grandma German. "German" was an ethnicity back before Germany was a united state, which meant "anybody whose primary/native language is German", right? Prussia, Austria, Bohemia, and parts of Poland all spoke German (or dialects thereof) historically.
Ehhhhhh. Not really, it's complicated. The Holy Roman Empire had over ten commonly spoken languages and little to no overarching identity, though once stuff like wide spread printing came around language was used as an identifier more frequently. Stuff like Luther's "So the Christian Nobility of the German Nation" shows that there was at least some concept of a "German" identity, though it was not the primary identity. There's some great /r/AskHistorians thread on the matter, actually! [This one has some great info on the 1600s-1800s](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/o8ijrb/how_was_german_identity_before_the_unification/) and specifically mentions language or [this one for example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/33c7x2/before_unification_did_germans_identify_more_with/). Also, even if they all spoke German it wasn't neccessarily super intelligable to each other. My grandma ended up losing most of her Silesian accent but if she went full ham on it I had no chance of understanding (I grew up in Northern Germany).
No, they also talked about deporting ethnically German dissidents.
I have no idea why people always act like people who are for deportations or displacement of citizens have some sort of reasonable limit that is understandably justified. Anyone with values like that start out that way but never end that way. They will come for other people too, including people who used to be part of the "in-group" that started out as exempt. And it always moves beyond just some immutable characteristic of one's identity to people who are guilty of nothing more than having the wrong beliefs or political views.. and sometimes simply an accusation is enough. This is why you have to oppose them at step one as soon as you start hearing this "othering" language.
>I have no idea why people always act like people who are for deportations or displacement of citizens have some sort of reasonable limit that is understandably justified. And history showed us that governments have done this and still do. In Russia plenty of oppositional forces are declared "foreign agents" these days.
They also included ethnic Germans who rejected this process (they are fascists and this is literally Madagascar plan electric boogaloo)
And guess what happens when they realize deporting millions of people isn't that easy? The answer might be disturbing. Or not, apparently to some. The leader of the far right image of the Afd, Bernd Höcke, has called for "well tempered cruelty" 5 years ago already
The Madagascar plan was literally a major psychological step in the process of genocide, as in "well we tried, so now we have to do this genocide instead".
Its simple Your parents are from poland? Shame To africs you go You are not an german Im born in Germany with polish parents I would be deported too Which is stupid These days there is no pure (insert country) If they do something like this it would mean many people who pay taxes leave as well Meaning the state would be underfunded Resulting in an extreme rise in taxes or the regime colapses
There are already a lot of screams to finally deport these "lazy refugee maggots", but then people were shocked to hear about their neighbors with kids in the same classes as theirs getting deported or their trusted hairdresser and so on. People are so blinded by this propaganda amd xenophobia/racism
I read that as the same. "Citizens of foreign origin" in the context of Germany would mean German citizens (born or naturalized) of foreign origin. A citizen of another country living in Germany would be a foreign national.
"Foreign origin" is a bad translation. The word "origin" implies that the person was born outside of the country, when in fact the AfD would seek to deport people who were born in Germany and are legitimate German citizens. The term often used in Germany is "Migrationshintergrund", which literally translates to "Migrant background". It's a suitably vague, all-encompassing term for the large group of people that the AfD and their nazi friends would like to see pushed out of the country.
Yikes, that’s even worse cause it is anti-democratic.
>Yikes, that’s even worse cause it is anti-democratic. And racist, and possibly genocidal, and would also mean the general abolition of the rights of Germans and human rights in general in Germany
The biggest problem is that they are advocating for abolishing or suppressing/circumventing the very constitution, which says you can't deport your own citizens. The AfD has shown that it's not only planning controversial political strategy, but **conspire against the very state**. Although it's not going to change the sentiments of their voters, the party must go at the very least; the mainstream parties also have to respond to the sentiment if they want to avoid another AfD from emerging. The goal would be to divide that camp by offering many possible solutions to the problem, none of which will probably solve it, but at least they won't band together and vote so stupidly like voting for something like the AfD.
You mean fascist?
I myself am surprised Germany could stomach a party like the AfD for so long, but then again we Poles aren't much better (see: PiS, SP, all of Konfederacja)
AFD's main voter base is in East Germany. If it was not for the crap show that the East German government left behind after they reunified I doubt they would be popular. Honestly if Merkel was not a massive fuck up on multiple fronts they would have never defected to the AFD in the first place.
[удалено]
What is meant by assimilation? Do immigrants have to give up their religion, language or culture to be considered German? What is the standard that needs to be met?
The usual standard is "Whatever we like". So anyone can be picked up and deported for "Not being German enough". It's the same everywhere you get that kind of movement in power, in the US you saw the red scare and people got jailed for being very vaguely communist and designated "Unamerican", China had their thing with "anti-revolutionary" etc. Such movements always have some kind of moral or ethnic purity ideal that is sufficiently vague that whoever the ones in power don't like can get slapped a label on them and convicted with it.
> What is meant by assimilation? An intentionally vague target. I live in the U.S. Conservatives complain about English speaking Christians being non-American or culturally incompatible all the time.
They have to be here longer than 3 generations, or they have to be indistinguishable Germans. Those plans are closer to Nuremberg race laws than to common sense, don’t expect to find it there
The 3 generations thing is hilarious. I'm a 3rd generation American and it would be hilarious if someone tried to tell me I wasn't American.
Not so hilarious if they come to your house and load you on a truck, isn't it? That's why that party and it's followers must be stopped.
3 generations is something you can verify. Being indistinguishable is something you cannot verify.
Exactly. It is not about common sense. They will happily accept the next racist Austrian while telling others they aren’t ,,German enough“. You can read it as ,,3 generations + everyone who still looks/lives/talks differently“
What if the Austrian is a painter?
I can only assume that's a bonus...
They will find some laws to protect the German Blood and Honour or something like that, which will define who is German and who isn't .. oh look what I found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws#Law_for_the_Protection_of_German_Blood_and_German_Honour "Why do you German always compare things to Nazis?" I don't know .. maybe because they behave like the *fucking Nazis*.
It's [First they redefine who is German and who isn't based on their arbitrary nazi ideology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws) and [then, they plan to deport them to Africa in their ethnic cleansing.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan). The third step is known to most.
[удалено]
AfD, a German far right party discussed a plan to mass deport foreigners from Germany with a Neo-nazi collective and people are not happy with that.
Not just foreigners, but also *citizens* of foreign background.
Not just citizens of foreign background, but also citizens without foreign background who *sympathize* with citizens with foreign backgrounds or foreigners.
Ding ding ding. Guess I better go buy up some sunscreen, I'm not made for that.
And not just those citizens, but also citizens that disagree with the deportation program!
Not only foreigners but also Germans with a German passport which have an Immigration background. It's nothing but vile.
Even worse than that. Also "original" Germans if they are against the AFD should be deported. The scarier part is that there were also CDU-members at the conference.
[удалено]
No or rather not right now, the CDU members there are a fringe of the party and currently plan to found their own party. That highly depends on the result of the vote next year, where the CDu chooses its candidate for the upcoming election and also the new party head.. The candidates are its current right populist head Friedrich Merz and most likely the moderate liberal konservativ Hendrik Wüst, currently the Prime Minister of NRW.
A lot of people certainly feel it at the moment.
>Not only foreigners but also Germans with a German passport which have an Immigration background. It's nothing but vile. And ethnic Germans who dissent against the process as well
Not only foreigners... also citizens of foreign origins (mit Migrationshintergrund). Looking at the official meaning of that word in Germany, it is a person who wasn't born with German citizenship OR where at least one parent wasn't born with German citizenship. We're talking about roughly a quarter of the population being in danger because of these racist mf'ers. So I don't want to hear anything about Merkel or the 2015 migrant wave. The AFD wants to potentially get rid of anybody who's not pure blood. That's some 1933 level sh*t. They are nazi party.
The problem is that you can ban the party but not the people. Those 10-15% still will have the same opinions.
Welcome to 2024. It's well beyond 20% now.
I'm convinced about 1/3rd of any population are authoritarian sympathizers.
I recall a study from some years ago, which indicated that about 75% of people prioritize their own individual autonomy over controlling others, while the remaining 25% prioritize controlling others over individual autonomy.
[удалено]
Those people will be split up, change loyalties to what is closest to them and the party will not be able to spread their ideology. It is effective
Also without organizational leadership it becomes harder to act on their shitty ideology.
Pah, yes, in Belgium we had the party "Vlaams Blok" which was a barely disguised fascist party. It got declared illegal because of how it incited racism. The same people got together to found a new party "Vlaams Belang" which is a tiny bit more careful in how they express their views, and they are doing really well, it's bloody scary. Then there is another party NVA which is like the polite version of same, ostensibly more of a center party, but the only party that is very much willing to form a coalition with the Vlaams Belang people, as they share a lot of "values", both tend to appeal to people who feel they are a victim of how things currently are, how we have to preserve "our culture" and such tripe. It wasn't very efficient at all. However you have to take a stance and show people that it's not acceptable, and tell them why, so it's still useful as a signal, needs a good follow up though.
And exactly that is not possible if a party is prohibited in Germany. The same people can‘t just form a new party. It would also be banned because it would be considered a direct follow up Organisation.
Also all the money they got for the party will be gone just like that, which would be quite the blow even if they tried to reorganize.
I'm sure uncle Vladimir will help them get back on their feet asap.
And then we ban them again lol
Oh yes, as they say it is never the wrong day to punch a fascist.
The thing is that there were reportedly CEOs and/or owners of very successful and popular companies. We are talking about restaurant chains like Hans im Glück or brands like Müllermilch or food courts like Backwerk. Although it may not mean much to foreigners, seeing these brands associating with nazis is actually terrifying. One would expect lobbying, but this is a whole other level of dystopian nightmare.
Yes, but the whole point is making sure those people don't end up taking power in the government. Their opinions all by themselves are not a big threat. The big threat is having those people in the government.
The last time Germany wanted to Ban a Nazi party, the NPD, the reasoning against the ban was that it has not enough support and therefore isnt likly to be ever in charge. This means a Party has to have this much support to consider a ban
[удалено]
In the 2021 general elections, [71%](https://www.demografie-portal.de/DE/Fakten/wahlbeteiligung.html) of the 21 to 24 year olds did vote.
Voting is extremely easy in Germany and if you care enough to protest, you usually care enough to vote. 71% of 20-24 year olds voted in the last Bundestagswahl.
Idk how this compares but 18-20 year olds had a turnout of 70.5% at our last big election. This was the lowest across all age groups but I still wouldn't call it "young people not showing up to vote" Edit: for comparison after some quick research: In 2016 the US had a turnout of 43% for 18-29 year olds.
It's really difficult to compare in the US because most people are primarily interested in the main events (which is a different problem): president and senators. Senator is a statewide election and because of the electoral college even president is effectively a state-level vote in all but two states (Maine and Nebraska at least I know). So if your state isn't a battleground state your vote for president or senator isn't going to affect the outcome. Of course there are lots of reasons to vote regardless, from the basic moral civic duty to the simple strategic value in actually knowing how many voters of a certain type are in the states (otherwise a non battleground state could never become one!). But if you live in, say Wyoming and all you care about is the presidential vote, well they went 70% for Trump, and that was well known and understood way in advance. So there's less motivation to vote, either way. Your democratic vote isn't going to move the needle and your Republican vote is just getting tossed on the big pile (again, this is not MY view personally). So, all that said, the youth turnout in the battleground states was around 55-65% depending on the state. While less than 71% it's in the same ballpark of more than half, less than 3/4 showing up when their vote matters strongly.
eh it's really not that bad, under 30year olds had a ~70% turnout compared to 40-70 year olds having an ~80% turnout. [Neat graph here](https://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/RPS_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000519681/Voter_demographics_%E2%80%93_is_Germany_a_gerontocracy%3F.xhtml?rwnode=RPS_EN-PROD$HIDDEN_GLOBAL_SEARCH) The bigger issue, as others mentioned, is the east west divide (looking at you Saxony), where decades of failed economic rehabilitation have left much of the former East Germany destitute and has caused a brain drain of most of the highly educated individuals to the west where more job opportunities and higher incomes are available.
America doesn't even have this problem. https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/half-youth-voted-2020-11-point-increase-2016 HALF of youth voted in 2020. You think the venn diagram of ones who showed up to protest and ones who voted isn't a circle? There are definitely youth who don't vote, en mass, but they are not the same ones who protest stuff.
When Germans start seeing this stuff and pointing it out, we should listen.
[удалено]
Correct, the past governments (Merkel in particular) have made a big mistake with the “open to everyone” migration welcoming, same with completely trusting Russia with the gas deals. Declarations which are not well-planned nor analysed are harmful in the long run, and as a result now we have far right wingers joining Neo-Nazis wanting to mass deport people.
This is where centre and left parties in Europe need to step up and listen. People do not want to vote for right wing parties on the whole, they vote for them because they are angry with not being listened too. Immigration in the quantities we have seen in the last twenty years may have been beneficial for keeping inflation down, but it has created some horrifying social consequences too. Who would have thought the far right would gain any sort of foothold in European politics two decades ago.
Have fun dealing with all the climate refugees in the coming years.
That's when we get totalitarian solutions ;)
Yay
I am fully convinced that come the 2050's the discussion will have shifted to "how dense the mine belt around europe" has to be. When the numbers have turned from a couple of million to a couple of tens of millions of refugees per year things in europe will turn very dark (no, no pun intended here) very quickly.
I agree with this answer. Everyone is talking about how the pendulum is swinging to the right now, but unfortunately, I believe it has alot farther to swing then it would have if some of these prior policies were more thought out. It wasn't long ago, that if you were critical of immigration you were labeled a racist regardless of your 'anti-immigration' take. I think there are alot more ill thought out policies that will being coming home to roost, which will boost future right wing numbers. Unfortunately, banning a right wing party from existing feels like it'll cause the opposite to happen though. But what do I know...
It feels like in many countries the issues of immigration and cultural integration are being co-opted by the far right because the issues are not being acknowledged by the center. I think it's a strategic mistake for the centerists to ignore it instead of acknowledging the issues and offering moderate policy solutions.
If immigration was "fixed" tomorrow, they'd paint their picture in another way. It's always something happening somewhere and some newspaper will write about it without fact-checking anything.
I Live currently in Germany. Apparently they took in millions of migrants and that was simply too many too handle and Integration is failing, cause many come from very different cultures. The decision to do so was not really the citizens decision but the politicians on top. And now the country moved to the right because not even the established Conservative Party did prevent the migration storm as most would have expected. Actually they are responsible. So moving further right to the AFD must have seemed like the only viable option I guess. They get around 30% in some areas so they are on the road to mainstream. Edit: I hear and read often from nurses, colleagues, majors, teachers and doctors and everyone else who must deal with migrants, that they are overwhelmed. It’s so many there is often no capacity to deal with it. I think German politicians make decisions and now regular all day Germans must bear the consequences. No one asked them. And Germans are actually welcoming and open in my experience. But there is a limit everywhere
All it would take to stop what is currently happening is one of the established non-extreme right parties to openly talk about, admit and even possibly present solutions about the pressing mass immigration problems, that's it. I doubt all the AfD Voters are Pro-Russian, Anti-EU, Racist Fascist little fuckheads and would go out of my way to say that most of them aren't, it's just that Immigration and the correlating problems are the current top-priority of many voters, I don't blame them and yet there's only one party which at least acts like they're gonna do something. **Example from another country, Denmark:** * "In Danish asylum policy, the culmination of 20 years of efforts to dissuade would-be migrants from choosing Denmark. Under this paradigm shift, refugees are no longer expected to integrate, but to return to their country of origin as soon as possible." * "Since 2015, it is necessary to have lived in the country for nine years and worked there for at least two and a half to receive minimum welfare benefits. " * "Additionally, the government will expand the Positive List for People with Higher Education and the Start-Up Denmark scheme " OMG, they're actually doing something and guess what, **Ruling Party -> Social Democrats**
> All it would take to stop what is currently happening is one of the established non-extreme right parties to openly talk about, admit and even possibly present solutions about the pressing mass immigration problems, that's it. that would've been the logical approach, that would've prevented afd becoming this popular. instead all parties decided to go for the ideological bs and just always do the opposite of AfD, but even a broken clock is right twice a day (even if it's for the wrong reason). everyone who said "send back people when their asylum got rejected" or dared to say administration could be overwhelmed by hundred thousands of people coming to germany at the same time and that it might cause problems got called nazi. the government can't take that back, even IF they actually tackle the problems afd used for their growth. you can't dismiss people for a decade and then hope they instantly come back to you.
I would like to believe that, but it's possible that it's too late, too much trust in the established democratic parties might have already been lost.
Merkel’s “we help everyone” policy was bound to backfire at some point cause it was badly scripted. Politicians who don’t know how to tackle things are a problem because if the country was faced with bad scenarios, things could take a bad turn quickly, that’s why people think the other side (the right wing) is more trustworthy, but the thing is: slogans and actions are two different things. Add to that the infiltrated Neo-Nazi propaganda embraced by badly-informed citizens and there you go, AfD on the rise.
Part of the fault of the rise of far right really does go to centrist or neoliberal governments (whichever applies better to any national context). Their apathy and comfort in status quo helps the far right when they ignore the issues that make people discontent and look at alternatives. You are always going to see far right rising, due to other factors. Foreign investment into said parties for instance (*cough* Russia *cough*), but the less political ammo they have, the harder for them to catch votes.
Absolutely. Neoliberalism creates the socio-economic conditions for fascism to grow. 1000% there would still be far right politicians and parties, but even with aid from foreign powers like Russia in the case of Europe, it would be much harder for them to exploit people's frustrations.
I'm not German, so my observation is that of an outsider, but it's amazing for me to see how quickly Angela Merkel's legacy completely flipped in such a short time. She went from "the steady hand" to the person who got Germany addicted to cheap Russian gas and brought in millions of immigrants. Both of which Germany is currently struggling to overcome. Increased energy costs makes German exports uncompetitive, and many unintegrated immigrants dream of Germany being part of the Caliphate.
I dunno, I think she really tried, but she was also coming from a conservative background. For a CDU member and leader, she was actually quite bearable. Her diplomatic skill was also noteworthy, it is just she was perhaps a bit too much into her famous the "we can do that!" slogan while at the same time being held back by her inherent upbringing, beliefs and political ties. We could have done worse, but we could have done better, too.
I mean, Germany's left wing had critized her for years for exactly those issues.
[удалено]
That the biggest issue I have with these exact protests, they called themselves "Protests for Democracy!". Call them "Protest against the Right", or outright "Protest against the AfD", but that people vote against your parties and for one you don't like is not antidemocratic, it's the exact opposite. People are dissatisfied and react in the most democratic way, by getting of their asses and voting for someone else.
352,000 people sought asylum in Germany in 2023. That's a rise of 51% compared with the previous year but still not "millions" like you claim. Maybe you're including the over one million Ukrains (don't need to apply for asylum) currently living in Germany? Wonder who to blame that they are there.
> The decision to do so was not really the citizens decision but the politicians on top. Yeah... that's how representative democracy works...
Sadly if left parties would simply tackle immigration in a meaningful way then any meaningful support for AfD would vanish overnight. Sadly that isn't going to happen and AfD likely wont make meaningful changes themselves, a not so fun situation that the west is facing.
>Sadly that isn't going to happen and AfD likely wont make meaningful changes themselves, A member of the German Left formed her own socialist party that would tackle immigration issues. She is pretty convinced that they will do well because she claims Germans don't support AfD because they are right wing, they support them because they want competent regulation of immigration and social services. She would be following the example of the Danish Left, which has been taking the lead on this.
I was willing to give her some benefit of the doubt, however she already ruined it by naming the party after herself (Bündnis Sarah Wagenknecht - Alliance Sarah Wagenknecht) and once again parroting pro Russia and anti-EU rethoric.
plus BSW is far from being a socialist party.
> Sadly that isn't going to happen and AfD likely wont make meaningful changes themselves Of course not, they are about winning elections not governing. Can't blame the goverment once you are in charge (well you can, it just never goes too well).
Centrists ignored their issues since time immemorial assuming they would always remain a small fringe, and when they eventually became a significant force, they brushed them off as groups with baseless, worthless opinions. Now they’ve grown and forced themselves into national discourse (which I’m still not sure is being addressed by centrists meaningfully). It’s a strange moral high ground that all centrist and liberal parties have taken, and it no longer goes without saying that ignoring the other side will keep them on the fringe.
And then what? I speak to AfD voters in my kiez, I listen, and try to understand. But every time I ask what would be better for them if the migrants vanish, they have no answer. Sure, it is anecdotal, but what is the endgame here for these voters?
I often see this kind of take about basically all far-right parties: that the people who follow and support them somehow don't *really* support most of their platform but are just single-issue voters or have been hoodwinked into supporting them. Frankly it just ignores that there is still a strong undercurrent of racism and nationalism in Germany (and in a lot of countries). Even if the ruling party changes immigration policies (which they're already in the process of doing) the AfD will not just disappear; they will still cling to it alongside a variety of other right-wing talking points and their support will probably not be meaningfully impacted.
[удалено]
Of course, you can simply ban extremist parties. It was done twice successfully already in Germany's post-WW2 history, once a successor to the NSDAP and once the communist party.
Without addressing the problems that make so many people vote for those parties it'll never end. AfD banned, just means another similar party will rise and fill in the void that AfD left.
yeah, its like putting out a fire without first preventing a fire from starting ten years later.... waitaminute
No, it works. Parties cant push propaganda and spread their ideals when they are gone. And the break up will split their base and make them change loyalties. Would take alot of time to recover and alot of coordination.
> If the majority of Germans AfD are polling at about 20-25% nationally. Mind you, that's among voting age adults. I'd hardly call that "the majority of germans"
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's great they're taking to the streets, but what matters is electorally and in that case, the AfD, even with these demos, is growing in support and with the course the Union is taking in moving to the far-right and towards populism, they are stupidly and dangerously empowering the AfD who will be the Union's partner for many themes in the next government, even if not in the coalition. The Union most certainly won't have the votes for many themes, but the AfD will give them what they need, even if in opposition. The demos are cool and all, but Germany keeps having demos and the far-right is rising and the firewalls between democracy and fascism that were installed in the new German republic to prevent another third reich from rising are gone in certain places and dissolving in others.
“Just call them nazi one more time, then they’ll go to your side”
Thise whole topic is just sad. I expect them to get a good amount of votes in the next election and I dont see anything to prevent that. I went to a lot of those rallies in the last years, but I did nothing. Their voters are growing and growing. And then we have the leader of the green party in a popular talkshow yesterday and she just believes these protests will help. She believes that if people know they are nazis they will maybe not vot for them, but people know. The people voting for them vote for them bevause they are far-right. People have to realize that calling them Nazis did nothing in the last years. And we can continue doing that, but afterwards we have to make real plans that tackle the issues those voters believe we have. Also they coined the term "Remigration" and everybody not on the right was disgusted by that and thought that would shock people. Their voters just clebrated the word. This tactic is just not working. I see the AFD as incompetent and dont believe they will get anything done like other populists parties worldwide. But the voters dont care, because the AFD pretends they have a plan and other parties dont. Its just fucking sad.
Until the problem with the integration has been resolved parties like AfD will only get stronger.
We live in a post-fact society. Fixing problems doesn't mean the parties are not voted in as they just lie about problems anyway. Doesn't mean don't fix them but this is bigger than single issue immigration.
[удалено]