> I love when people label politics they disagree with as “ethical” problems.
This is a disingenious portrayal of what people you disagree with are saying. It is not like someone is calling pro-capitalist or socialist views unethical.
"Politics they disagree with" means racism, homophobia and ableism. There certainly is an argument that each of those is ethically problematic, because each denies some human beings' basic rights to be considered human.
You may well argue that dhh doesn't hold those views, or argue that the community should accept that some members have toxic views and move on. It is best to avoid claiming that racism is just another respectable political opinion.
Politics is, by its very nature, about power and coercion. It is a delicate miracle of only a few centuries through which many of us are able to actually voice our opinions peacefully and live in liberal democracies where disagreements impact policy rather than collapse into violence and war.
That includes disagreements about incredibly serious, controversial things with devastating impacts. Does the ontological status of the fetus affect the ethics (never mind legality) of terminating a pregnancy? Should people be able to seek medical help in ending their own lives to end suffering? When is a minor allowed to consent to their own medical treatments? These are questions with enormous impact on those affected.
Yet people disagree. They have different values, assumptions, experiences, predictions, and priorities which will often be at odds. Even if you disagree on what a good life is or how to achieve it.
You may feel a particular policy or party advocating for policies you strongly disagree with is deeply harmful to you or those you care about. You may resent their ideology so much that you get angry, sad, tense, violent thoughts, frustrated, etc. You may have absolutely no idea how someone can promote a particular policy. Your only explanation is that they are bad actors out to cause more harm than good.
But they feel the same about you. Your ideas are just as harmful and incomprehensible to others as theirs are to you. People are different. Acknowledging this is called empathy, and its departure from political discourse has been strongly felt. Part of a mature and healthy society is recognizing that although your peers may have different views they are still good faith actors who want to live in a better world.
No one person or one subgroup gets to unilaterally decide the Overton Window, or which topics are "settled" and which are off-limits. This is a decision made by the masses, and within the EU approx. between 25 and 50% of representatives hold (some) views in line with what dhh writes in his blog. It is mainstream, governments of major world economies kind of stuff. Are we actually going to propose a world where people are deemed persona non grata for supporting the CPC in Canada? Hell, let's expand that to the LPC because bill C-5 and the Major Projects Office says its going to undermine the human rights of indigenous peoples under UNDRIP as well. 85% of Canadians are racist, we'll welcome them back when they learn respectable political opinions.
I mean... it's all completely unworkable. How do you walk down the street knowing that other people are so evil, and who want to do you such harm? Anyone who believes in $religion1 genuinely believes that members of $religion2 are doomed or preventing salvation, yet we can smile and say "good morning" and hold the door open for each other. Where did we lose that?
Okay, but I also won't hold it for you unless you belong to the same branch of my religion.
In fact, I'll just provide a form and you can let me know everything you believe. If it's not 100% identical to mine you're wrong and I'll lock the door. Because I said so. If that's how this works now.
I don't give a fuck what your religion is. Spit in my face, i no longer have to be nice to you. Call me names, i no longer have to be nice to you. Threaten my friends, family, or neighbors, i no longer need to be nice to you.
The fact you don't see a difference between your personal religious beliefs and physically threatening people says an awful lot about you
> unless you belong to the same branch of my religion
This is a straw man. It is reasonable for you to be upset when I say you do not belong in my country and not reasonable for you to be upset when I say I am Christian. That's the perspective you're arguing against and you only hurt your counter-argument when you misunderstand other points of view. If you tell me that I don't belong in your country, you can bet I won't hold the door for you. How is that at all controversial?
Just calling something a strawman does not make it a strawman. "Motte and Bailey" would be a better accusation, if you do assert that religion is less significant to someone's worldview than their politics.
> It is reasonable for you to be upset when I say you do not belong in my country
Sure, I've been a new immigrant before and have felt that pang of discomfort when "othered." It's part of why I personally am very pro-immigration. It helps that I'm both from and moved to countries which have very open attitudes to immigration. Not every country is the same: Denmark is among the most critical countries in Europe to immigration. Are Danish people simply not allowed to hold that view? What about Japan (obv. not in Europe, but still) - is that society and its people "bad" or "wrong" for not being more accepting to immigrants than Germany or Canada or the UK? dhh actually touches on these topics in depth in one of the posts you are likely alluding to ("As I remember London" 2025-09-15) with quotations from Denmark's (SocDem) PM.
> not reasonable for you to be upset when I say I am Christian.
Why? If you are not of my faith, you are rejecting it and saying that I am wrong about the most important thing in all of metaphysics. And potentially will be punished or doomed for that. Religion is a core part of many people's worldview and politics. It's also a great indicator of how well pluralism is working in a society. If Christians and Muslims are bombing each other's places of worship, that's bad. If they can coexist despite their fundamental differences in theology and ethics, that's good. And so it should be extended to alternative political views.
This isn't because I want to defend any particular policy or person, but because the pendulum always swings and its what we do now that dictates what will be done to us in the future. In a democracy, when all of the votes are counted, the loser phones the winner and congratulates them. If the incumbent lost, there is a peaceful transition of power. It doesn't matter if the loser thinks (rightly or wrongly) that the winner will run the country into the ground and harm the people. It doesn't matter if their entire campaign was based on lies or misrepresented facts. The rules of the game say that you accept the vote and the process whether it goes your way or not.
That is what allows elections to not become riots and civil wars. It is what allows debates rather than assassinations. It is what allows me to hold the door open at the coffee shop no matter if the person behind me voted for $foo [wants to keep housing prices high and cut social spending, evil] or for $bar [promised free candy, savors of the nation] or if they are wearing clothing from a different faith from me. And they'll do the same for me.
This is all basic social empathy. You feel they're wrong, they feel you're just as wrong, you look past it because the alternative is so much worse. If you can't internalize that anyone would ever disagree with you and therefore we should not have a society which allows for peaceful disagreements, then that's on you.
> "Motte and Bailey" would be a better accusation, if you do assert that religion is less significant to someone's worldview than their politics.
No, straw man is accurate. You're going after a position they didn't take.
> If you are not of my faith, you are rejecting it and saying that I am wrong about the most important thing in all of metaphysics. And potentially will be punished or doomed for that.
Well that's just not true. My faith is not metaphysical and I don't think you should or will be punished for having a different one. (This is another straw man.) My statement about my faith and personal philosophy is a statement about me. My statement that you don't belong is about you. That is the difference which you misunderstand.
At this point, the phrase "politics they disagree with" is transparently rage-bait. It serves primarily to dismiss and invalidate the reasons for the disagreement without addressing them in good-faith discussion. People using this phrase are not intending to empathize with another's point of view.
> > "Politics they disagree with" means racism, homophobia and ableism.
> No, it doesn't.
It literally and obviously does. The people making statements about his statements are the ones who decide what they mean with their statements about his statements. That is plainly obvious and doesn't need to be explained.
> And that perception is itself politically driven.
What I see is politically-driven dismissal of others' perspectives, such as by saying "politics they disagree with" instead of addressing the reasons for the disagreement.
> It serves primarily to dismiss and invalidate the reasons for the disagreement without addressing them in good-faith discussion.
There is nothing to discuss. I am summarizing past discussions that already concluded, which I have not shown here and you presumably have not seen. (Hint: the overwhelming majority of the disagreement I have in mind has nothing to do with DHH or Omarchy.)
When I propose that someone else's reasons for disagreement are not based in objective fact but in their subjective assessment of the evidence, that is simply me disagreeing with that assessment. I am equally entitled to disagree with them as they are with me. There is no good reason for you, as a third party, to be enraged by this or to question my good faith.
> The people making statements about his statements are the ones who decide what they mean with their statements about his statements.
They can mean whatever they want. However, this discussion is about "people [who] label politics they disagree with as “ethical” problems." in the abstract. To say that "'politics they disagree with' means XYZ", as a third party, is not an observation about what someone else intended to community. It's a claim being made about the supposed objective nature of whatever was disagreed with; and it's simply not possible to evidence that in general.
I am sharing my personal experience that, generally speaking, when people call someone else a racist etc. due to expressed political views, very commonly the expressed political views do not reasonably evidence racism.
You are misunderstanding what others mean. aaplok at the top of the thread is making a point that allows for you to disagree that it's actually racist. Still, the pull quote you disagreed with is about what people are intending to communicate, which is that they think DHH's comments are racist. It's a different discussion to say you disagree with that assessment.
