I'm becoming really upset at people whom I otherwise align with for taking absolute statements that don't make sense.
DHH said some stuff you disagree with, incidentally while I have always identified with strong social systems, welfare, high taxes and things like free healthcare, I can't say I disagree with the core of what he tried to say, because there has been seizemic ethnic change within a single generation - and people not talking about it is actually fuelling the extreme position.
So when you say "has a right to exist", what do you mean exactly? Because if I was to stand in the lobby of a parliamentary building and was forcibly removed, would that mean I don't have the right to exist?
You have a right to exist, just not here, just like how White English people have no right to exist in India, and White Dutch people don't have a right to live in Zimbabwe.
Saying "Hey, this demographic and major cultural change in the last 20 years makes the environment different" is considered racism- which has the obvious consenquence of making the word "racist" have less power.. It's not racism to notice this, it's racist to think anyone else is lesser than natives or to group "them" and treat an ethnic group as a homogenous bloc.
I'm reminded of the phrase "if you don't respect me, I won't respect you" whereby respect can mean as an authority or as a person, and they mean "if you don't respect me as an authority, then I won't respect you as a person".
You're saying "if you don't let me do everything I want then you're denying that I have the right to exist at all" which is a type of hysteric language which permits any atrocity in response it can be framed as an act of self defence.
>Saying "Hey, this demographic and major cultural change in the last 20 years makes the environment different" is considered racism
perhaps if he said it like this, rather than comparing Roma to wolves that should be shot and comparing immigration as something to be survived like a bombing blitz, people wouldnt care as much
>it's racist to think anyone else is lesser than natives or to group "them" and treat an ethnic group as a homogenous bloc.
>there has been seizemic ethnic change within a single generation
There hasn't. Look at actual numbers, and what you see is the same hysteria that was directed against the Jews during the first half of the XXth century: foreign agents, traitors, parasites, nuisance... All for a tiny fraction of the population. All blown up by the same people who are the ones responsible for the misery of the majority of the population - yes, the "whites" are being screwed up by other "whites", not by the "brown" people.
>White English people have no right to exist in India, and White Dutch people don't have a right to live in Zimbabwe.
One: it was English people in Zimbabwe too, and two: they have the right to live there; the problem with them is that they took everything by force and decided the native people where subhuman. Pretending the situation is the same with brown-skinned low-wage immigrants coming in western countries is completely cuckoo crazy.
>it's racist to think anyone else is lesser than natives or to group "them" and treat an ethnic group as a homogenous bloc.
Which is exactly what DHH does. Thank you for agreeing that DHH is a racist.
This is why I don't like getting into online debates... most people seem wholly uninterested in the (seemingly to them) blasphemy that is "other perspectives that aren't mine." To me, continually stroking your confirmation bias just proves you're not really as smart as you think you are. And indeed I think the Dunning-Kruger effect still applies to "smart" people.
You don't stop when you are estimating your ability correctly; as you learn more, you gain more awareness of your ignorance and continue being conservative with your self-estimates.
What this behavior has led me to do is basically only challenge people who are actually asking a question, because then there's a chance they might be willing to entertain other perspectives than their own. But if I say something and get a matter-of-fact response by someone with an obvious god complex... it's like they're not interested in mutual understanding, they just want to "win" the argument by asserting things loud enough until they're believed.
But when I see people being straight up dogmatic and preaching walls of black-and-white opinions as if they're somehow infallible and that there can't be any other perspectives... I just see incompetence. But it is frustrating because you want to set the record straight, because you know others are going to believe the louder person... but there's really nothing you can do about it. One time someone tried to argue with me that "cloud storage does not exist." All I could do in that moment was just ignore them and move on.
"As a rule, strong feelings about issues do not emerge from deep understanding." -Sloman and Fernbach
I'm not seeing anywhere that he actually claims someone doesn't have a right to exist. I see lots of people using colorful, subjective interpretations of other things he said to try and push a narrative, but that's all.
He did. He claimed that the demographic has changed and he advocates for reverting this change. And it turns out that forcibly altering the demographic of an era is the literal definition of ethnic cleansing (and by the way the phrass has historicallt been coined with the specific meaning of removing Muslim people from Serbia, by the people who intended to perform that “cleansing”, so it's particularly apt here).
>> He did not call for forcibly altering the demographic.
> When wolves get out of control, you shoot them. When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them.
And while I'm quoting:
MerriamWebster: Xenophobe
> one unduly fearful of what is foreign and especially of people of foreign origin
DHH:
> You can rest assured that I'd be in the streets waving a Danish flag if these were my conditions in my native country. I think that's a pretty universal sentiment. There's absolutely nothing racist or xenophobic in saying that Denmark is primarily a country for the Danes, Britain primarily a united kingdom for the Brits, and Japan primarily a set of islands for the Japanese.
I would say saying that is pretty much the definition of xenophobic.
Worse, in the context of DHHs rants, it comes off as racist - I don't get the sense he wants to throw out Norwegians from Denmark, for example.
Although shurly there are Norwegian migrants and foreign workers in Denmark.
> Supporting indigenous people and their rights to their native homelands is not xenophobic.
Xenophobia leads to the belief that white Danes need support for their rights to their native homeland.
It's not like this is some great battle to rise restitution for Native Americans, Maori or Aborigines.
It's about not having to see so many non-white faces in Copenhagen or London.
> Enforcing immigration laws is not ethnic cleansing.
That certainly depends on the law, and the enforcement.
More to the point: trampling nomadic sub- cultures, forcefully denying them access where they have lived for centuries, denying them their way of life - can certainly result in genocide ("the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group").
> Worse, in the context of DHHs rants, it comes off as racist - I don't get the sense he wants to throw out Norwegians from Denmark, for example.
I think "primarily" is doing some lifting in "Denmark is primarily a country for the Danes", along with his vagueness about what it means to be of "the Japanese" (Yamato/Zainichi/Ainu/Ryukyuan/Bonin) or "the Brits" (English/Scots/Welsh/Cornish/Irish/Manx/Jamaican/...).
DHH has the capacity to assess that going full on white supremacist is still relatively frowned upon, so he does only as much as he thinks he can get away with.
Sponsoring his badly made OSS and giving him any type of a limelight will only embolden him and the likes of him. I personally want nothing to do with him and anything he touches.
