3 ms·

A large portion of DHH's article is dedicated to Tommy Robinson and the march. It's almost a common thread that ties it together, weaving in callbacks throughou

A large portion of DHH's article is dedicated to Tommy Robinson and the march. It's almost a common thread that ties it together, weaving in callbacks throughout. He is romanticising TR and the march. It's beyond merely acknowledging its existence. There's definitely an air of admiration. As for Tommy, if you are not familiar with it's worth looking at his Wikipedia entry. He is a violent thug and career criminal. He has been convicted of: fraud, possession intent to supply drugs, assaulting a police officer (whom he kicked in the head while on the floor), entering the US on a false passport, stalking and harassing journalists, contempt of court on multiple occasions (one of which he seriously jeopardised the court trial of some paedophiles) This is not an exhaustive list. And without getting into his foul politics. Lending any credence whatsoever to this man is very telling

legitster 1y ago
DHH was specifically romanticising and defending the marches. (Although he did reference a tweet from TR as a source - that's a worse look.) Listen - you don't have to sell me on not liking Robinson. But plenty of people participate in political moments without fulling endorsing their progenitors (plenty of iconic activists have problematic pasts), so it seems fair to at least give DHH the benefit of the doubt when it comes to associations. Lest we all be judged by the same standard.
- jakelazaroff 1y ago
  Author here — I mentioned this in the article but if someone waxes poetic about a march while conveniently omitting the fact that seemingly every speech there was insane and bigoted, [1] they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. [1] https://hopenothate.org.uk/2025/09/13/britains-biggest-far-right-protest-more-than-100000-attend-tommy-robinsons-unite-the-kingdom-rally/ https://hopenothate.org.uk/2025/09/13/britains-biggest-far-r...
  - legitster 1y ago
    > they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. I really implore you to reconsider this position. Our world is wrapped up in injustice and political violence because everyone is jumping to extremist positions. And the last thing we need is declaring people guilty merely by association or poor attempts at empathy. From a good faith reading of DHH's article, it's pretty clear he is expressing empathy for the feelings of the marchers (and even TR) without much care to the particulars (it doesn't sound like he himself marched or was personally witness to them). In the same way we allow for people to feel empathy for Luigi Mangione's motives without accusing them of also being homicidal. You would be better off digging into DHH's actual problematic idea that he is trying to put forward: that the UK, or more specifically London, should fetishize and emulate the policy of anti-immigration countries. His actual thesis is bad enough and easily debunked without trying to pick apart "dog-whistles" and subtexts. DHH is expressing a terrible idea, but in good faith. To maybe prove his point for him in an ironic way - Denmark can have actual harmful, racist, anti-immigrant legislation - but because no one cared about the rhetoric that was used they got it done.
    - jakelazaroff 1y ago
      He is the one who chose to use the march as an example, and he's the one who chose to lie by omission about what actually went down there. I'm not declaring him guilty by association, I just refuse to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who's clearly playing in my face.
    - archagon 1y ago
      Sometimes a racist is just a racist. Everything in his writing points to it, though maybe he hasn’t quite admitted it to himself yet. “White Brits (or Nords, or Americans) are the only true Brits (Nords/Americans)” is a difficult position for me to have any sort of sympathy or tolerance for, though I’m sure his distressed feelings on this matter are genuine.
- WickyNilliams 1y ago
  Yes of course you don't need to fully endorse someone's politics in these situations. Though _not fully endorsing_ usually implies a disagreement on a minority of points. But here, for any reasonable person, it would be quite the opposite - you have to entirely ignore TR's storied violent criminal past, because you're fond of a march. And as the article linked points out, the speakers at this march were quite extreme. So it's not as if the march is even defensible in isolation. I think DHH is too smart to be ignorant to any of this. (I will say I don't condemn everyone who attended the march, I imagine many went with good intentions)

legitster 1y ago

DHH was specifically romanticising and defending the marches. (Although he did reference a tweet from TR as a source - that's a worse look.) Listen - you don't have to sell me on not liking Robinson. But plenty of people participate in political moments without fulling endorsing their progenitors (plenty of iconic activists have problematic pasts), so it seems fair to at least give DHH the benefit of the doubt when it comes to associations. Lest we all be judged by the same standard.

jakelazaroff 1y ago
Author here — I mentioned this in the article but if someone waxes poetic about a march while conveniently omitting the fact that seemingly every speech there was insane and bigoted, [1] they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. [1] https://hopenothate.org.uk/2025/09/13/britains-biggest-far-right-protest-more-than-100000-attend-tommy-robinsons-unite-the-kingdom-rally/ https://hopenothate.org.uk/2025/09/13/britains-biggest-far-r...
- legitster 1y ago
  > they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. I really implore you to reconsider this position. Our world is wrapped up in injustice and political violence because everyone is jumping to extremist positions. And the last thing we need is declaring people guilty merely by association or poor attempts at empathy. From a good faith reading of DHH's article, it's pretty clear he is expressing empathy for the feelings of the marchers (and even TR) without much care to the particulars (it doesn't sound like he himself marched or was personally witness to them). In the same way we allow for people to feel empathy for Luigi Mangione's motives without accusing them of also being homicidal. You would be better off digging into DHH's actual problematic idea that he is trying to put forward: that the UK, or more specifically London, should fetishize and emulate the policy of anti-immigration countries. His actual thesis is bad enough and easily debunked without trying to pick apart "dog-whistles" and subtexts. DHH is expressing a terrible idea, but in good faith. To maybe prove his point for him in an ironic way - Denmark can have actual harmful, racist, anti-immigrant legislation - but because no one cared about the rhetoric that was used they got it done.
  - jakelazaroff 1y ago
    He is the one who chose to use the march as an example, and he's the one who chose to lie by omission about what actually went down there. I'm not declaring him guilty by association, I just refuse to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who's clearly playing in my face.
  - archagon 1y ago
    Sometimes a racist is just a racist. Everything in his writing points to it, though maybe he hasn’t quite admitted it to himself yet. “White Brits (or Nords, or Americans) are the only true Brits (Nords/Americans)” is a difficult position for me to have any sort of sympathy or tolerance for, though I’m sure his distressed feelings on this matter are genuine.
WickyNilliams 1y ago
Yes of course you don't need to fully endorse someone's politics in these situations. Though _not fully endorsing_ usually implies a disagreement on a minority of points. But here, for any reasonable person, it would be quite the opposite - you have to entirely ignore TR's storied violent criminal past, because you're fond of a march. And as the article linked points out, the speakers at this march were quite extreme. So it's not as if the march is even defensible in isolation. I think DHH is too smart to be ignorant to any of this. (I will say I don't condemn everyone who attended the march, I imagine many went with good intentions)