Preferences

> made a political comment someone didn't like

It should be noted that this specific framing ("it's just a disagreement," "someone didn't like it," "it's nothing big") is used by the people that, instead, like the "comment." It's an extremely common pattern. So is one of the words he uses later, "histrionics."

The comment in question is an ethnonationalist blog post. Not a comment somewhere, but an actual goddamn essay. But you don't have to take my word on it, you can read it yourself:

https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64

You should also click through his archive for more, because this isn't really new for him, it's just taking it to a new low.

> by a small group of terminally online histrionics

Again, witness the minimization of the actual thing he said and the redirection to the critics. Why? It's the argument pattern they've adopted.

The term that the parent post would be looking for it actually "social shaming." You see, shame used to be an effective tool against bigotry. Not wanting to associate with bigots isn't histrionics. On the contrary, being OK with bigotry is bad, and wrong!


I'm one of the immigrant groups people don't seem to like very much these days, but even I recognize some degree of ethnonationalism or desire to restrict immigration is NOT bigotry. I can empathize how jarring it must be to begin to feel like a minority in your own country - even if they aren't minorities nationally, they may be in local urban pockets. Unfettered immigration IS causing problems in many places, is often supported by businesses looking for cheap labor and it's absolutely reasonable to be opposed to it.

Moreover, the false equivalence you're drawing between opposition to immigration and bigotry is part of what let the problem fester in the first place. I think people should be allowed to oppose immigration without being called racist, its not the same thing. The open bigotry and racism by the right in many countries is partly a reaction to this false equivalence. They saw immigration in some cases as causing social disorder, as a tool to suppress wages, as causing increased crime etc. and they were forcefed a message of "all immigration is good and any opposition is racist" to reasonable objections. No one is obligated to accept every person who wants to come in.

That's all well and good except he didn't say he wanted stricter immigration controls, he endorsed openly bigoted and unapologetically violent white supremacist Tommy Robinson
I don't see him endorsing the guy somewhere else and all i see in this post is:

> So I get the frustration that many Brits have with the way mass immigration has changed the culture and makeup of not just London, but their whole country. That frustration was on wide display in Tommy Robinson's march yesterday. British and English flags flying high and proud, ...

That doesn't sound like an endorsement to me.

Doesn't sound to me like you read the whole thing
This is false. I do not, in fact, have an opinion one way or the other about his blog post. I don't care at all what the man has to say about politics. But I still disapprove of people trying to drag his politics into the thread, and start flame wars, every time the man comes up.
He expresses his opinions on his own blog. You are being extremely toxic in public.

This item has no comments currently.