4 ms·
There's a difference between when people have a platform. Made a mistake 10 years ago? Fine. But that's very different than using your huge platform today to s
by boredpudding 20d ago
There's a difference between when people have a platform. Made a mistake 10 years ago? Fine.
But that's very different than using your huge platform today to spread your hate.
Pretending those two are the same is dangerous. One of them does actual harm today.
- IslandRebel 20d ago[flagged]
- drewbeck 20d ago> Someone will dig through some old forums/news group/twitter posts that someone made and use that as a stick to beat them with. This is not about digging up some old careless post. It’s about his current views which he posts proudly online. I’ll note your post pulls a classic trick: - these views are not that important to who he is - anyway even if he did hold those views it’s not that big of a deal - but also I agree with those views (even tho I am but a humble, reasonable centrist)
- IslandRebel 20d ago[flagged]
- dofm 20d ago> Secondly, constantly berating him for having the wrong opinions and not explaining why those opinions are wrong are more likely to entrench his positions and anyone that is sympathetic to those opinions. People have tried that. DHH is at best a pseudo-intellectual troll.
- IslandRebel 20d ago[flagged]
- dofm 20d agoI do indeed accuse him of being a pseudo-intellectual troll, and that is the kindest interpretation of things he has actually written, including “As I Remember London”, which is creepy, deliberately misleading, has clear white-nationalist subtext and openly supports a crooked bigoted thug.
- IslandRebel 20d ago[flagged]
- dofm 20d agoNope, sorry. There are things in that article that are really a long way beyond having been deceived. They cannot and must not be minimised in that way. And nobody who criticises them should feel any blame if he doubles down; he is a wealthy privileged white man who is solely responsible for the things he says.
- IslandRebel 20d ago> There are things in that article that are really a long way beyond having been deceived I don't believe so. Can you explain exactly how it is impossible he is deceived? > They cannot and must not be minimised in that way. Why not? To me what I described is what fits 100%. You just asserting that is the case hasn't explained why I might be incorrect. You clearly haven't taken what I've explained to you on board at all. I suggest you bother checking out any of how this occurs in any other conspiracy circles, e.g., UFOs or just watching something that promotes conspiracy theories, such as Hunting Hitler (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5248878/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5248878/). It's the same mechanism, just a different form. > And nobody who criticises them should feel any blame if he doubles down; he is a wealthy privileged white man who is solely responsible for the things he says. I am not saying people should feel blame for criticising him. I am saying that should be blamed for brow-beating him. Are you telling me he cannot be deceived because he is wealthy? Plenty of wealthy and privileged people are/have been deceived.
- brazukadev 20d agoWhy are you comparing someone that said a mild anti-abort thing to DHH tho? can you describe with your words what is DHH main talking points? mild racism? mild eugenics?
- IslandRebel 20d ago[flagged]
- brazukadev 20d agoYou don't see anything wrong with his posts because you hold similar beliefs, you are just putting yourself in the center, which is typical.
- IslandRebel 20d ago[flagged]