kreetx

I guess any LPG-installed car is also a "bomb" by your definition?

Why not hardlink - so it wouldn't even know?

The issue is likely that readers for whom DHH sounds racist have (1) read the accusative fluff about him, and (2) then read some sentences in the blog post(s). If you read more, watched interviews or asked him directly, you'd get that it's less about race and more about merit. It's just that these attributes correlate (which is not racism).

None of the discussions on sending migrants out or being stricter on immigration is about color or race in principle. The issues are that legal processes aren't followed for immigration, or that the other cultures bring a disproportionate amount of new forms of crime.

Since enforcing laws and fighting crime is what states are doing anyway, then doing them more on immigrants achieves that goal more. (The situation is of course also unfortunate for any decent immigrants, as it will be more difficult for them to enter.)

But it's you who for some reason turns the merit argument into a race one. They do conflate, yes, perhaps that is why you can't tell the difference?

I don't think DHH speaks for all immigrants, but specific subgroups, including Muslims, but others as well.

Race and racism are terms you have brought in. (And I guess this is another reason where my arguments aren't actually "racist"?)

Do you think migrants from, say, Mexico to the US or Morocco to Spain, are skilled workers?

Also, unfortunately the lottery is real: while there are productive people who become wealthy mostly due to their own effort, there are many more who are just born into a well off country and benefit from the history before. But the question is, should a country that is well off somehow let everyone in to enjoy these benefits because it is "fair"? I guess your answer is yes, mine is no. I'd say, if you drew the less good lottery ticket then it's up to you to climb the ladder, rather than get into a rich country and start using its social services.

You'll need to point out where I'm wrong to make any progress here.

I guess you haven't felt the consequences yourself yet.

Like I said, if an attribute is statistically associated with another, then one doesn't cause the other. Proportionally larger part of the immigrants produce less value to society and come to consume away what the natives produced, then basis for reducing immigration or "remigration" is merit, not race.

If you are unable to point errors in this line of thought, then making fun of it will unfortunately make your stance look even weaker.

While unfortunate that the website is inactive, then any employer is pretty much free to let go any employee (and the employee dispute this if they have grounds for it from contracts). Not to circle back to the left/right topic, but if you think this is "messed up", then I'm not sure how you think the world works at all.

If the love for that site is so great, I'm sure someone will pick it up. Otherwise, I'd doubt "size of love" we are talking about here.

Imagine there is a latin dance club, most want to dance rumba. But a pair who happens to be of other race wants to dance tango. Would sending them to another dance club be racist?

If some behavior associates with race, it doesn't mean that it is caused by race. There are plenty of African or Muslim origin people who assimilate just fine. It's just that a larger proportion than natives, some "other" groups commit more crime or live off of welfare. Race associates with less merit, yes, but doesn't cause it. Cause is merit, not race, hence not racism.

Right, but DHH's argument isn't about cultural homogeneity for the sake of it, but rather the consequences of what the other cultures have brought. Reading further from links from the blog, either to his other posts, to the Tommy Robinson march, etc., would tell you that. I.e, you conflate race with merit - because they do associate in the statistics sense, but one is not the other.

The OP on the other hand demands funds from a private company, main argument being that "this other person, who I don't like, got money, then a website I do like, should too".

Do you think if the immigrants didn't change the situation for the worse, he'd be making the same arguments? I doubt it.

Well, the post is calling David Heinemeir Hansson "far-right". I'd instead encourage him, and perhaps you, to educate yourself on what that means, then read up on his blog post(s).

The author of this post is complaining about CSS-Tricks not getting paid.

If the person who works ("works") for Digital Ocean but is not getting paid, should pretty leave immediately if that is the case. :) I.e, demanding on some moral premise that this other guy who I don't like is getting money, is quite a "far-left" way to go about it.

Interesting point. It seems that they have simply improved in this metric over the past decades, but the stereotype is stuck in the Soviet era.