Okay, I'll bite. What did he do that's racist and fascist. And please provide receipts.
For reference, here are the definitions:
racist: a person who believes that a particular race is superior to others, or who discriminates against other races
fascism: any right-wing, authoritarian, nationalist ideology characterized by centralized, totalitarian governance, strong regimentation of the economy and society, and repression of criticism or opposition
I'd say he crossed the line when he openly supported ethnic cleansing via remigration. I.e. deporting legal citizens that aren't the right race. If you don't think that's racist I don't know what it would take...
Before that I'd have said he was on the edge, but now it's pretty clear cut.
I'm lost... are you trying to argue that it would be ok for naturalized citizens of a country to be forcibly removed from the country where they hold citizenship if that country decides that they're the "wrong" race? On what planet is that ok?
1. Whether that is OK or not is unrelated to the question of whether it is racist to revoke citizenship on non-racial grounds. Which it clearly is not. (The "...the wrong race" is purely you).
2. As far as I can see, the position that DHH referred to did not apply to naturalized citizens, but to foreigners. So non-citizens.
3. As far as I know, most countries currently have laws on the books that can result in citizenship being revoked. As an example, countries that don't allow dual citizenship will take your citizenship away if you become citizen of another country. Germany and many other countries will take your citizenship away if you lied on your application and it only comes out later. Terror and treason are also common reasons.
4. Some counties (India for example) will even take your (naturalized) citizenship away if you are out of country long enough.
Both of these have a different definition of "remigration" than what you are using:
- deporting foreign nationals, not legal citizens
- deporting those foreign nationals if they have been convicted of a crime.
- nothing whatsoever to do with race, everything to do with (a) citizen status and (b) legally proven criminal behavior.
So: what you describe would be racist. What the article talks about that DHH was referring to clearly is not.
And please don't start with "dog whistle".
If you're going to accuse people of things, it does need to be them doing those things, not you interpreting.
If you can present clear evidence of him supporting actual ethnic cleansing, so not something that you somehow interpret as being equivalent, I am with you.
> Because the sacred cow here is not just that mass migration must stop going forward. It's also that millions who are already in Europe must go. Remigration has gone from a fringe concept to the mainstream discourse in record time on account of that realization.
> Remigration is a far-right concept referring to the ethnic cleansing via mass deportation of non-white minority populations, especially immigrants and sometimes including native-born citizens, to their place of racial ancestry.
He is very clearly talking about race.
There's no issue with acknowledging that cultural integration between different races can cause issues, nor is it unreasonable to limit immigration on that basis. It's completely insane to deport people who are now legal residents based on their race.
Obviously he's not going to say "blacks go home". He's too smart for that, come on.
Read some of his latest blog posts. Like <a href="https://world.hey.com/dhh/wolves-sheep-and-gypsies-ba44af6a" rel="nofollow">https://world.hey.com/dhh/wolves-sheep-and-gypsies-ba44af6a
> When wolves get out of control, you shoot them. When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them. This isn't hard, it isn't cruel. It's the basic logic of self-preservation.
Think about why he compares gypsies to wolves, and talks about "self-preservation".
You might want to be pedantic and try to say he's not comparing them to wolves. He is the one who put those two sentences next to each other. You can choose to ignore the thing that feels obvious to others.
I know a lot of people are decently close to DHH in their feelings on this issue. I think that being publicly loud about these opinions that most people keep to themselves simply leads to wondering what his _actual_ deep opinions are. Think about what you say in private compared to what you say in public, and consider that he is writing in public.
A sentiment being common or not is a bit besides the point about whether it's authoritarian or fascistic or whatever.
If you remove the context and the implication from his post, you can make the argument that it's "just" a post saying "enforce immigration laws".
The problem is that the context and the implications are part of his post. He is communicating who he is and what he believes, and for you it's mostly a question of whether you're going to listen to it.
This whole line of discussion is had about DHH in particular decently often, and I find it kinda funny because even beyond all of this I've always heard that he's just kind of a disagreeable person anyways. But I suppose this industry pulls in a certain kind of annoying person.
So in your mind there’s absolutely no subtextual message here in choosing wolves. It would have meant exactly the same thing if he’d chosen raccoons, or pigeons, or deer, or rabbits?
Roma people ("gypsy" is a racial slur for them) were also targets of the Holocaust. As many as 500,000 people may have been put in death camps—justified by views like those expressed here.
Where do you propose to "deport" Roma people who have been present in most of Europe since the 13th century?
This isn't a matter of "political" correctness. This is a matter of scientific correctness. There is not scientifically correct way to express this view because it is simply baseless racism.
> "The historically common term 'Gypsy' is based on the myth that they came from Egypt. In reality, the ancestors of the Romani migrated out of India in the 1st millennium CE."
Egypt isn't a race.
> Where do you propose to "deport" Roma people
I don't propose anything, I asked a couple questions. But if you want me to interpret the position for you: you deport Roma people, and any other foreigners, back to the country they have citizenship in. Their origin is somewhere, and it's -ist of you to treat all gypsies as one group.
For any that are citizens of the country in question: well, you don't deport them anywhere. That's not what it means.
> Anti-Roma racism is a manifestation of individual expressions and acts as well as institutional policies and practices of marginalization, exclusion, physical violence, devaluation of Roma cultures and lifestyles, and hate speech directed at Roma as well as other individuals and groups perceived, stigmatized, or persecuted during the Nazi era, and still today, as “Gypsies.” This leads to the treatment of Roma as an alleged alien group and associates them with a series of pejorative stereotypes and distorted images that represent a specific form of racism.
> Anti-Roma racism did not start with or end after the Nazi era but continues to be a central element in crimes perpetrated against Roma. In spite of the important work done by the United Nations, the European Union, the Council of Europe, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and other international bodies, the stereotypes and prejudices about Roma have not been delegitimized or discredited vigorously enough so that they continue to persist and can be deployed largely unchallenged.
---
> Sending people home is not the same as genocide
Home to where? Roma people have been widespread in Europe since the 13th century
> When wolves get out of control, you shoot them. When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them. This isn't hard, it isn't cruel. It's the basic logic of self-preservation.
This isn't even his personal blog. It's the company blog of Hey that he's using to push his views. Do you really wanna work with a company whose professional blog references "[insert ethnicity] rape gangs" and "the decline of Europe". He could go full Kanye at any point.
I agree it's quite weird to put it on a company blog, but it used to be that companies and their owners do express their views. As opposed to for example Big Tech, who doesn't express their views, but work very closely with Trump...
Gypsies are a major problem in a lot of cities in Europe... What would be a politically correct way to say that today ?
> Gypsies are a major problem in a lot of cities in Europe... What would be a politically correct way to say that today ?
What is the "politically correct" way to say "Jewish people are a problem"? Roma people ("gypsy" is a racial slur for them) were also targets of the Holocaust. As many as 500,000 people may have been put in death camps—justified by views like those expressed here.
Where do you propose to "deport" Roma people who have been present in most of Europe since the 13th century?
I don't think there is a "correct" way to say "[insert ethnicity] are a major problem". It is simply scientifically/historically/objectively incorrect.
tnolet · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
xdennis · · focus · HN ↗
For reference, here are the definitions:
racist: a person who believes that a particular race is superior to others, or who discriminates against other races
fascism: any right-wing, authoritarian, nationalist ideology characterized by centralized, totalitarian governance, strong regimentation of the economy and society, and repression of criticism or opposition
IshKebab · · focus · HN ↗
Before that I'd have said he was on the edge, but now it's pretty clear cut.
sejje · · focus · HN ↗
brendoelfrendo · · focus · HN ↗
sejje · · focus · HN ↗
mpweiher · · focus · HN ↗
2. As far as I can see, the position that DHH referred to did not apply to naturalized citizens, but to foreigners. So non-citizens.
3. As far as I know, most countries currently have laws on the books that can result in citizenship being revoked. As an example, countries that don't allow dual citizenship will take your citizenship away if you become citizen of another country. Germany and many other countries will take your citizenship away if you lied on your application and it only comes out later. Terror and treason are also common reasons.
4. Some counties (India for example) will even take your (naturalized) citizenship away if you are out of country long enough.
mpweiher · · focus · HN ↗
Googling, I can find this:
<a href="https://x.com/dhh/status/1997275678555951451" rel="nofollow">https://x.com/dhh/status/1997275678555951451
Which refers to this:
<a href="https://www.bt.dk/samfund/brandfarligt-ny-maaling-viser-massiv-opbakning-til-messerschmidts-forslag-om-at-hjemsende-tusindvis-af-udlaendinge" rel="nofollow">https://www.bt.dk/samfund/brandfarligt-ny-maaling-viser-mass...
Both of these have a different definition of "remigration" than what you are using:
- deporting foreign nationals, not legal citizens
- deporting those foreign nationals if they have been convicted of a crime.
- nothing whatsoever to do with race, everything to do with (a) citizen status and (b) legally proven criminal behavior.
So: what you describe would be racist. What the article talks about that DHH was referring to clearly is not.
And please don't start with "dog whistle".
If you're going to accuse people of things, it does need to be them doing those things, not you interpreting.
If you can present clear evidence of him supporting actual ethnic cleansing, so not something that you somehow interpret as being equivalent, I am with you.
IshKebab · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://world.hey.com/dhh/three-sacred-cows-that-must-die-so-europe-can-live-1afb203d" rel="nofollow">https://world.hey.com/dhh/three-sacred-cows-that-must-die-so...
> Because the sacred cow here is not just that mass migration must stop going forward. It's also that millions who are already in Europe must go. Remigration has gone from a fringe concept to the mainstream discourse in record time on account of that realization.
mpweiher · · focus · HN ↗
Says nothing about (a) race or (b) citizens.
On the other hand, he specifically writes about "hard problems like cultural integration between wildly different ways of living."
So culture, not race.
So exactly as I wrote: he talks about non-citizens and you turn it into "race".
Who is the racist?
IshKebab · · focus · HN ↗
He is very clearly talking about race.
There's no issue with acknowledging that cultural integration between different races can cause issues, nor is it unreasonable to limit immigration on that basis. It's completely insane to deport people who are now legal residents based on their race.
Obviously he's not going to say "blacks go home". He's too smart for that, come on.
mpweiher · · focus · HN ↗
You are.
omnimus · · focus · HN ↗
TheAlchemist · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
heartbreak · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64" rel="nofollow">https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64
rtpg · · focus · HN ↗
Think about why he compares gypsies to wolves, and talks about "self-preservation".
You might want to be pedantic and try to say he's not comparing them to wolves. He is the one who put those two sentences next to each other. You can choose to ignore the thing that feels obvious to others.
I know a lot of people are decently close to DHH in their feelings on this issue. I think that being publicly loud about these opinions that most people keep to themselves simply leads to wondering what his _actual_ deep opinions are. Think about what you say in private compared to what you say in public, and consider that he is writing in public.
A sentiment being common or not is a bit besides the point about whether it's authoritarian or fascistic or whatever.
If you remove the context and the implication from his post, you can make the argument that it's "just" a post saying "enforce immigration laws".
The problem is that the context and the implications are part of his post. He is communicating who he is and what he believes, and for you it's mostly a question of whether you're going to listen to it.
This whole line of discussion is had about DHH in particular decently often, and I find it kinda funny because even beyond all of this I've always heard that he's just kind of a disagreeable person anyways. But I suppose this industry pulls in a certain kind of annoying person.
sejje · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
enraged_camel · · focus · HN ↗
>> There's a reason why the last known wolf in Denmark didn't just wander off, but was shot dead in 1813.
>> When wolves get out of control, you shoot them.
sejje · · focus · HN ↗
> When wolves get out of control, you shoot them. When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them.
So no, he's not talking about hunting and killing the humans.
preisschild · · focus · HN ↗
sejje · · focus · HN ↗
wrs · · focus · HN ↗
sejje · · focus · HN ↗
But no, those words you made up don't speak to an idea I have.
culi · · focus · HN ↗
sejje · · focus · HN ↗
culi · · focus · HN ↗
Where do you propose to "deport" Roma people who have been present in most of Europe since the 13th century?
This isn't a matter of "political" correctness. This is a matter of scientific correctness. There is not scientifically correct way to express this view because it is simply baseless racism.
sejje · · focus · HN ↗
> "The historically common term 'Gypsy' is based on the myth that they came from Egypt. In reality, the ancestors of the Romani migrated out of India in the 1st millennium CE."
Egypt isn't a race.
> Where do you propose to "deport" Roma people
I don't propose anything, I asked a couple questions. But if you want me to interpret the position for you: you deport Roma people, and any other foreigners, back to the country they have citizenship in. Their origin is somewhere, and it's -ist of you to treat all gypsies as one group.
For any that are citizens of the country in question: well, you don't deport them anywhere. That's not what it means.
culi · · focus · HN ↗
> Anti-Roma racism is a manifestation of individual expressions and acts as well as institutional policies and practices of marginalization, exclusion, physical violence, devaluation of Roma cultures and lifestyles, and hate speech directed at Roma as well as other individuals and groups perceived, stigmatized, or persecuted during the Nazi era, and still today, as “Gypsies.” This leads to the treatment of Roma as an alleged alien group and associates them with a series of pejorative stereotypes and distorted images that represent a specific form of racism.
> Anti-Roma racism did not start with or end after the Nazi era but continues to be a central element in crimes perpetrated against Roma. In spite of the important work done by the United Nations, the European Union, the Council of Europe, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and other international bodies, the stereotypes and prejudices about Roma have not been delegitimized or discredited vigorously enough so that they continue to persist and can be deployed largely unchallenged.
---
> Sending people home is not the same as genocide
Home to where? Roma people have been widespread in Europe since the 13th century
sejje · · focus · HN ↗
The country they are a citizen of
culi · · focus · HN ↗
This isn't even his personal blog. It's the company blog of Hey that he's using to push his views. Do you really wanna work with a company whose professional blog references "[insert ethnicity] rape gangs" and "the decline of Europe". He could go full Kanye at any point.
TheAlchemist · · focus · HN ↗
Gypsies are a major problem in a lot of cities in Europe... What would be a politically correct way to say that today ?
microsoftedging · · focus · HN ↗
Edit: <a href="https://www.hey.com/world/" rel="nofollow">https://www.hey.com/world/
culi · · focus · HN ↗
What is the "politically correct" way to say "Jewish people are a problem"? Roma people ("gypsy" is a racial slur for them) were also targets of the Holocaust. As many as 500,000 people may have been put in death camps—justified by views like those expressed here.
Where do you propose to "deport" Roma people who have been present in most of Europe since the 13th century?
I don't think there is a "correct" way to say "[insert ethnicity] are a major problem". It is simply scientifically/historically/objectively incorrect.