4 ms·

Honestly not trying to be snarky. If what you quoted is the dog whistle, what is the decoded message that the in crowd would be hearing?

woodruffw 6y ago
> Honestly not trying to be snarky. I'll take that at face value. > If what you quoted is the dog whistle, what is the decoded message that the in crowd would be hearing? Both tie closely into bog-standard reactionary and white nationalist rhetoric. The first is a dogwhistle for "the great replacement," or the conspiracy theory that Europeans (meaning, to them, whites) are being intentionally replaced by migrants as a method of control. The latter ties closely to a crowd that calls themselves "white nationalist" but not "white supremacist" -- they insist that they don't believe in the superiority of whites, and only want isolation for "fundamentally different cultures" (by which they mean races). It should be apparent that this is really just white supremacy with more steps, especially if (as this introduction proposes) the European continent functionally becomes the landlord and benevolent overseer of a migrant nation.
- throw_for_now 6y ago
  I'm sorry for the question, but I'm reading this sort of opinion more and more frequently here: Do you think the whole world has a right to enter Europe? Isn't this an amazing form of entitlement?
  - morelisp 6y ago
    Asylum is, in fact, a fundamental right. Deciding this is one of the consequences of the liberal / Enlightenment project that supposedly also makes Europe worth preserving.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      And since we're in the process of extending Refugee to mean pretty much all non-elite migration, it's close to "the whole world", isn't it? There's a lot of talk about "fleeing economic crises", "fleeing climate change" etc, not just unjust persecution. That certainly would include most of the world, wouldn't it?
      - morelisp 6y ago
        Maybe "the west" should not have caused so many economic crises or changed the climate so much, if they wanted a different outcome. (But I can barely see the goalposts in the distance now...)
    - rpiguy 6y ago
      It is not. Mass asylum is a relatively new concept and a perversion of political asylum, which was very limited. Mass asylum is a political tool.
      - woodruffw 6y ago
        For the benefit of others reading this thread: this is the more overt form of the "great replacement" dogwhistle.
        rpiguy 6y ago
        And for the benefit of others reading this thread: this is the self-righteous language of an intolerant religion designed to shut down or dismiss rational debate. The only difference is this new brand of fanatic yells "racism" instead "sinner."
  - woodruffw 6y ago
    > Do you think the whole world has a right to enter Europe? Isn't this an amazing form of entitlement? As every European country agrees[1], refugees certainly do have the right to request asylum in Europe. There's nothing "entitled" about fleeing death, violence, and privation. That's the base case, and the one this blog post seems to be opposed to. More elaborate cases require more discussion, but you'll have to forgive me if I'm not inclined to spend time on that with a throwaway account. [1]: https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/1951-refugee-convention.html https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/1951-refugee-convention.html
    - amlalp 6y ago
      That is not what the blog is doing. It suggests to provide a safe space, financed by Europe. The entitlement is mind blowing.
      - woodruffw 6y ago
        > It suggests to provide a safe space, financed by Europe. Call it a colony, because that's what it is. The author of this post even defines it in terms of economic fealty. There's nothing "entitled" about being a refugee. You're telling on yourself.
        namlp 6y ago
        And you are apparently an American telling Europeans how many refugees to let in after wars started by ... whom? How about the U.S. taking them all?
morelisp 6y ago
"Try doing Liberia again, this time we'll definitely get all those darkies out!"
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

woodruffw 6y ago

> Honestly not trying to be snarky. I'll take that at face value. > If what you quoted is the dog whistle, what is the decoded message that the in crowd would be hearing? Both tie closely into bog-standard reactionary and white nationalist rhetoric. The first is a dogwhistle for "the great replacement," or the conspiracy theory that Europeans (meaning, to them, whites) are being intentionally replaced by migrants as a method of control. The latter ties closely to a crowd that calls themselves "white nationalist" but not "white supremacist" -- they insist that they don't believe in the superiority of whites, and only want isolation for "fundamentally different cultures" (by which they mean races). It should be apparent that this is really just white supremacy with more steps, especially if (as this introduction proposes) the European continent functionally becomes the landlord and benevolent overseer of a migrant nation.

throw_for_now 6y ago
I'm sorry for the question, but I'm reading this sort of opinion more and more frequently here: Do you think the whole world has a right to enter Europe? Isn't this an amazing form of entitlement?
- morelisp 6y ago
  Asylum is, in fact, a fundamental right. Deciding this is one of the consequences of the liberal / Enlightenment project that supposedly also makes Europe worth preserving.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    And since we're in the process of extending Refugee to mean pretty much all non-elite migration, it's close to "the whole world", isn't it? There's a lot of talk about "fleeing economic crises", "fleeing climate change" etc, not just unjust persecution. That certainly would include most of the world, wouldn't it?
    - morelisp 6y ago
      Maybe "the west" should not have caused so many economic crises or changed the climate so much, if they wanted a different outcome. (But I can barely see the goalposts in the distance now...)
  - rpiguy 6y ago
    It is not. Mass asylum is a relatively new concept and a perversion of political asylum, which was very limited. Mass asylum is a political tool.
    - woodruffw 6y ago
      For the benefit of others reading this thread: this is the more overt form of the "great replacement" dogwhistle.
      - rpiguy 6y ago
        And for the benefit of others reading this thread: this is the self-righteous language of an intolerant religion designed to shut down or dismiss rational debate. The only difference is this new brand of fanatic yells "racism" instead "sinner."
- woodruffw 6y ago
  > Do you think the whole world has a right to enter Europe? Isn't this an amazing form of entitlement? As every European country agrees[1], refugees certainly do have the right to request asylum in Europe. There's nothing "entitled" about fleeing death, violence, and privation. That's the base case, and the one this blog post seems to be opposed to. More elaborate cases require more discussion, but you'll have to forgive me if I'm not inclined to spend time on that with a throwaway account. [1]: https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/1951-refugee-convention.html https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/1951-refugee-convention.html
  - amlalp 6y ago
    That is not what the blog is doing. It suggests to provide a safe space, financed by Europe. The entitlement is mind blowing.
    - woodruffw 6y ago
      > It suggests to provide a safe space, financed by Europe. Call it a colony, because that's what it is. The author of this post even defines it in terms of economic fealty. There's nothing "entitled" about being a refugee. You're telling on yourself.
      - namlp 6y ago
        And you are apparently an American telling Europeans how many refugees to let in after wars started by ... whom? How about the U.S. taking them all?

morelisp 6y ago

"Try doing Liberia again, this time we'll definitely get all those darkies out!"

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]