Comment by throwaway5752 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway5752 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Anyone can search for "Great Replacement Theory", which you'll frequently hear radicalized people refer to "White Genocide".

Whether or not you believe in this, it was cited directly in the manifestos of

* the Christchurch NZ shooter (https://www.start.umd.edu/news/new-zealand-terrorists-manife..., 51 dead, 40 injured)

* the El Paso shooter (https://bridge.georgetown.edu/research/the-manifesto-of-the-..., 23 dead, 22 injured)

* the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter (https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/10/28/analyzing-ter..., 11 dead, 6 injured)

* the Buffalo shooter (https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/buffaloshooting-online..., 10 dead, 3 injured)

It is why the neonazis that marched in the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville VA 6 years ago chanted "You will not replace us. Jews will not replace us" and "Blood and Soil" (Blut und Boden: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_and_soil)

This is widely known and barely coded language. It is prominently supported and spread by people that X's owner had replied to retweeted previously, and repeatedly. This widely known, widely understood context informs the real meaning of this tweet.

When you say it is widely known, do you mean by a majority of the population, 10%, 1%, or 0.1%. Most of this seems very niche to me.

Do you think there is any legitimate way to criticize racial hypocrisy of zionist organizations supporting a racial ethnostate?

For what it is worth, I don't believe in any replacement conspiracy, especially not one carried out by a specific ethnic group.

I have however seen groups like the ADL quickly characterize any opposition as racist. For example, they consider those that participate in BDS and refuse to purchase Israeli goods in their personal lives racist and support anti-BDS laws.

It's obvious what you're doing. You probably think you're being subtle, but you're not.

The discussion is not about what % of people know about this (well-documented if you simply do a google search) conspiracy theory, nor is it about criticizing Israel.

The point is about Elon Musk agreeing with a known white supremacist conspiracy theory.

If you see conspiracy theories everywhere I guess it makes sense that you'd accuse me of one too.

I wasn't being evasive and meant everything I said. If a racist says the sky is blue and you agree, does that make you racist? If someone says calling the sky blue is a dog whistle, does that mean you have to call it red?

Are we really operating under the assumption that anyone who criticizes a hypocritical apartheid ethno state is a racist?

If a racist says the sky is blue, I don't say "they are right", I just wait for a non-racist to say the sky is blue, which will happen if the sky is really blue, and then I say this person is right.

If the only people who say the sky is blue are racist, then it is because the sky is not really blue and only racist people will think it's blue, and in this case, when you say they are right, it just means you fall for the same simplifications.

In this case, for example, there is A LOT of people criticizing the policy of Israel government, but they are not doing it in a way that reeks racist ways of thinking (with all the useless implication of "them jews" and "their responsibilities"). And a big majority of the "normal" critics of Israel policies is not called antisemitic by people who mentioned the antisemitism of the commenter Elon's reacted to. If you are unable to understand why, it is more of a you problem than nothing else.

There you go again, shoehorning in your carefully constructed talking points, without actually addressing any of the topics of the conversation.

No thanks, if you don't understand the relevance of what I said, this won't go anywhere.

From my perspective "carefully constructed talking points" is having an intelligent and relevant response. From you, anything that challenges you belief is a conspiracy.

How is that challenging? This is not challenging, this is hyper simplistic 8-year-old way of thinking without any nuances. When someone says something obviously over-simplifying with some implication of "us and them" and "this group that I don't like is obviously more stupid/barbaric than me just because they are of a different origin", that does not challenge anything to someone who see more nuances.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com