Wanting to forcibly eject all brown people isn't enough to call someone radically racist? That's not a middle-of-the-road, agree-to-disagree kind of stance.
No, I am sympathetic to his critics if that's what he is saying. I just don't see that in the article. But on the other hand, since this is an example of cultural replacement where the new folks happen to be disproportionately brown, this may just be a case of those who are passionate about the idea of racial equality getting a little incensed, which is understandable (laudable, even), but cultural replacement/disruption is a real and valid source of misery/desperation.
Your reading comprehension and political awareness needs a lot of work.
> cultural replacement/disruption is a real and valid source of misery/desperation
Not like this it isn’t. To the extent that there’s a valid complaint, it’s the fault of those who’ve been in power over the last few decades. To turn the blame on minorities is a classic rightist move, and it’s always cowardly, nasty, and wrong.
Since you’re happytoexplain, please explain to me what cultural replacement/disruption looks like in western countries. I can see it happening in countries like China with the Uighurs, in Bangladesh with the Rohingya, but I can’t see any actual “culture” erasure happening in Britain or Australia or the United States. I see plenty of cultural enrichment, but no erasure.
No need to be sarcastic and mock my username or my culture. I'm not asserting that you're an asshole or something because you don't agree that there is cultural disruption and/or replacement in London or parts of the US. The entire concept is subjective and highly experiential, despite (or because of?) the drama and trauma intrinsic to it. I will say though that elevating the definition to essentially require genocide minimizes reality.
Your username is self chosen. If you elect to be offended by people using it that’s on you. And like you, I’m not “asserting that you’re an asshole”. I’m also not “elevating the definition”. True cultural erasure involves the active banning and repression of cultural symbols (be they of language, dress, beliefs). If you have a different definition let’s hear it. Otherwise don’t put words in my mouth or project the chip on your own shoulder.
But this isn't happening. To cite someone with closer experience (who also does admit that the "migration issue in Britain is complicated and multi-layered") [0]:
> To all of that he adds a dash of Islamophobia, citing “Pakistani rape gangs” as one of the reasons for the unrest, repeating a weaponised trope borne from a long since discredited report from the Quilliam Foundation, an organisation with ties to both the the US Tea Party, and Tommy Robinson himself. A trope that exists despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of convicted child sex offenders are white men, with Asian men in fact under-represented.
People who want to be racist will find or invent any evidence necessary to dig themselves in deeper. There is no basis or validity to it. If there were, there would be no need to be so coy and indirect about it.
He explicitly says that nonwhite people feel alien and like they don't belong. He "heartwarming"ly embraces Tommy Robinson's white replacement marches advocating for forced "remigration" as a breath of fresh air against what he calls suicidal empathy. Must I show my work when adding 2 plus 2 or can we agree that the answer is 4?
>Must I show my work when adding 2 plus 2 or can we agree that the answer is 4?
This is arrogant in a damaging way. You should prefer to answer the asked question, since that would be an effective piece of information in this case (i.e. it's not a bait question, so it's not harmful to engage with).
The answers are present in the post we're discussing quite plainly without any reading between the lines necessary. I think the simplicity of the analogy is fitting. If not bait, there are few charitable explanations.
Commenter is, like me, mystified that reading comprehension can be that poor. Even without the linked post’s commentary, a plain reading of DHH’s original post should be enough to see exactly where he is politically. So to have to spell it out for you and others feels like we’re being taken for a ride.
