DHH is definitely a polarizing figure, but this kind of hyperbole (Ethnic Cleansing) definitely harms progressive causes.
I get that some people feel strongly about fairness and justice, but I would like them to care just as much about efficacy and being effective instead of just histrionics.
He's written in favour of deporting non-white Londoners, including many of my friends and family - despite them having been born and brought up in the UK and being full UK citizens.
Is "Ethnic Cleansing" really such a hyperbolic term for a policy of enforced expulsion based on skin colour? What would you call it instead?
DHHs take is definitely not 'sane' and quite extreme. However Ethnic Cleansing has a particular connotation that's more severe than forced deportations. That's what I mean by histrionics.
I believe it's a virtue, both in engineering and in politics, to stick to the facts without drama or exaggeration.
As I understand it, ethnic cleansing refers to the forcible removal of a population, where population means a broad group defined by shared race, ethnicity, nationality, or religion.
Would you rather it was instead referred to as a wide-scale pogrom? Or some form of genocide? I'm happy to use whatever terminology you want - it doesn't really affect the extreme nature of what he's proposing.
Looking at the linked DHH posts, which part(s) do you think make "ethnic cleansing" hyperbole? It seems like a pretty fair reading of his wishes to me.
DHH is definitely a polarizing figure, but this kind of hyperbole (Ethnic Cleansing) definitely harms progressive causes.
I get that some people feel strongly about fairness and justice, but I would like them to care just as much about efficacy and being effective instead of just histrionics.
He's written in favour of deporting non-white Londoners, including many of my friends and family - despite them having been born and brought up in the UK and being full UK citizens.
Is "Ethnic Cleansing" really such a hyperbolic term for a policy of enforced expulsion based on skin colour? What would you call it instead?
DHHs take is definitely not 'sane' and quite extreme. However Ethnic Cleansing has a particular connotation that's more severe than forced deportations. That's what I mean by histrionics.
I believe it's a virtue, both in engineering and in politics, to stick to the facts without drama or exaggeration.
As I understand it, ethnic cleansing refers to the forcible removal of a population, where population means a broad group defined by shared race, ethnicity, nationality, or religion.
Would you rather it was instead referred to as a wide-scale pogrom? Or some form of genocide? I'm happy to use whatever terminology you want - it doesn't really affect the extreme nature of what he's proposing.
> but this kind of hyperbole
Looking at the linked DHH posts, which part(s) do you think make "ethnic cleansing" hyperbole? It seems like a pretty fair reading of his wishes to me.
[flagged]
> Expelling people who have no particular attachment or roots to a given land is not ethnic cleansing.
And, pray tell, who decides if a person has "particular attachment or roots"? For example, would you be fine with me deciding if you do?
> Expelling people who have no particular attachment or roots to a given land is not ethnic cleansing.
If you are going to expel people you need more than hand wavy definitions like this. Or does it just come down to "people who are not like us"?
[flagged]