3 ms·

Nothing in that linked comment points to where DHH specifically takes a stand against the "freedom to exist."

by throwawaypath 1mo ago

TehCorwiz 1mo ago
I disagree. Calling for ethnic cleansing counts to me as taking a stance against a group's right to existence.
- deleted 1mo ago
  [deleted]
- throwawaypath 1mo ago
  He didn't call for ethnic cleansing.
  - stymaar 1mo ago
    He did. He claimed that the demographic has changed and he advocates for reverting this change. And it turns out that forcibly altering the demographic of an era is the literal definition of ethnic cleansing (and by the way the phrass has historicallt been coined with the specific meaning of removing Muslim people from Serbia, by the people who intended to perform that “cleansing”, so it's particularly apt here).
    - throwawaypath 1mo ago
      [flagged]
      - e12e 1mo ago
        >> He did not call for forcibly altering the demographic. > When wolves get out of control, you shoot them. When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them. And while I'm quoting: MerriamWebster: Xenophobe > one unduly fearful of what is foreign and especially of people of foreign origin DHH: > You can rest assured that I'd be in the streets waving a Danish flag if these were my conditions in my native country. I think that's a pretty universal sentiment. There's absolutely nothing racist or xenophobic in saying that Denmark is primarily a country for the Danes, Britain primarily a united kingdom for the Brits, and Japan primarily a set of islands for the Japanese. I would say saying that is pretty much the definition of xenophobic. Worse, in the context of DHHs rants, it comes off as racist - I don't get the sense he wants to throw out Norwegians from Denmark, for example. Although shurly there are Norwegian migrants and foreign workers in Denmark.
        throwawaypath 1mo ago
        No where did you quote where he's calling for forcibly altering the demographic. Enforcing immigration laws is not ethnic cleansing. >And while I'm quoting: >MerriamWebster: Xenophobe >> one unduly fearful of what is foreign and especially of people of foreign origin He doesn't fear foreign people or things so this definition doesn't apply. >I would say saying that is pretty much the definition of xenophobic. Except it's not, words have meaning. Supporting indigenous people and their rights to their native homelands is not xenophobic. >Worse, in the context of DHHs rants, it comes off as racist - I don't get the sense he wants to throw out Norwegians from Denmark, for example. That's your interpretation, not the facts, and not what DHH has said.
        e12e 1mo ago
        > Supporting indigenous people and their rights to their native homelands is not xenophobic. Xenophobia leads to the belief that white Danes need support for their rights to their native homeland. It's not like this is some great battle to rise restitution for Native Americans, Maori or Aborigines. It's about not having to see so many non-white faces in Copenhagen or London. > Enforcing immigration laws is not ethnic cleansing. That certainly depends on the law, and the enforcement. More to the point: trampling nomadic sub- cultures, forcefully denying them access where they have lived for centuries, denying them their way of life - can certainly result in genocide ("the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group").
        throwawaypath 1mo ago
        >Xenophobia leads to the belief that white Danes need support for their rights to their native homeland. False, the UN has stated that indigenous people have rights to their native homeland. Has nothing to do with xenophobia. >It's not like this is some great battle to rise restitution for Native Americans, Maori or Aborigines. Maybe the Native Americans, Maori, etc. shouldn't have let so many immigrants in. >It's about not having to see so many non-white faces in Copenhagen or London. Nowhere did DHH state anything about White, or only White people allowed. You're imagining that. >That certainly depends on the law, and the enforcement. Not at all. Countries have the right to enforce immigration. Immigration enforcement is not ethnic cleansing. >More to the point: trampling nomadic sub- cultures, forcefully denying them access where they have lived for centuries Roma have not lived there for centuries. >denying them their way of life - can certainly result in genocide Sending people back to their homes is not genocide.
- majorchord 1mo ago
  I'm not seeing anywhere that he actually claims someone doesn't have a right to exist. I see lots of people using colorful, subjective interpretations of other things he said to try and push a narrative, but that's all.
ath3nd 1mo ago
DHH has the capacity to assess that going full on white supremacist is still relatively frowned upon, so he does only as much as he thinks he can get away with. Sponsoring his badly made OSS and giving him any type of a limelight will only embolden him and the likes of him. I personally want nothing to do with him and anything he touches.

Nothing in that linked comment points to where DHH specifically takes a stand against the "freedom to exist."

TehCorwiz 1mo ago

I disagree. Calling for ethnic cleansing counts to me as taking a stance against a group's right to existence.

deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
throwawaypath 1mo ago
He didn't call for ethnic cleansing.
- stymaar 1mo ago
  He did. He claimed that the demographic has changed and he advocates for reverting this change. And it turns out that forcibly altering the demographic of an era is the literal definition of ethnic cleansing (and by the way the phrass has historicallt been coined with the specific meaning of removing Muslim people from Serbia, by the people who intended to perform that “cleansing”, so it's particularly apt here).
  - throwawaypath 1mo ago
    [flagged]
    - e12e 1mo ago
      >> He did not call for forcibly altering the demographic. > When wolves get out of control, you shoot them. When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them. And while I'm quoting: MerriamWebster: Xenophobe > one unduly fearful of what is foreign and especially of people of foreign origin DHH: > You can rest assured that I'd be in the streets waving a Danish flag if these were my conditions in my native country. I think that's a pretty universal sentiment. There's absolutely nothing racist or xenophobic in saying that Denmark is primarily a country for the Danes, Britain primarily a united kingdom for the Brits, and Japan primarily a set of islands for the Japanese. I would say saying that is pretty much the definition of xenophobic. Worse, in the context of DHHs rants, it comes off as racist - I don't get the sense he wants to throw out Norwegians from Denmark, for example. Although shurly there are Norwegian migrants and foreign workers in Denmark.
      - throwawaypath 1mo ago
        No where did you quote where he's calling for forcibly altering the demographic. Enforcing immigration laws is not ethnic cleansing. >And while I'm quoting: >MerriamWebster: Xenophobe >> one unduly fearful of what is foreign and especially of people of foreign origin He doesn't fear foreign people or things so this definition doesn't apply. >I would say saying that is pretty much the definition of xenophobic. Except it's not, words have meaning. Supporting indigenous people and their rights to their native homelands is not xenophobic. >Worse, in the context of DHHs rants, it comes off as racist - I don't get the sense he wants to throw out Norwegians from Denmark, for example. That's your interpretation, not the facts, and not what DHH has said.
        e12e 1mo ago
        > Supporting indigenous people and their rights to their native homelands is not xenophobic. Xenophobia leads to the belief that white Danes need support for their rights to their native homeland. It's not like this is some great battle to rise restitution for Native Americans, Maori or Aborigines. It's about not having to see so many non-white faces in Copenhagen or London. > Enforcing immigration laws is not ethnic cleansing. That certainly depends on the law, and the enforcement. More to the point: trampling nomadic sub- cultures, forcefully denying them access where they have lived for centuries, denying them their way of life - can certainly result in genocide ("the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group").
        throwawaypath 1mo ago
        >Xenophobia leads to the belief that white Danes need support for their rights to their native homeland. False, the UN has stated that indigenous people have rights to their native homeland. Has nothing to do with xenophobia. >It's not like this is some great battle to rise restitution for Native Americans, Maori or Aborigines. Maybe the Native Americans, Maori, etc. shouldn't have let so many immigrants in. >It's about not having to see so many non-white faces in Copenhagen or London. Nowhere did DHH state anything about White, or only White people allowed. You're imagining that. >That certainly depends on the law, and the enforcement. Not at all. Countries have the right to enforce immigration. Immigration enforcement is not ethnic cleansing. >More to the point: trampling nomadic sub- cultures, forcefully denying them access where they have lived for centuries Roma have not lived there for centuries. >denying them their way of life - can certainly result in genocide Sending people back to their homes is not genocide.
majorchord 1mo ago
I'm not seeing anywhere that he actually claims someone doesn't have a right to exist. I see lots of people using colorful, subjective interpretations of other things he said to try and push a narrative, but that's all.

ath3nd 1mo ago

DHH has the capacity to assess that going full on white supremacist is still relatively frowned upon, so he does only as much as he thinks he can get away with. Sponsoring his badly made OSS and giving him any type of a limelight will only embolden him and the likes of him. I personally want nothing to do with him and anything he touches.