About politico.eu
-
No, the axis will be there regardless of their names and regardless of whether you choose to recognise them or not. I reject treating politics this reductively because it benefits conservatives and neoliberals primarily.
-
You make neoliberalism sound like fringe when it is the mainstream ideology that dictates how the world works.
-
First, that's your reading. I never commented on the spread of any ideology.
Second, what do you want to argue about? I answered your question about bow neoliberalism is a right wing ideology (that you framed as center-left btw). -
It's a bit exhausting. I use https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ to see biases and credibility of different websites. Anything that's not at least Center-X and High I pretty much dismiss. Rest I take with heaps of salt.
How do I know that site is trustworthy? I don't đź«
-
I'd like to urge more good-faith argumentation from your side here. Whether or not neoliberalism is "fringe" was not the question.
This discussion was about Politico = Axel Springer = neoliberalism = right-wing.
-
I’m fairly sure you won’t dispute that Christian democracy is a right wing ideology. What commonalities to neoliberalism do you see between both? You probably won’t find much so it makes little sense to group them together as „right wing”.
Incidentally, all the Christian Democratic parties morphed into fervently neoliberal parties. So there does appear to be a connection between the ideologies, no?
I’m not a conservative by any means but I don’t mind true right wing ideology. It can be a compassionate philosophy that focuses on common good.
Quite honestly -- is there a person or historical system to exemplify this?
-
I was confused there and thought you were saying that they were bought by the Shell corporation. But after doing some searching and reading, I see what you mean: a shell corporation.
There’s definitely concern around Victor Orban’s influence. And your own news have had Clickbait headlines for quite awhile already. I prefer DW now myself.
-
Axel Springer SE is owned by billionaires, too, and they're obviously far right, too.
-
Incidentally, all the Christian Democratic parties morphed into fervently neoliberal parties. So there does appear to be a connection between the ideologies, no?
Yes and no. Conservatives lost relevance in a world of meritocracy, most of their points were on a losing side eventually. People who come to power now, on the backs of conservative voters, don’t even try to be factually correct and therefore offer a way to continue ideological left-right war (hence the post-truth moniker used by some people). The hard pill to swallow about this is that maybe extreme meritocracy is not sustainable, or at least not sustainable in a system that doesn’t benefit the largest possible majority in practice. And maybe that politics can’t be means of changing societal norms as those have to happen naturally. A political force attempting such thing would need to have high legitimacy and current elites don’t have it because they usually prioritised interests of the largest businesses.
What I’m trying to say is that no matter which perspective you use to try to look into the future, there’s no positive outcome if neoliberalism is involved. I’m arguing with people online in an effort that sometime in the future they’re not deceived by neoliberals pretending to be right or left wing politician and that’s why I insist on making a distinction.
Quite honestly -- is there a person or historical system to exemplify this?
Christian democrats in Western Europe adapted many things from social democrats, mostly on welfare state which is critical element of societal cohesion. Those parties were since then eaten from the inside by neoliberalism that corrupted both right and left but for a time whole world aspired to European quality of life. We might not agree on societal norms with Christian democrats but things like Catholic social teaching is solid stuff to build upon.
-
The public discourse shifted (/was engineered to shift) so far right in the last 10-20 years, that you have to assume:
Right = extremist
Center = right
Left = center
Radical left = left
Left-leaning media is usually written based on facts. Which, somehow, in these times is accused to be „biased“.
-
MBFC is run by some dude whose evidence basically is also just "trust me bro".
At the end of the day you won't get around reading multiple sources and trying to understand for yourself what is going on. Also there is issues that are systematically ignored or downplayed by the "center" and "trustworthy" media, in particular when it comes to the consequences of western politics in "poorer" countries or when a government appointed but not official, but still pretty influential guy makes a nazi salute on stage, twice, but it is not declared to be that, despite hundred of millions of people having seen it on video.
-
DW is operated by the German government with the goal to further the "German viewpoint" internationally. It is not a public broadcaster, but explicitly operated by the federal government.
-
Could be worse
