|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2023 12:36:03 GMT
By the same token, would it not be correct (pedantry aside) to state that a policy can have a genocidal effect without there necessarily being a genocidal intent?
A recent example could be the expulsion of Chagossians from Diego Garcia, which has been widely denounced in liberal circles as a cultural genocide, if not a racial one.
My notion is that, if the intent amounts to an intent to reduce the whole group, it can reasonably be described as genocidal in intent.This is why context and placing is important (to my mind anyway). An objective to reduce the number of Nigerians in (say) China need not be genocidal, but the same objective applied to Nigeria almost certainly is. If you aim to reduce the number of Nigerians in Nigeria, you are targeting the whole group for elimination / reduction. You may have answered this previously, but can I ask if you see the deportation of immigrants to Rwanda as an act of genocide? After all, that will have the effect of reducing the number of Rwandans relative to non-Rwandans in that country. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Dec 11, 2023 12:39:01 GMT
Labelling an idea 'far-right' in an attempt to deprecate or denigrate it is a standard leftist tactic. However as far as Great Replacements are concerned some of the actual greatest were implemented by the Soviet Union which most people would categorise as 'far-left'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 11, 2023 12:40:17 GMT
Marx has many ideas afaik . I certainly could not refute any one idea simply by calling it left wing . But GB 'News', etc., often dismiss actions, offering no better explanation for condemnation than they are 'Marxist'. And it's not the case that I have based my argument on nothing more than the bald statement that it is a far-right idea. There have been many planks to my argument. The far-right only came into it when the conversation turned to the group that actually professes those ideas. Indeed. That’s part of the game . Yes there are many ‘ planks’ in your argument as whole . Im disputing one of them, that a single idea can be refuted merely by calling it ‘ right wing ‘. That doesn’t mean that you cannot claim the idea is cynically exploited by right wingers . |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2023 12:40:41 GMT
Labelling an idea 'far-right' in an attempt to deprecate or denigrate it is a standard leftist tactic. However as far as Great Replacements are concerned some of the actual greatest were implemented by the Soviet Union which most people would categorise as 'far-left'. The idea is current in far-right circles. It is professed by the far-right. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2023 12:41:26 GMT
But GB 'News', etc., often dismiss actions, offering no better explanation for condemnation than they are 'Marxist'. And it's not the case that I have based my argument on nothing more than the bald statement that it is a far-right idea. There have been many planks to my argument. The far-right only came into it when the conversation turned to the group that actually professes those ideas. Indeed. That’s part of the game . Yes there are many ‘ planks’ in your argument as whole . Im disputing one of them, that a single idea can be refuted merely by calling it ‘ right wing ‘. That doesn’t mean that you cannot claim the idea is cynically exploited by right wingers . But it is a far-right idea. It is professed by the far-right. What do you want? That we should pretend otherwise? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 11, 2023 12:46:23 GMT
Indeed. That’s part of the game . Yes there are many ‘ planks’ in your argument as whole . Im disputing one of them, that a single idea can be refuted merely by calling it ‘ right wing ‘. That doesn’t mean that you cannot claim the idea is cynically exploited by right wingers . But it is a far-right idea. It is professed by the far-right. What do you want? That we should pretend otherwise? I want you accept that a single idea is not arbitrary wrong because it is supported by the right |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 11, 2023 12:47:23 GMT
My notion is that, if the intent amounts to an intent to reduce the whole group, it can reasonably be described as genocidal in intent.This is why context and placing is important (to my mind anyway). An objective to reduce the number of Nigerians in (say) China need not be genocidal, but the same objective applied to Nigeria almost certainly is. If you aim to reduce the number of Nigerians in Nigeria, you are targeting the whole group for elimination / reduction. You may have answered this previously, but can I ask if you see the deportation of immigrants to Rwanda as an act of genocide? After all, that will have the effect of reducing the number of Rwandans relative to non-Rwandans in that country. I did answer previously - If the numbers transported were large enough to have a noticeable dis-empowering effect on native Rwandans and those effects were celebrated - ie "Black Rwandans are now a minority in Kigali and that's a good thing. We should transport more", then yes. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2023 12:47:57 GMT
But it is a far-right idea. It is professed by the far-right. What do you want? That we should pretend otherwise? I want you accept that a single idea is not arbitrary wrong because it is supported by people you disagree with. But it is professed by the far-right, right? And I have given many reasons why the theory is absurd. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Dec 11, 2023 12:49:22 GMT
The only aspect of the Great Replacement Theory that is theoretical is the notion that it is driven by a conspiracy.
If you discount that and assume it is instead the consequence of a process (as I maintained earlier) then there it is clear there is nothing theoretical about it. The Great Replacement is proceeding right in front of our eyes.
The difference is that (reverting to simple shorthand here) rightists recognise that while leftists either pretend it isn't happening or are wildly enthusiastic about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2023 12:50:08 GMT
You may have answered this previously, but can I ask if you see the deportation of immigrants to Rwanda as an act of genocide? After all, that will have the effect of reducing the number of Rwandans relative to non-Rwandans in that country. I did answer previously - If the numbers transported were large enough to have a noticeable dis-empowering effect on native Rwandans and those effects were celebrated - ie "Black Rwandans are now a minority in Kigali and that's a good thing. We should transport more", then yes. Okay, can you give concrete examples of the so-called genocide in the UK being 'celebrated' by people in a position to influence migration numbers? I |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2023 12:51:02 GMT
The only aspect of the Great Replacement Theory that is theoretical is the notion that it is driven by a conspiracy. If you discount that and assume it is instead the consequence of a process (as I maintained earlier) then there it is clear there is nothing theoretical about it. The Great Replacement is proceeding right in front of our eyes. The difference is that (reverting to simple shorthand here) rightists recognise that while leftists either pretend it isn't happening or are wildly enthusiastic about it. Pure conspiracy theory. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 11, 2023 12:54:17 GMT
I want you accept that a single idea is not arbitrary wrong because it is supported by people you disagree with. But it is professed by the far-right, right? And I have given many reasons why the theory is absurd. So you agree with GB news “But GB 'News', etc., often dismiss actions, offering no better explanation for condemnation than they are 'Marxist'.” You don’t need anything more ? Im not addressing anything other than dismissing an idea because it is supported by alleged extremists . |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2023 12:56:38 GMT
But it is professed by the far-right, right? And I have given many reasons why the theory is absurd. So you agree with GB news “But GB 'News', etc., often dismiss actions, offering no better explanation for condemnation than they are 'Marxist'.” You don’t need anything more ? Im not addressing anything other than dismissing an idea because it is supported by alleged extremists . Can't say I understand what you're trying to say. I am curious, though. Why didn't you criticise Danny when he mentioned Phillipe Sands. Wasn't that an argument by authority? It was presented in the form of 'Well, Phillipe Sands thinks it's so ...' |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 11, 2023 13:17:08 GMT
So you agree with GB news “But GB 'News', etc., often dismiss actions, offering no better explanation for condemnation than they are 'Marxist'.” You don’t need anything more ? Im not addressing anything other than dismissing an idea because it is supported by alleged extremists . Can't say I understand what you're trying to say. I am curious, though. Why didn't you criticise Danny when he mentioned Phillipe Sands. Wasn't that an argument by authority? It was presented in the form of 'Well, Phillipe Sands thinks it's so ...' I’ve made it quite plain. Do you agree that calling an idea ‘ right wing ‘ is enough to refute it ? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 11, 2023 13:20:59 GMT
I did answer previously - If the numbers transported were large enough to have a noticeable dis-empowering effect on native Rwandans and those effects were celebrated - ie "Black Rwandans are now a minority in Kigali and that's a good thing. We should transport more", then yes. Okay, can you give concrete examples of the so-called genocide in the UK being 'celebrated' by people in a position to influence migration numbers? I don't think that's needed. It would hard to find a single public figure at the moment who can be even be positively confirmed to have influence on immigration - that is, nobody in recent history has both declared an intention to substantially change this policy and then done so. It is enough that the policy itself has obvious consequences and those consequences are widely celebrated by the supporters of the policy - ie the policy enjoys the support it does (institutional, general public and politicians) because of those consequences.
The multicultural political project measures its success in those terms - ie in terms of demographic numbers rather than public benefit / living standards or any other measure. It has a particular focus. |
|
