France General Discussion

[Antonio the Sixth]

Haha, yes, the stuff was on Canal+ more than one week ago, maybe 2. That's typically what I mean with him, he can analyze stuffs pretty well, and finish on totally biased conclusions, and as everybody doesn't care to debate the conclusion and just jump on his words with 'RACIST RACIST!!!', the debate is counter-productive, you create your devil. Here, yes, probably most of drug traffickers are Arab/Black, and Zemmour stops here, and that's the problem, what he forgets to say is that that would be true (in case it effectively is, but I would think it is) because in France by far most of people who live in bad social conditions are Arab/Black, then he may say a truth, but in a biased manner. The problem not being ethnic but social, and if most of people in bad social conditions are Arab/Black it is, not only but certainly in big part, because of the discriminations they have to submit in this country and that make them remain in the low part of the scale. And that isn't sexy in his mind, since he still dreams on that universalist France that gives a chance to anybody abide to the few rules of its universalism, universalism of which the values want to be more important than those of other cultural communities within the national one. Ya know, like you he fights 'communautarisme'. Then, instead of admitting that France has some problems to very well integrate these populations because of cultural and ethnical reasons, then they have more chances to remain in the low social levels of the society, he stops at 'Drug traffickers in France are Arabs and Blacks', maybe true, but...

Yah, he forgets to say all of this, but, this is not being a 'nutjob', this is being biased, and if someone would have the good idea to expose him arguments in a correct way instead of 'you racist!', maybe a debate with him would go further, since the guy is very able to debate.

We haven't a Rush Limbaugh in France, far off, then don't create one, don't create your devil because it's too hard to be fair with someone you don't like. You being a general one, 'vous', those who can't go over epidermic reactions. Because since the guy says a kind of truth, but in a biased manner, people who hear this, and who live this, would think he is right, and by stupidly slapping him, you slap these people, and when you slap some people afraid, in psychological insecurity, you rarely obtain positive results...

Sorry, but no. I'd like you to stop saying that I call him a nutjob because I disagree with him. There are many people I disagree with, who aren't nutjobs. Thanks.

Saying that "most of trafficants are blacks and arabs" is not only a "biased conclusion" : it's a retarded statement. It may be true as well (we don't have ethnical statistics in France, fortunately), but even if it was, it would mean nothing. Unless you want to demonstrate something precise : that arabs and blacks are the main cause of troubles, and criminality in France, and thus that they had to be ousted.
I don't know whether or not Zemmour is racist or not, and I don't really care. What is sure is that his statement was. Not a traditional "basic" racism like "OMG STRANGERZ R EVUL !" but a more elaborate rhetoric, based on the idea that France is threatened by the invasion of a population whose values are "uncompatible" with the "eternal France". Here is what Zemmour and all his nutjob friends are claiming to everybody. Some of them, like Zemmour, formulate intelligent reasonment to arrive at this silly point. That's why I almost fainted when I read that zemmour was a republican universalist fighting against communautarisme... Elle est bien bonne ! Zemmour is nothing else than a communautariste himself. He defends what he consider as "his" community, i.e. "le corps traditionnel français" (comme dirait l'autre). I.e the white, christian "français de souche" or at least those with european origins. This is just the corollary of the communautarisme of the suburbs, each one completing the other.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Haha, yes, the stuff was on Canal+ more than one week ago, maybe 2. That's typically what I mean with him, he can analyze stuffs pretty well, and finish on totally biased conclusions, and as everybody doesn't care to debate the conclusion and just jump on his words with 'RACIST RACIST!!!', the debate is counter-productive, you create your devil. Here, yes, probably most of drug traffickers are Arab/Black, and Zemmour stops here, and that's the problem, what he forgets to say is that that would be true (in case it effectively is, but I would think it is) because in France by far most of people who live in bad social conditions are Arab/Black, then he may say a truth, but in a biased manner. The problem not being ethnic but social, and if most of people in bad social conditions are Arab/Black it is, not only but certainly in big part, because of the discriminations they have to submit in this country and that make them remain in the low part of the scale. And that isn't sexy in his mind, since he still dreams on that universalist France that gives a chance to anybody abide to the few rules of its universalism, universalism of which the values want to be more important than those of other cultural communities within the national one. Ya know, like you he fights 'communautarisme'. Then, instead of admitting that France has some problems to very well integrate these populations because of cultural and ethnical reasons, then they have more chances to remain in the low social levels of the society, he stops at 'Drug traffickers in France are Arabs and Blacks', maybe true, but...

Yah, he forgets to say all of this, but, this is not being a 'nutjob', this is being biased, and if someone would have the good idea to expose him arguments in a correct way instead of 'you racist!', maybe a debate with him would go further, since the guy is very able to debate.

We haven't a Rush Limbaugh in France, far off, then don't create one, don't create your devil because it's too hard to be fair with someone you don't like. You being a general one, 'vous', those who can't go over epidermic reactions. Because since the guy says a kind of truth, but in a biased manner, people who hear this, and who live this, would think he is right, and by stupidly slapping him, you slap these people, and when you slap some people afraid, in psychological insecurity, you rarely obtain positive results...

Sorry, but no. I'd like you to stop saying that I call him a nutjob because I disagree with him. There are many people I disagree with, who aren't nutjobs. Thanks.

Saying that "most of trafficants are blacks and arabs" is not only a "biased conclusion" : it's a retarded statement. It may be true as well (we don't have ethnical statistics in France, fortunately), but even if it was, it would mean nothing. Unless you want to demonstrate something precise : that arabs and blacks are the main cause of troubles, and criminality in France, and thus that they had to be ousted.
I don't know whether or not Zemmour is racist or not, and I don't really care. What is sure is that his statement was. Not a traditional "basic" racism like "OMG STRANGERZ R EVUL !" but a more elaborate rhetoric, based on the idea that France is threatened by the invasion of a population whose values are "uncompatible" with the "eternal France". Here is what Zemmour and all his nutjob friends are claiming to everybody. Some of them, like Zemmour, formulate intelligent reasonment to arrive at this silly point. That's why I almost fainted when I read that zemmour was a republican universalist fighting against communautarisme... Elle est bien bonne ! Zemmour is nothing else than a communautariste himself. He defends what he consider as "his" community, i.e. "le corps traditionnel français" (comme dirait l'autre). I.e the white, christian "français de souche" or at least those with european origins. This is just the corollary of the communautarisme of the suburbs, each one completing the other.

Well, you may have seen that I don't agree with him, I was just saying he was sane, but biased, he prefers to say 'Arabs/Blacks don't want to be part of the society' rather than 'France don't want to them to be part of it'. Historically seems that first discrimination toward these populations came from French (jobs/accommodations for the main part), and then these people feeling rejected now they exclude themselves from the society, and defiance between people from French/Euro roots and others grow and grow and grow. And yes, step by step we're with 2 cultural communities the French/Euro one, and others.

But, about Zemmour, he's just biased, nothing more, he is by no means a nutjob. Mixing that 2 notions are unfair and help nobody. And yes, he's a typical product of the French Republican Model, but maybe you've to listen/read to him more before jumping on some net buzzs.

A Fabien, pour faire court, et vu qu'on ne va sûrement pas transformer ce topic en réflexion sur l'époque, j'aurais tendance à partager des critiques sur l'héritage de la contre-culture, notamment l'enfant tout-puissant omniscient et sur le fait que cette culture est un creuset formidable pour un capitalisme/individualisme triomphant de toutes logiques productives de société sur le plan intellectuel et moral. La plupart des choses étant basées dans cette époque sur l'immédiateté, l'instinct premier, la réaction première et brute. Le marketing a sûrement beaucoup aidé à cela, mais pas seulement, c'est peut-être aussi juste que l'on traverse une période où les technologies de l'image et de l'immédiateté sont florissantes et évoluent rapidement et en prenant des proportions  importantes, et cela à des effets sur nos modes de fonctionnement. C'est peut-être pas par hasard que c'est lorsque les technologies d el'image deviennent les plus envahissantes dans nos sociétés que l'émotionalité à un rôle plus important.

Enfin, en bref, perso, je rejète pas tout l'héritage de la contre-culture, je pense que c'est une espèce de libération, une espèce d'étape d'enterrement d'une société pour une nouvelle autre qui pourrait être tout aussi intéressante, seulement, on expérimente une phase chaotique de ce changement. Les notions d'individus et de sociétés sont en reconstruction, et perso, même si ouais, parfois ça peut-être fatigant, je trouve ça plutôt intéressant.

Juste pour quelques généralités et mon point de vue là dessus...

Et ouais, je suis totalement d'accord sur l'Etat bien pensant français, et la bien pensance française, ces trucs là pour le coup ils commencent vraiment à me fatiguer...

Wonderful example, la réaction du CSA, rapport à Zemmour... Oh dear...

Well, anyways, yah, will be funny the Villepin stuff just after the big defeat, Sarkozy seems in total 'looser mood', and as I said even before the elections, you're very right to be pessimistic for the right, and that's a good thing from my point of view. Anyways, the best way to change society is what you can do around you, big political levels are just here to register the changes, the fact that Obama would surely not do a lot would show it, big levels of politics don't create changes, they most likely follow it, or not.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, you may have seen that I don't agree with him, I was just saying he was sane, but biased, he prefers to say 'Arabs/Blacks don't want to be part of the society' rather than 'France don't want to them to be part of it'. Historically seems that first discrimination toward these populations came from French (jobs/accommodations for the main part), and then these people feeling rejected now they exclude themselves from the society, and defiance between people from French/Euro roots and others grow and grow and grow. And yes, step by step we're with 2 cultural communities the French/Euro one, and others. But, about Zemmour, he's just biased, nothing more, he is by no means a nutjob. Mixing that 2 notions are unfair and help nobody. And yes, he's a typical product of the French Republican Model, but maybe you've to listen/read to him more before jumping on some net buzzs.

Yes, that's probably something like that. But such vision has nothing to do with republican universalism. If you consider that "arabs/blacks refuse integration", it means that you consider arabs and blacks as a separate and uniform community. For a real republican universalist, the mere nothion of "the arabs and the blacks" is meaningless, because there is no community except the human (or, in the case of traditional republicanism, the french). In another "biased conclusion", he declared that he believed in the existence of races (and that the current society was "denying" such evidence). This vision is definitely uncompatible with republican universalism, uncompatible with any form of humanism.
I certainly don't know Zemmour's writings as you and Fab do. But what I heard him say is worth of a nutjob. Obviously, he has certainly said more meaningful things, and I don't doubt he is intelligent. Still, his "petites phrases", even if he does just for the sake of provoking, make him a nutjob.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

As you want, I've already argued about nutjob.

Well, about races, the racial question means nothing itself, it all depends what you put under that notion. If that's purely something physical then yes, you can identify physical types, it's up to you to call it races or not, maybe the word is too close of something referring to animals, at least for us French, and we have a problem with that, dunno, I'm not a fan of the use of the word for humans as well, but I can understand its use in this context. I don' think he tries to use it to say that there are different 'specie' of human, I think he'd merely speak physics/ethnies. Also, other countries have no problem to use it apparently, US for example.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, about races, the racial question means nothing itself, it all depends what you put under that notion. If that's purely something physical then yes, you can identify physical types, it's up to you to call it races or not, maybe the word is too close of something referring to animals, at least for us French, and we have a problem with that, dunno, I'm not a fan of the use of the word for humans as well, but I can understand its use in this context. I don' think he tries to use it to say that there are different 'specie' of human, I think he'd merely speak physics/ethnies. Also, other countries have no problem to use it apparently, US for example.

Oh no, now they will again say that I'm a stupid little frenchie prejudiced against americans !
Once again, I can't speak for him. But the use of such vocable (in France) can't not be intentional. When you want to speak of this sort of things in a neutral way, you use "ethnical origin" or something like that. Obviously, I don't doubt that it was mostly a will of provoking rather than real racism. But still, it's a pretty depressing comment.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Well, about races, the racial question means nothing itself, it all depends what you put under that notion. If that's purely something physical then yes, you can identify physical types, it's up to you to call it races or not, maybe the word is too close of something referring to animals, at least for us French, and we have a problem with that, dunno, I'm not a fan of the use of the word for humans as well, but I can understand its use in this context. I don' think he tries to use it to say that there are different 'specie' of human, I think he'd merely speak physics/ethnies. Also, other countries have no problem to use it apparently, US for example.

Oh no, now they will again say that I'm a stupid little frenchie prejudiced against americans !
Once again, I can't speak for him. But the use of such vocable (in France) can't not be intentional. When you want to speak of this sort of things in a neutral way, you use "ethnical origin" or something like that. Obviously, I don't doubt that it was mostly a will of provoking rather than real racism. But still, it's a pretty depressing comment.

My comment? Wasn't meant to be offensive.

Shhh, it's okay some people surely love you in this world.......

Yes, the guy has a taste for the politically incorrect too, and well, as I said you can argue the use of this word, and as you said, I don't think he's racist, yes that's surely just provocation, so let's not give importance to provocation, that's what it waits, or if we do, let's make it clarify instead of jumping on him without any debate, because it's more easy to say 'You, Bad!' and to hide behind the 'consensual thought', than to make a point with someone who elaborate arguments, which is what happens around Zemmour, and which creates more problem than solutions.

[Antonio the Sixth]

My comment? Wasn't meant to be offensive.

No, I was speaking about Zemmour's statement on races !
What did you think ?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

My comment? Wasn't meant to be offensive.

No, I was speaking about Zemmour's statement on races !
What did you think ?

Haha, wasn't sure. No problem either way.

[Antonio the Sixth]

My comment? Wasn't meant to be offensive.

No, I was speaking about Zemmour's statement on races !
What did you think ?

Haha, wasn't sure. No problem either way.

Ok, I probably should have formulated it otherwise.

anyways, it seems that we could finally reach an agreement on this topic. Let's just say that Zemmour sometimes acts like a nutjob, and that's the big problem I have with him.

And since you speak about politically uncorrectness, I noticed Fab's comment about how he's tired by the "bien-pensance", and it's funny because my thought is the exact opposite. I'm fed up by political uncorrectness. Or more precisely by populist nutjobs (or people who act like nutjobs ) who pretend to reveal a truth that everybody knows but nobody says because it's "politically uncorrect". It's really a French particularity : the better way to get popular is saying something retarded (but presented like a common sense), then when people start reacting, shouting that you are a victim of the "bien-pensants" and that they want to censor you. Sure, since you don't please the evil mediatico-ideological conspiracy, they are trying to demonize you ! It always works, so everybody does that. Sarkozy did, Le Pen did, Besancenot did, Frêche did, Hortefeux did, Zemmour did, many left-wingers did about the European Constitution, Marianne also does repeatedly... Being "politically uncorrect" is a national sport here. No matter how ridiculous, prejudiced, groundless, populist or obnoxious you comment is : just explain that it's politically uncorrect and everybody will love you ! We discussed about moderate heroism once : maybe a reason why I have some sympathy for moderate heroes is because in France we know the opposite problem.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Héhé, not sure it is so French, seems to me it's more relative to human beings, though yes, we've a kind of common 'bien-pensence' here that may encourage it, but anyways, it's up to the 'actual bien-pensants' to show that they 'actually' have the 'right' thoughts, if they can't debate but just shout 'bad! bad!' that's a problem. Problem is on both sides, provokers on one side and bien-pensants with contempt toward those who don't think like them on the other side. Ultimately no one can pretend to the 'right' thought then it's up to anyone to debate, I think it could be enough easy to fool Zemmour in a debate, but for it people have to...debate.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Marie-Anne Montchamp, C à dire, speaking about new party of Villepin:

Thierry Guerrier:

'Will it be called RPR again?'

M-A M:

'No, surely not, we've to find more modern words, more affective ones surely...'

lol, so today.

Well, the party will be created on the 19th of June, clearly this M-A M spoke about it as a clear alternative on the right, the ambition is clear.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Héhé, not sure it is so French, seems to me it's more relative to human beings, though yes, we've a kind of common 'bien-pensence' here that may encourage it, but anyways, it's up to the 'actual bien-pensants' to show that they 'actually' have the 'right' thoughts, if they can't debate but just shout 'bad! bad!' that's a problem. Problem is on both sides, provokers on one side and bien-pensants with contempt toward those who don't think like them on the other side. Ultimately no one can pretend to the 'right' thought then it's up to anyone to debate, I think it could be enough easy to fool Zemmour in a debate, but for it people have to...debate.

Yeah, I actually 100% agree with that. Even though I can understand the fatigue of "bien-pensants". It can become really annoying to keep arguing with some people. Obviously some don't even try to...

[Antonio the Sixth]

And BTW, Bucchini elected president of the Corse Assembly ? Looks like a surprise.

[Hash]

And BTW, Bucchini elected president of the Corse Assembly ? Looks like a surprise.

How is it surprising? It was part of the deal made by the lefties. Giacobbi gets the executive.

Surprising that Simeoni got the votes of Talamoni, though.

[Antonio the Sixth]

And BTW, Bucchini elected president of the Corse Assembly ? Looks like a surprise.

How is it surprising? It was part of the deal made by the lefties. Giacobbi gets the executive.

Oh yeah, I see. I just thought there had been some weird compromise with nationalists, but I saw that he actually just got a plurality of votes (the left's 24).
So, no deal. Looks like it will be a hard region to govern...

[Hash]

And BTW, Bucchini elected president of the Corse Assembly ? Looks like a surprise.

How is it surprising? It was part of the deal made by the lefties. Giacobbi gets the executive.

Oh yeah, I see. I just thought there had been some weird compromise with nationalists, but I saw that he actually just got a plurality of votes (the left's 24).
So, no deal. Looks like it will be a hard region to govern...

Rocca Serra/Santini didn't even have a plurality of seats... With the UMP looking to heal its wounds after its worst defeat on the island in 26 years, and the nationalists divided between hardliners/FLNC sympathizers and moderates, it isn't as hard as it would seem. Most problems, in fact, could come from within the left. Zuccarrelli, Renucci et al are all power-hungry dogs.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Ségolène Royal is not dead.

Damn, I never saw her that good yesterday on 'A vous de juger'. Impressive. Serious, sincere, convictions, pragmatic, easy talking, easy debating, 'close of people', at least that's all she displayed, and she displayed it well.

Also, lol, 'A vous de juger' makes a big stuff on future of the left and invites who?? Royal and Cohn Bendit. Oh, I thought it was Aubry who had won regionals, and that EE had made a lower score than expected... Funny.

Also, there was a second part on France's social crisis (job/money). With Woerth amongst others. Damn, since that one is the last one Sarkozy could count on, dunno if he'll succeed on something but with the retirement reform he would surely be carbonized, dunno the outcome then but he'll surely have hard fights and he'd surely fight and hard, if ever Sarkozy decide to be a bit brave concerning his ideas, of course, didn't happen till now, but you never know, he doesn't has a lot to lose now apparently...

2 years would be long for UMP...

Sarkozy can only hope a big international event now, and to have a good role in it. Not that the former has no chance to happen, but the latter is not sure either...

[Antonio the Sixth]

Damn, you really like Ségo.

Well, one more or less contenders in the PS... The only thing that matters to me is whether Sarkozy is reelected or not. And as of now the odds seem ton be decreasing (though I still tend to think than he is anything but done).

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Damn, you really like Ségo.

I just notice what I see. I do it for her or for any politicians, that I like or not, in the 1st run of regionals I found her totally ridiculous and said it.

As I've already said, I don't retire the kind of stuffs I had already said on her, what I'd like with her is that she'd open new ways for the left and maybe beyond, just as in a way I tended to find an election of Sarkozy interesting, even if I disliked him and his ideas and voted against him.

I maintain big criticisms on her and her way to do politics, I've already formulated it, but in some ways, being pragmatic, well... If it can burry the good ol' boring PS, if it can create an interesting alliance with Ecologists, also iirc she spoke of some kind of 6th republic in 2007, if she can do some modernizations here, and if ever it could concern a proportional assembly, then yeah, I could follow...

[Hash]

UMP lipdub parody: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL4ur3TzPt4&feature=related

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

UMP lipdub parody: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL4ur3TzPt4&feature=related

I prefer that one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x2HEAg0esE&NR=1

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Oh and, btw, in the news, yesterday in the 19-20 of France3, they said that Juppé stated on BFM-TV that he could decide to run in UMP primaries if Sarkozy decided not to go. In other words: 'Look at this door Nicolas, yes, that one, the exit one, thanks'.

But, hmm, he should be realist, damn he is the 'Man of '95'...

Well, this, plus the center that tries to 'recenter' itself with the alliance between AC and NC and their decision to present a guy for presidentials (damn, if Arthuis, Folliot and J-C Lagarde could take that NC bubble over, would be a good news, for the sake of politics), plus Villepin (oh dear, if he could create a group of deputies that would take their independence of UMP on some bills, and sometimes creating bills with the left, oh dear, just for the sake of the parliament would be wonderful, and even if he wouldn't have a lot of deputies, and that it doesn't achieve concrete things, psychologically would be something), plus how Sarkozy is doomed in term of image, well, why not retiring now?

[Hash]

What's interesting is that some of Sarko's lackeys, like Bertrand, are mentioning the possibility of UMP primaries for 2012. It's surprising that such an eventuality is discussed by Sarkozy's little doggies (they wouldn't say anything on their own orders, given that they're his little troops). Maybe it's part of a larger trick by Sarkozy to destabilize Villepin et al by putting wrong rumours in the air, but maybe it's the first signs that Sarkozy is reconsidering re-election in 2012 with dwindling poll ratings (30-35% approval or something now).

Now, I'm still 95% sure Sarkozy will run, knowing him and his love for power, but it's interesting nonetheless.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, Sarkozy will undoubtedly run, and probably all the self-calling "challengers" (except Villepin, but nobody cares) will end up rallying him as it happened in 2007. It's how the UMP works, it's the only way it can work (and it's also its strength).

[Umengus]

Ipsos poll

Opinion on the action of sarkozy:

very favorable: 5 % (-1)
fav: 27 % (-6)

def: 36 %( +5)
very def: 29 % (+1)

did not say: 3 % (+1)

Opinion on fillon:

fav: 46% (=)
def: 46% (=)

did not say: 8 % (=)

fav/unf for

DSK: 52/28 (fav -2)
Aubry: 49/42 (fav +3)
De Villepin: 40/47 (fav -2)
Royal: 38/56 (fav+10)
Besancenot: 35/55 (-4)
Duflot: 30/21
Marine Le Pen: 24/69 (fav+6)

http://www.ipsos.fr/CanalIpsos/poll/8645.asp