4 ms·

He posted a personal blog post a few days ago decrying that London is not white enough. He has a history of very right-leaning positions.

thevillagechief 1y ago
These kind of statements frustrate me. They are kind of manufactured consent statements. I likely don't agree with DHH positions as shared here, but when did we decide platforming very left-leaning positions is good, and platforming very right-leaning ones is bad? I wouldn't even mind if the position was that platforming either is good/bad. The framing here begs the question.
- pebble 1y ago
  The left-leaning ones usually don't call for the eradication of certain peoples.
  - tremon 1y ago
    To be fair, neither do the right-leaning ones; the ones that do have fallen completely on their side. It's just that societal discourse has been purposefully skewed so that the mean lean is 60 degrees to the right, making it very easy for weak individuals to fall over.
  - arresin 1y ago
    Neither side can claim not to be violent. Obviously.
    - sleight42 1y ago
      If we're talking about the US, that's a straw man. There was a study that made objectively clear that the right is several times more actively violent than the left. "Both sides" is a euphemistic fig leaf of an argument at best.
      - zchrykng 1y ago
        If you actually look at the data, that "study" assigned a lot of really unclear or marginal cases to "right wing". They also didn't count a lot of obvious left wing political violence as "left wing".
        zahlman 1y ago
        I would have suspected as much a priori, but I'd appreciate some detail here.
  - gedy 1y ago
    [flagged]
- amanaplanacanal 1y ago
  Well yes, thinking people should be treated equally regardless of their sexuality or color of their skin is good, and the opposite is bad. Is that the kind of "very left leaning position" you had in mind? Or something else?
  - poszlem 1y ago
    What you described is, of course, a perfectly honest account of the issue, and definitely not a strawman set up just to be knocked down.
    - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
      Do you have some idea what they meant by extreme left leaning issues? I'd like to hear your take.
      - hombre_fatal 1y ago
        Sure: importing migrants with no end in sight while shutting down any convo over what the limit should be; there is no limit and you're racist if you disagree. And it's not a principled position on open borders nor open migration but instead part of a double standard. These same people probably cheer on the protests in Mexico City against white gringos in Condesa. That's how I'd summarize the far left position. The far right one is probably that migrants are bad. And I suppose the middle position is that there's a problem when immigration rate outpaces cultural assimilation.
        RhythmFox 1y ago
        You just happen to hold this 'middle position' I imagine?
        amanaplanacanal 1y ago
        Is unlimited immigration really popular among the far left? Sounds more like a libertarian position to me. After some quick googling I can't find any groups that support that. I did find a poll that shows 64% of Americans support creating some path for undocumented immigrants to get legal status. I'm not sure you could call 64% a far left position though.
- bhouston 1y ago
  I read the DHH post in question: https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64 https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64. It is pretty standard anti-immigrant. It feels like it is acknowledging the fact that the populations of Western countries are in a demographic crisis, they are sub-replacement in terms of fertility but instead of fixing that he just wants to ban immigrants. It feels like fixing the fertility issue would solve the root issue.
  - lbrito 1y ago
    That is always the case with this kind of rant. People want to have the cake and eat it too.
  - fwip 1y ago
    You don't need to carry water for racists and invent more palatable explanations for what they said. There's nothing in there about not enough British people - only about too many foreigners (whom he can tell by looking at them).
    - zahlman 1y ago
      > There's nothing in there about not enough British people - only about too many foreigners It's the same thing, because the motivation for the immigration policy, per the people implementing it, is to avoid demographic collapse. Generally too many people can also reasonably be considered a problem, if the intended solution to the social services problem is endless exponential growth. Especially on an island. > (whom he can tell by looking at them) There are different ethnicities of "white people" who can be told apart by looking. So "he can tell by looking" does not mean that he is applying a racial standard. Your argument depends on a notion that English, Italians, Germans etc. "all look the same". But last I checked, people who would say the same about, for example, Chinese, Japanese and Koreans would be called racist for that.
      - flykespice 1y ago
        > There are different ethnicities of "white people" who can be told apart by looking. So "he can tell by looking" does not mean that he is applying a racial standard. damn, you are really catching the straws here to defend a racist It's obvious he meant brown people or anyone that isn't white/european looking. There is no genetically pure or distinct native British phenotye to set apart other europeans. Europeans have been mixing themselves for centuries, he obviously knew what he was talking about (non-whites)
- octernion 1y ago
  you think we should platform racism?
- madeofpalk 1y ago
  I disagree with this framing as well. There's nothing wrong with "right-leaning" statements or opinions. DHH can talk all he wants about a desire for smaller governments, opinions on gun control, or conservative fiscal policy. However, people that espouse intolerance of others based on the colour of their skin is just objectively bad. Sometimes there is a right and a wrong side to things. The problem is that some on the political-right seem to have aligned themselves with policy or viewpoints that stand for hatred.
- basisword 1y ago
  I think the real issue is framing blatant racism as a 'very right-leaning' opinion. It does a disservice to people who have normal conservative opinions on economic or social issues. We've moved past race as a social issue long ago. It's not a debate that should be had anymore. Racists aren't conservative or right wing - they're just bigots. And to be clear, you can discuss immigration policy without being racist. In the blog post in question DHH gives his support to a convicted criminal, who is also a former member of an explicitly fascist political party and founder of an islamophobic hate group. That's not 'right-leaning'. It's support for a racist criminal. I'm unsure whether DHH is actually a bigot or just completely engulfed in the rhetoric common on Twitter these days. Either way he's a fucking moron pontificating on something which he has no actual experience of. Maybe when the US invades Greenland and starts deporting the Danes from the US he'll discover empathy.
  - type0 1y ago
    > Maybe when the US invades Greenland and starts deporting the Danes from the US he'll discover empathy. is he actually US citizen or dual or just Danish?
    - chuckadams 1y ago
      > is he actually US citizen or dual or just Danish? The question is, does that even matter to the current regime?
- makeitdouble 1y ago
  > hen did we decide platforming very left-leaning positions is good, and platforming very right-leaning ones is bad? The same way DHH can have opinions, one-man-companies forking the sponsorship momey can have some too. "We" didn't decide anything, a sponsor company decided to stop sponsoring (with no public commentary), that's all that happened. More to the point, "platforming" is an active operation, I think anyone can decide who they want to promote and why. It's fundamentally different from censoring.
- catgary 1y ago
  You would need to identify specific far left views that would be comparably objectionable. I’m not going to be upset if someone has wonky ideas about free market systems or tax codes. DHH has said some objectively racist rhetoric on his blog and called Tommy Robinson’s recent march “heartwarming”.

thevillagechief 1y ago

These kind of statements frustrate me. They are kind of manufactured consent statements. I likely don't agree with DHH positions as shared here, but when did we decide platforming very left-leaning positions is good, and platforming very right-leaning ones is bad? I wouldn't even mind if the position was that platforming either is good/bad. The framing here begs the question.

pebble 1y ago
The left-leaning ones usually don't call for the eradication of certain peoples.
- tremon 1y ago
  To be fair, neither do the right-leaning ones; the ones that do have fallen completely on their side. It's just that societal discourse has been purposefully skewed so that the mean lean is 60 degrees to the right, making it very easy for weak individuals to fall over.
- arresin 1y ago
  Neither side can claim not to be violent. Obviously.
  - sleight42 1y ago
    If we're talking about the US, that's a straw man. There was a study that made objectively clear that the right is several times more actively violent than the left. "Both sides" is a euphemistic fig leaf of an argument at best.
    - zchrykng 1y ago
      If you actually look at the data, that "study" assigned a lot of really unclear or marginal cases to "right wing". They also didn't count a lot of obvious left wing political violence as "left wing".
      - zahlman 1y ago
        I would have suspected as much a priori, but I'd appreciate some detail here.
- gedy 1y ago
  [flagged]
amanaplanacanal 1y ago
Well yes, thinking people should be treated equally regardless of their sexuality or color of their skin is good, and the opposite is bad. Is that the kind of "very left leaning position" you had in mind? Or something else?
- poszlem 1y ago
  What you described is, of course, a perfectly honest account of the issue, and definitely not a strawman set up just to be knocked down.
  - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
    Do you have some idea what they meant by extreme left leaning issues? I'd like to hear your take.
    - hombre_fatal 1y ago
      Sure: importing migrants with no end in sight while shutting down any convo over what the limit should be; there is no limit and you're racist if you disagree. And it's not a principled position on open borders nor open migration but instead part of a double standard. These same people probably cheer on the protests in Mexico City against white gringos in Condesa. That's how I'd summarize the far left position. The far right one is probably that migrants are bad. And I suppose the middle position is that there's a problem when immigration rate outpaces cultural assimilation.
      - RhythmFox 1y ago
        You just happen to hold this 'middle position' I imagine?
      - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
        Is unlimited immigration really popular among the far left? Sounds more like a libertarian position to me. After some quick googling I can't find any groups that support that. I did find a poll that shows 64% of Americans support creating some path for undocumented immigrants to get legal status. I'm not sure you could call 64% a far left position though.
bhouston 1y ago
I read the DHH post in question: https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64 https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64. It is pretty standard anti-immigrant. It feels like it is acknowledging the fact that the populations of Western countries are in a demographic crisis, they are sub-replacement in terms of fertility but instead of fixing that he just wants to ban immigrants. It feels like fixing the fertility issue would solve the root issue.
- lbrito 1y ago
  That is always the case with this kind of rant. People want to have the cake and eat it too.
- fwip 1y ago
  You don't need to carry water for racists and invent more palatable explanations for what they said. There's nothing in there about not enough British people - only about too many foreigners (whom he can tell by looking at them).
  - zahlman 1y ago
    > There's nothing in there about not enough British people - only about too many foreigners It's the same thing, because the motivation for the immigration policy, per the people implementing it, is to avoid demographic collapse. Generally too many people can also reasonably be considered a problem, if the intended solution to the social services problem is endless exponential growth. Especially on an island. > (whom he can tell by looking at them) There are different ethnicities of "white people" who can be told apart by looking. So "he can tell by looking" does not mean that he is applying a racial standard. Your argument depends on a notion that English, Italians, Germans etc. "all look the same". But last I checked, people who would say the same about, for example, Chinese, Japanese and Koreans would be called racist for that.
    - flykespice 1y ago
      > There are different ethnicities of "white people" who can be told apart by looking. So "he can tell by looking" does not mean that he is applying a racial standard. damn, you are really catching the straws here to defend a racist It's obvious he meant brown people or anyone that isn't white/european looking. There is no genetically pure or distinct native British phenotye to set apart other europeans. Europeans have been mixing themselves for centuries, he obviously knew what he was talking about (non-whites)
octernion 1y ago
you think we should platform racism?
madeofpalk 1y ago
I disagree with this framing as well. There's nothing wrong with "right-leaning" statements or opinions. DHH can talk all he wants about a desire for smaller governments, opinions on gun control, or conservative fiscal policy. However, people that espouse intolerance of others based on the colour of their skin is just objectively bad. Sometimes there is a right and a wrong side to things. The problem is that some on the political-right seem to have aligned themselves with policy or viewpoints that stand for hatred.
basisword 1y ago
I think the real issue is framing blatant racism as a 'very right-leaning' opinion. It does a disservice to people who have normal conservative opinions on economic or social issues. We've moved past race as a social issue long ago. It's not a debate that should be had anymore. Racists aren't conservative or right wing - they're just bigots. And to be clear, you can discuss immigration policy without being racist. In the blog post in question DHH gives his support to a convicted criminal, who is also a former member of an explicitly fascist political party and founder of an islamophobic hate group. That's not 'right-leaning'. It's support for a racist criminal. I'm unsure whether DHH is actually a bigot or just completely engulfed in the rhetoric common on Twitter these days. Either way he's a fucking moron pontificating on something which he has no actual experience of. Maybe when the US invades Greenland and starts deporting the Danes from the US he'll discover empathy.
- type0 1y ago
  > Maybe when the US invades Greenland and starts deporting the Danes from the US he'll discover empathy. is he actually US citizen or dual or just Danish?
  - chuckadams 1y ago
    > is he actually US citizen or dual or just Danish? The question is, does that even matter to the current regime?
makeitdouble 1y ago
> hen did we decide platforming very left-leaning positions is good, and platforming very right-leaning ones is bad? The same way DHH can have opinions, one-man-companies forking the sponsorship momey can have some too. "We" didn't decide anything, a sponsor company decided to stop sponsoring (with no public commentary), that's all that happened. More to the point, "platforming" is an active operation, I think anyone can decide who they want to promote and why. It's fundamentally different from censoring.
catgary 1y ago
You would need to identify specific far left views that would be comparably objectionable. I’m not going to be upset if someone has wonky ideas about free market systems or tax codes. DHH has said some objectively racist rhetoric on his blog and called Tommy Robinson’s recent march “heartwarming”.