Ruby Central Is Not Behaving in Good Faith, and I've Got Receipts

you don't think of Tommy Robinson as fascist? that's surprising to me. Ok, so I've grabbed a random definition of fascism[0] (first thing that came up googling).

> a populist political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition

now, let's think about tommy robinson and the EDL.

* exalts nation and often race above the individual - check.

* wants a centralised autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader - check.

* by forcible suppression of opposition - I mean... it's the EDL, big check.

[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

> you don't think of Tommy Robinson as fascist? that's surprising to me.

I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of the British public don't think he is either. Which is why I am asking how he is one.

> Ok, so I've grabbed a random definition of fascism[0] (first thing that came up googling).

Yeah that is the same definition I was using.

> now, let's think about tommy robinson and the EDL. > * exalts nation and often race above the individual - check.

Sure I agree.

> * wants a centralised autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader - check.

Where did this come from? I don't think that article said anything about this.

> * by forcible suppression of opposition - I mean... it's the EDL, big check.

I don't know much about the EDL & what they have done so I couldn't comment on this.

It's for similar reasons that frustrate you that I responded like I did: I am so _so_ tired from years and years of bad faith arguments where I will spend a great deal of time and energy to lay out detailed explanations, and the opposite party will respond with minimal energy, preconceived talking points, ignoring all of it.

We find ourselves in a prisoner's dilemma when it comes to debates around this topic (and many more) in terms of energy expenditure.

I have limited time and energy each day for discourse about these topics. I set off some time because I find it important. However I have been "stabbed" in the back so many times (as described above) that statistically I _have_ to assume the bad-faith arguments as the default. So why engage at all, you might ask. Because other people _need_ to see there's dissent here. Because fundamentally I do disagree with you.

I'll respond more concretely:

You say there are only two paths, once we agree that migration is required. In itself I refuse to accept that argument, because migration being needed is not a universal, indefinite, inalienable truth. It depends on many contextual factors, affecting its quantity, all the way down to 0.

Here's my stance on the primary limiting factors to this: The host nations' economic, societal and cultural health.

Societal health has to do with things like current crime rates, infrastructure like hospitals and schools, and more. It is tied to economic health, but not exclusively.

Cultural health has to do with a society's current ethical and moral foundation; how stable is it? The entire point of taking in immigrants is not to brainwash them, that's not what I think when I write "integrate". But a minimum requirement is that immigrants respect the current culture and agree with more facets of it than they disagree with. To be concrete, if a predominantly _culturally_ Christian culture like Norway -- and we do not have a state religion anymore, but our lingering culture is deeply Christian in how our unwritten moral and ethical codes guide us -- if such a culture takes in too many immigrants of religions with complete counter ethical and moral views (I won't name names, use your imagination), then that erodes the societal health until such differences are reconciled.

Economical health speaks for itself. How are our hospitals doing? Elderly care? School and kindergartens? How many _new people_ can we _actually_ take care of without breaking the current economy and/or public services and infrastructure? What is the unemployment rate? What jobs are available?

These factors impact whether immigration is required. And we _must_ start there. And a country must be (and is, by international law) able to say no for whatever reason.

If you find what I've written so far to be entirely unreasonable then I'll save us both the time and energy by stopping here; they are limited resources, after all. But if you find the conversation interesting I am willing to continue.

> I am not affiliated with either “side”

Then why are you carrying water for exclusively one "side"?

No.

I am not advocating violence against him. I am not trying to get him thrown out of his home.

The thing is, DHH can really easily stop being racist. Then people won't complain when he's invited to speak.

But the people he is complaining about cannot change their skin colour. They cannot change their nationality (according to him).

The people DHH support are advocating violence. They aren't asking politely for people to leave - they are threatening.

DHH is welcome to tell people not to come to my conferences. People can make up their own mind whether to listen to his opinion (or mine).