This should not have been flagged. There's not even any flagged comments.
I don't know the rules for what does and doesn't get flagged. I tried to write it in a respectful way without resorting to personal attacks.
Canceling "Hey"
141–150 of 311 posts
Re: Canceling "Hey"
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
He is calling for the deportation of illegal immigrants who sleep in parks. Cloudflare, in contrast, actively works with the CCP which is doing actual ethnic cleansing in Tibet and Xinjiang. But they are harder to cancel aren’t they. I’m a pragmatist. I’m not going to drive myself crazy interrogating the opinions of every service provider I use. I don’t know about the Fastmail founder or CEO’s beliefs and don’t want…
> He is calling for the deportation of illegal immigrants who sleep in parks. No, that's what this article is calling for. The complain they have is that DHH called for deporting the entire ethnic group independent of whether they're sleeping in parks.
DHH's blog post reads:
>> When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them.
Looks like some of the controversy is whether "them" refers to "the gypsies" or "the gypsies who take over public spaces".
It sounds genuinely ambiguous to me. Example A) "When wolves eat too many sheep, you shoot them." seems to advocate for shooting all wolves. Example B) "When adults abuse minors, you imprison them." presumably only refers to those that abuse minors.
Re: Canceling "Hey"
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
Homelessness is pretty race neutral tho? Especially in Oakland, which is incredibly race-balanced.
absolutely not, especially in the bay – people of color are way more likely to be homeless
So let's say hypothetically we kept the number of homeless people stable in Oakland, but made them all white. You think all (most? many?) of the people currently complaining about homelessness would shut up?
Re: Canceling "Hey"
#144This 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…
Yeah, personally, it's hard to say "live and let live" about someone who doesn't want a people to live.
> someone who doesn't want a people to live.
Who doesn't want a people to live? Where do they say that?
Re: Canceling "Hey"
#145I 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.
As if the social norms only flow one way (gypsies excluding themselves) and not the other way (white Europeans excluding them).
I don't understand your comment - the social norms I refer to are paying tax, sending your children to school, integrating with the local community, living in areas/accommodation that is legal/not transitory. It can be argued how many of those are valid criticisms, but that is what generally refer to.
Re: Canceling "Hey"
#146I think the author is taking umbrage with DHH using the word "gypsies" where it might have been "junkies" or just "homeless". I see it in Berlin, rise of agressive, smelly begging in U-Bahn (I witnessed a beggar actually attacking passengers, hitting a woman). People walking around having fully shit their pants. This, I presume, is tolerated in the name of individualism, that the individual is free to choose how they…
“Gypsies” are a race of people. “Junkies” and homeless people are, at an individual level, not. Homeless people and drug addicts may well be victims of circumstance or victims of society depending on your point view - or even victims of their own choices or actions - but there’s a difference between saying “this race of people is problematic” and “this class of people is problematic”.
Not that I disagree, but to play Devil's advocate for a second...
I think DHH was trying to refer to junkies and homeless people most of whom happen to be immigrants. The immigration status is the particular attribute that invites usage of the term "gypsies" to signal that the problem with those particular junkies and homeless could be solved via immigration enforcement. At least in his eyes, I presume.
Again, not defending his choice of words, just providing a somewhat plausible explanation as to how one might arrive to this specific terminology.
Re: Canceling "Hey"
#147This whole article seems like a straw man. Chad seems to be arguing: 1. DHH thinks all gypsies are bad, therefor 2. DHH does not see Roma as individual people, therefor 3. DHH is a bad person. I read DHH's blog as: 1. It should still be illegal to camp in parks, therefor 2. People who do camp in parks should be housed, therefor 3. Foreigners who refuse housing should be deported.
If he said "Foreigners who refuse housing should be deported." I would agree. Can you show me where he said that? I read "gypsies should be deported"
Re: Canceling "Hey"
#148[flagged]
"diversity" is a weasel word (often commits the motte-and-bailey fallacy) because it can easily mean different things at different times, making it prone to use as a political catch-all slogan.
"Diversity is our strength" -- what kind of diversity? Within a company, diversity of purpose is not a strength, because you can't have people working at cross-purposes with one another. It's the same for countries, local communities, and families. "Diversity" can easily be used to describe what ultimately is "division", making it contradict the old saying in the USA "United we stand, divided we fall".
Diversity of strengths/weaknesses, personalities, backgrounds (including ethnic), etc. all do make us stronger provided we maintain and prioritize a practical unity in a shared purpose.
Re: Canceling "Hey"
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
absolutely not, especially in the bay – people of color are way more likely to be homeless
The way you've stated this implies a structurally-enforced causality with regards to vagrancy in such a way that, wittingly or otherwise, wholly denies the possibility of individual agency in the very people you're ostensibly trying to defend.
I'm curious where you see the levers of individual agency here, and to what degree you think the affected people have tried to pull them. What's _your_ underlying thesis?
Re: Canceling "Hey"
#150The article says: > 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.
Can you explain how that's analogous to what he thinks we should do to wolves? Does he think that we should only shoot the wolves that are causing problems and leave the innocent majority of wolves alone?