If taxes are what matters, America would have the best public restrooms in the world because it's the richest country.
But what really matters is culture. If you have a small percentage of people who are bad actors and are not punished for it, they ruin it for everyone.
---
Let me give you a small example of culture and enforcement. I live in a small city in Romania. I once traveled by plane to London. The airport in my city is very small. When boarding, despite the fact that the zigzag queue was 3 lines long, people lifted the cordon and went straight to the door. I was probably the only one who followed it.
When we arrived at Heathrow, people did the same thing. The zigzag queue at Heathrow is very long, so it feels slightly fairer to skip it if there's literally no one in front of you (it was 2 AM or something). But as soon as the first person skipped the line and a second person was going for it, a guard noticed him and ordered him to go back. He tried to "negotiate" but the guard only lifted a finger and told him to "go back".
No one tried to skip after those two.
When you have a culture with no enforcement, a small minority (maybe 2%) of people ruin it for everyone and you feel like an idiot still following the rules. This makes the majority imitate the bad actors because "I might as well too".
No amount of money in the world can fix bad culture.
Are you saying you think citizens should blindly follow even pointless rules in order to be a good culture? Because otherwise your example makes no sense to me. What is gained by people walking completely through a large empty queue?
Why should people act civilized towards the uncivilized. He murdered 14 people (people often say 13 because the don't count the baby). Why should any humanity be shown towards him?
You don't defeat your enemies by being softer than them. You win by being harder than them.
It's a rogue court in that it's not derived from the will of the people. In democracy, the people are sovereign and have a say in what their laws are. American[1] citizens don't have a say in what international laws are, they can't invalidate them, so why should they be subject to them?
This is akin to the Nuremberg trials, where Germans were tried by foreigners, without the consent of German citizens... The major difference is, the Germans lost the war so Americans got to impose their will on the vanquished. America did not lose a war to India, so why should Americans be judged by this Indian?
[1]: I'm not American, but like the US, I also wish my country was only subject to the laws of my people.
Interesting, that makes no sense to me. I assume you don't touch type.
If you touch type, you hold your 4 fingers on ASDF. If you want to press Ctrl+C, you move your pinky to Ctrl and press C with the index finger or middle finger.
On Macintosh, you have to hold your pinky much too close to the index finger to press Command+C which are very close.
If, instead, you use thumb and index that also puts the thumb in an awkward position because you have to cross the fingers (Command is to the left of C)
Not OP, but I wouldn't so sure to read that intent into it. There are plenty of people on the left that are critical of the dems. We can both be critical of this practice under Obama as well as under Trump. Voting out incumbents, to me, would mean getting rid of all the officials that have been complacent in this practice, on both sides.
> Ukraine is never going to recapture the territory that it has lost without European troops on the ground.
This is such a defeatist attitude. By that logic North Vietnam would never have recovered South Vietnam.
A lot of things can happen if you just refuse to be defeated. Hannibal killed almost the entire Roman army at Cannae, but the war ended 15 years later with full victory by the Romans.
In 1940, Britain was the only country in Europe fighting Germany. Many had fallen, were neutral or were fighting with the Nazis (Russia, Italy, etc). But in the end Britain won.
The britain coming out of world war 2 was very different from the britain entering WW1, in a way the late-comer nations refusing to be starved by the empires by going hyper-imperialist destroyed the age of empires.
Okay, I'll bite. What did he do that's racist and fascist. And please provide receipts.
For reference, here are the definitions:
racist: a person who believes that a particular race is superior to others, or who discriminates against other races
fascism: any right-wing, authoritarian, nationalist ideology characterized by centralized, totalitarian governance, strong regimentation of the economy and society, and repression of criticism or opposition
> When wolves get out of control, you shoot them. When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them. This isn't hard, it isn't cruel. It's the basic logic of self-preservation.
Think about why he compares gypsies to wolves, and talks about "self-preservation".
You might want to be pedantic and try to say he's not comparing them to wolves. He is the one who put those two sentences next to each other. You can choose to ignore the thing that feels obvious to others.
I know a lot of people are decently close to DHH in their feelings on this issue. I think that being publicly loud about these opinions that most people keep to themselves simply leads to wondering what his _actual_ deep opinions are. Think about what you say in private compared to what you say in public, and consider that he is writing in public.
A sentiment being common or not is a bit besides the point about whether it's authoritarian or fascistic or whatever.
If you remove the context and the implication from his post, you can make the argument that it's "just" a post saying "enforce immigration laws".
The problem is that the context and the implications are part of his post. He is communicating who he is and what he believes, and for you it's mostly a question of whether you're going to listen to it.
This whole line of discussion is had about DHH in particular decently often, and I find it kinda funny because even beyond all of this I've always heard that he's just kind of a disagreeable person anyways. But I suppose this industry pulls in a certain kind of annoying person.
So in your mind there’s absolutely no subtextual message here in choosing wolves. It would have meant exactly the same thing if he’d chosen raccoons, or pigeons, or deer, or rabbits?
Roma people ("gypsy" is a racial slur for them) were also targets of the Holocaust. As many as 500,000 people may have been put in death camps—justified by views like those expressed here.
Where do you propose to "deport" Roma people who have been present in most of Europe since the 13th century?
This isn't a matter of "political" correctness. This is a matter of scientific correctness. There is not scientifically correct way to express this view because it is simply baseless racism.
> "The historically common term 'Gypsy' is based on the myth that they came from Egypt. In reality, the ancestors of the Romani migrated out of India in the 1st millennium CE."
Egypt isn't a race.
> Where do you propose to "deport" Roma people
I don't propose anything, I asked a couple questions. But if you want me to interpret the position for you: you deport Roma people, and any other foreigners, back to the country they have citizenship in. Their origin is somewhere, and it's racist of you to treat all gypsies as one group.
For any that are citizens of the country in question: well, you don't deport them anywhere. That's not what it means.
> justified by views like those expressed here
No. Sending people home is not the same as genocide, and you really have to work hard at misunderstanding things to have them conflated.
> Anti-Roma racism is a manifestation of individual expressions and acts as well as institutional policies and practices of marginalization, exclusion, physical violence, devaluation of Roma cultures and lifestyles, and hate speech directed at Roma as well as other individuals and groups perceived, stigmatized, or persecuted during the Nazi era, and still today, as “Gypsies.” This leads to the treatment of Roma as an alleged alien group and associates them with a series of pejorative stereotypes and distorted images that represent a specific form of racism.
> Anti-Roma racism did not start with or end after the Nazi era but continues to be a central element in crimes perpetrated against Roma. In spite of the important work done by the United Nations, the European Union, the Council of Europe, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and other international bodies, the stereotypes and prejudices about Roma have not been delegitimized or discredited vigorously enough so that they continue to persist and can be deployed largely unchallenged.
---
> Sending people home is not the same as genocide
Home to where? Roma people have been widespread in Europe since the 13th century
> When wolves get out of control, you shoot them. When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them. This isn't hard, it isn't cruel. It's the basic logic of self-preservation.
This isn't even his personal blog. It's the company blog of Hey that he's using to push his views. Do you really wanna work with a company whose professional blog references "[insert ethnicity] rape gangs" and "the decline of Europe". He could go full Kanye at any point.
I agree it's quite weird to put it on a company blog, but it used to be that companies and their owners do express their views. As opposed to for example Big Tech, who doesn't express their views, but work very closely with Trump...
Gypsies are a major problem in a lot of cities in Europe... What would be a politically correct way to say that today ?
> Gypsies are a major problem in a lot of cities in Europe... What would be a politically correct way to say that today ?
What is the "politically correct" way to say "Jewish people are a problem"? Roma people ("gypsy" is a racial slur for them) were also targets of the Holocaust. As many as 500,000 people may have been put in death camps—justified by views like those expressed here.
Where do you propose to "deport" Roma people who have been present in most of Europe since the 13th century?
I don't think there is a "correct" way to say "[insert ethnicity] are a major problem". It is simply scientifically/historically/objectively incorrect.
I'd say he crossed the line when he openly supported ethnic cleansing via remigration. I.e. deporting legal citizens that aren't the right race. If you don't think that's racist I don't know what it would take...
Before that I'd have said he was on the edge, but now it's pretty clear cut.
Both of these have a different definition of "remigration" than what you are using:
- deporting foreign nationals, not legal citizens
- deporting those foreign nationals if they have been convicted of a crime.
- nothing whatsoever to do with race, everything to do with (a) citizen status and (b) legally proven criminal behavior.
So: what you describe would be racist. What the article talks about that DHH was referring to clearly is not.
And please don't start with "dog whistle".
If you're going to accuse people of things, it does need to be them doing those things, not you interpreting.
If you can present clear evidence of him supporting actual ethnic cleansing, so not something that you somehow interpret as being equivalent, I am with you.
> Because the sacred cow here is not just that mass migration must stop going forward. It's also that millions who are already in Europe must go. Remigration has gone from a fringe concept to the mainstream discourse in record time on account of that realization.
> Remigration is a far-right concept referring to the ethnic cleansing via mass deportation of non-white minority populations, especially immigrants and sometimes including native-born citizens, to their place of racial ancestry.
He is very clearly talking about race.
There's no issue with acknowledging that cultural integration between different races can cause issues, nor is it unreasonable to limit immigration on that basis. It's completely insane to deport people who are now legal residents based on their race.
Obviously he's not going to say "blacks go home". He's too smart for that, come on.
I'm lost... are you trying to argue that it would be ok for naturalized citizens of a country to be forcibly removed from the country where they hold citizenship if that country decides that they're the "wrong" race? On what planet is that ok?
1. Whether that is OK or not is unrelated to the question of whether it is racist to revoke citizenship on non-racial grounds. Which it clearly is not. (The "...the wrong race" is purely you).
2. As far as I can see, the position that DHH referred to did not apply to naturalized citizens, but to foreigners. So non-citizens.
3. As far as I know, most countries currently have laws on the books that can result in citizenship being revoked. As an example, countries that don't allow dual citizenship will take your citizenship away if you become citizen of another country. Germany and many other countries will take your citizenship away if you lied on your application and it only comes out later. Terror and treason are also common reasons.
4. Some counties (India for example) will even take your (naturalized) citizenship away if you are out of country long enough.
If taxes are what matters, America would have the best public restrooms in the world because it's the richest country.
But what really matters is culture. If you have a small percentage of people who are bad actors and are not punished for it, they ruin it for everyone.
---
Let me give you a small example of culture and enforcement. I live in a small city in Romania. I once traveled by plane to London. The airport in my city is very small. When boarding, despite the fact that the zigzag queue was 3 lines long, people lifted the cordon and went straight to the door. I was probably the only one who followed it.
When we arrived at Heathrow, people did the same thing. The zigzag queue at Heathrow is very long, so it feels slightly fairer to skip it if there's literally no one in front of you (it was 2 AM or something). But as soon as the first person skipped the line and a second person was going for it, a guard noticed him and ordered him to go back. He tried to "negotiate" but the guard only lifted a finger and told him to "go back".
No one tried to skip after those two.
When you have a culture with no enforcement, a small minority (maybe 2%) of people ruin it for everyone and you feel like an idiot still following the rules. This makes the majority imitate the bad actors because "I might as well too".
No amount of money in the world can fix bad culture.
reply