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?
Is it ethnic cleansing when Zimbabwe or South Africa essentially kick out white farmers? And if so, why the histrionics when they were welcomed as refugees in the United States?
> why the histrionics when they were welcomed as refugees in the United States?
Because white South Africans were the only refugees welcomed this year. [1]. 6500 refugees (down from 100k+ in 2024), and every single one was a white South African. Calling that out is not "histrionics".
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.
I think you should familiarize yourself with the wikipedia definition of the phrase[1]. It may be helpful to read some examples[2], many of which involve exclusively forced removal.
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.
He called Romani people slurs and compared them to wolves that should be shot for the survival of the human population, which of course, exclusively refers to white people. How much more explicit would he have to get for you to allow us to condemn his actions for what they are?
I'm so tired of the US trying to fight a proxy political turf war by fitting their simplistic maga/democrat viewpoints over everything.
The truth, it's pretty complicated. But since all things US blow over, the biggest help would be fix your own backyard, and then perhaps moderate discussions can again prevail.
As a European and Londoner we absolutely have to speak up and be upset if companies support someone who’s said a whole load of awful shit and got away with it.
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.
reply