81–90 of 311 posts
[flagged]
It’s not difficult. It’s beyond yikes territory: it’s his now typical xenophobia and bigotry.
Now we know how the 1930s felt, I guess. Wealthy fair-haired motorsport brat edgelords were the leading edge of fascism then too.
The former European Community core states are too small and cannot handle the influx of millions from the East and the South.
The core states should leave the EU and reestablish the former European Community, which would help the populations as opposed to multinational locust companies.
It isn't fair that the whole world (mind you, including rich foreigners) buys up apartments, takes jobs and displaces the original population.
This is trying far too hard to be charitable. Mistake theory is great, and it's good that the article mentions it, but it then also presents sufficient evidence to prove, or at least substantiate, malice. At this point not having "bad feelings toward DHH" is itself a "Missing Mood". At any rate, though, the author took the correct action. Wolves are also pretty important, by the way. Hopefully we all know that by now…
The benefit of the doubt only exists as long as there is doubt. Once there's an overwhelming body of evidence that removes any of it, continuing to give it is pretty suspicious, like you mention.
[flagged]
Yeah. I watched Seattle slide downhill, and I decided to leave. Find needles on the beach multiple times, and you simple stop caring about reasons and want action. Far right is a label being used for normal things like secure borders and safe cities.
I do find the author position to be incoherent in the following regard: 1. believe a statement can be true or false, and false should be called out. 2. believe deportation is morally wrong in certain cases, that is, the law can be selectively broken. I personally believe laws should always be enforced and followed. That eliminates margin for corruption and lenience. A strong law also creates incentive for the populat…
Except that that author didn't say that at all. They said "deport only the lawbreakers", while expressing dismay at a blogpost which (apparently*) said "deport everyone".
> I personally believe laws should always be enforced and followed.
Quote from TFA: "Any kind of mass deportation plan would have to change [the law], which would be legally tricky to say the least. However, enforcing the existing laws requires no legal action, and could start tomorrow if the relevant executive wanted it to."
*Other comments have argued that the post didn't actually say that.
My reading is that he used those examples deliberately to raise a broader issue: some people are tired of being told to ignore problems they can see and experience, whether that means feeling unsafe while walking through a city or attending a Pride parade (assume that are the “wolfs”), or being frustrated that nearly every item at Target is locked up (“gypsies”).
To be clear, I am not expressing an opinion on whether his argument is right or wrong.
I do find the author position to be incoherent in the following regard: 1. believe a statement can be true or false, and false should be called out. 2. believe deportation is morally wrong in certain cases, that is, the law can be selectively broken. I personally believe laws should always be enforced and followed. That eliminates margin for corruption and lenience. A strong law also creates incentive for the populat…
I read an article some years back that really changed my mind about this. It made the point that society evolves through the imperfect enforcement of laws (those some kinds of imperfection, like selective enforcement, are distinctly harmful). That is empirically true, but for some reason I hadn't realized it until the article pointed it out to me.
> You do not need to deport all of them to deport the ones who "take over public spaces".
And continues to assume that DHH is talking about mass deportation. He's not. He says:
> When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them.
He's not saying we should deport _all_ gypsies just because one group is taking over public space.
I think DHH's opinion is a very common sentiment in Europe. "Gypsies" are a very European thing. I wonder if there's anything similar in the US? For context for US readers; they generally exist outside of the usual social norms, and have a pretty bad reputation because of it. This is not a defence of DHH, just providing context to his comments.