Originally Posted by
Burney
You accept that 'these muslims are an issue', but at the same time condemn anyone who is concerned about the issue and seeks to do something about it democratically as a Nazi? The political mainstream in Germany has colluded in refusing to address the issue - or even acknowledge that an issue exists. Given which, it's hardly surprising that Germans are turning to a party that does. These are not people with swastikas tattooed on their faces. They're ordinary decent people - many of them former CDU voters - who have turned to AfD.
The problem is that the German desire to 'behave well' in the light of their historical wrongs has led them to behave in a way that - while it may give them a happy glow in the short-term - has massive and damaging implications in the long term not just for them, but for the whole of mainland Europe. Why should the rest of Europe suffer for the Germans' guilty conscience? Germany's actions were irresponsible and reckless and it's fair to point that out without being called a fascist or told you're 'freaking out'.
The mass, uncontrolled immigration of millions of young men from completely alien cultures with very different values and beliefs has profound long-term consequences for the society that imports them. History has shown that muslims do not assimilate in western cultures, so any idea that everyone will rub along and it'll all turn out OK is simply fantasy. It is not 'freaking out' to recognise and address these facts. Neither is it freaking out to acknowledge the demonstrable fact that these mass importations have led to serious social problems (to put it mildly).
Of course, the problem with debates about immigration is that they always descend into an antagonistic binary. One side calls the other gullible fools and terrorist sympathisers, while the other calls its opponents bigots, racists, Nazis, etc. It is much more helpful to see it in terms of competing virtues. One side believes there is a moral duty to accept immigrants, while the other recognises that there are negative effects to immigration and asks whether any moral case for immigration justifies these negatives for the existing population. There is no need to impute bad motives to either side, since both are simply expressing legitimate concerns and neither is bad or mean by virtue of their stance. Unfortunately, nobody ever wants to argue along these lines, so instead we get stuck with the usual mudslinging and no sensible debate is ever achieved.