-9

So, I wrote an answer for this question, which was deleted by @Philipp using his moderator powers. I do not believe that this was the correct course of action to take.

In that answer, I explained the background behind "White genocide" claims by right-wing protestors, and that the slogan carried by the left-wing protestor was a reference to those, and an explicit endorsement of White genocide. Even if you would argue that the genocide might not be happening, that doesn't mean that the left-wing protestor's slogan isn't an explicit endorsement of genocide, and thus an anti-White hate statement.

The only message I got from Philipp was "This is not a platform for paranoid right-wing propaganda.", and that's not what my post was about. You could argue that maybe the "White genocide" idea is paranoid, but my post was intended to be about explaining the background behind that paranoia. The closest thing that I got to "right-wing propaganda" was repeating a right-wing meme about how hateful of White people left-wing protestors can be - as can be seen in this particular case by the fact that the protestor is carrying a shield bearing a slogan about wanting to kill off ("replace") the White ethnic group - and I'd be willing to edit the answer to remove the quoted meme if that was why the Answer was deleted, likely replacing it with a general statement that the behavior is common enough that memes about it have been made, instead.

Additionally, there was also a comment that I'd left on another answer for that question that got deleted, which observed that a left-wing individual clearly misunderstood the meaning of the right-wing slogan she was mocking, since she seemed to be under the impression that the Jews themselves intended to replace White people, rather than them using other ethnic groups to replace White people; this comment was intended to improve the answer in question, by noting something that hadn't been noted in that answer, and which would have improved the answer if it had been included. The process of improving answers by leaving comments with suggestions on how to do so is the intended functionality of the comment system, so I'm not certain why my comment was deleted, since it wasn't conversational or off-topic.

16
  • 11
    "that doesn't mean that the left-wing protestor's slogan isn't an explicit endorsement of genocide" Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You provide no evidence at all that a taunt mocking an absurd extremist idea is anything but that. – yannis Dec 16 '20 at 7:30
  • 1
    @yannis It says "Jews [we] will replace you". "Replace you", here, means "kill off, or at least ethnically cleanse, the White ethnicity". It's an explicit endorsement of genocide, and I don't understand how it could be interpreted otherwise. Ethnic cleansing and replacement is considered a form of genocide under international law; see the Kosovo conflict for a relatively recent example, as well as certain recent African conflicts between Muslim and pagan African ethnic groups/tribes. Perhaps they meant it as a joke, but they're still making a joke about endorsing genocide. – nick012000 Dec 16 '20 at 10:13
  • 1
    @yannis For the sake of comparison on the other side of the political spectrum, a hypothetical right-wing protestor who was waving a sign about sending Black Americans to back to Africa would also be advocating genocide, for the same reasons; forced deportation and the removal of an ethnic group from an area is a form of genocide. – nick012000 Dec 16 '20 at 10:19
  • 1
    I can add a link to the UN stating that ethnic cleansing is a form of genocide to my original answer, if desired. un.org/en/genocideprevention/ethnic-cleansing.shtml – nick012000 Dec 16 '20 at 10:22
  • 7
    Except there is the easier explanation that it's a taunt mocking earlier right-wing scants. The fact that you "do not understand how it could be interpreted otherwise" with the explanation of the different interpretation being the upvoted answer on that question really only reflects on you, not the community. – DonFusili Dec 16 '20 at 13:51
  • 1
    @DonFusili It's taunting them by expressing support for genocide. If someone says "we're not going to let you genocide us" and then you taunt them by saying "we're going to genocide you and you can't stop us" (which is basically what this person is saying), that's supporting genocide, basically by definition. Regardless of whether or not you think that this genocide is actually happening, that is what this particular person is saying. Like, literally, that's what they're saying; it's the literal meaning of the literal text of the message written on their shield. – nick012000 Dec 16 '20 at 13:56
  • 7
    I mean, it's funny that you take it that seriously because it's clear to everyone of clear mind that they're not, in fact, expressing support for genocide, and they're making fun of the fact that a certain vocal group is paranoid of the fact either way. And here you are, being vocally paranoid. Something with hooks, lines and sinkers, I guess. – DonFusili Dec 16 '20 at 14:00
  • 1
    @DonFusili The meaning of the text on the shield is thus: "Jews (we, the governmental elite/left wing) will (and you can't stop us) replace (genocide) you (the White race)." How is that not taunting someone by expressing support for their genocide? I am absolutely taking it seriously because genocide is not a laughing matter. It's called a Crime Against Humanity for a reason. – nick012000 Dec 16 '20 at 14:02
  • 8
    Why does the literal meaning of the text matter? Why are you ignoring context? The text is very clearly a reference to the "Jews will not replace us" chant. Any attempt to interpret it outside this context is... bizarre. And in context, it's very clear that it's a joke - a bad one perhaps, but still a joke. There's no evidence that suggests any of the protesters in the photo are contemplating genocide. – yannis Dec 16 '20 at 14:15
  • 1
    @yannis "Why does the literal meaning of the text matter?" Why wouldn't the literal meaning of the text matter? I didn't say that they were contemplating or committing genocide, I said that they were endorsing genocide, and making that endorsement into a taunt against their powerless opponents. It's analogous to threatening to poke someone and going "neener neener you can't stop me", just a lot more serious. There's also an additional layer of the taunt of "I can make statements that would get you imprisoned for hate crimes without any punishment". – nick012000 Dec 16 '20 at 14:19
  • 3
    @nick012000 Because this is Politics.SE, not Literature.SE. We aren't doing close readings of protest signs. Context is essential, and attempting to interpret the signs without considering it is not particularly constructive. – yannis Dec 17 '20 at 11:53
  • 1
    @yannis The context of this is some right-wing protestors saying "You will not genocide the White Race" and some left-wing protestors saying "Yes, we will." – nick012000 Dec 17 '20 at 12:01
  • 6
    No. The context is that the "You will not genocide the White Race" chant is so completely paranoid, that the "yes, we will" response to it can be nothing but a joke. A bad joke perhaps, but certainly not something anyone should take seriously. The only purpose of the sign is to ridicule the paranoia expressed by certain right-wing protestors. The text of the sign could have just said: You are absolutely ridiculous for believing anyone is going to genocide you. – yannis Dec 17 '20 at 12:07
  • 1
    @yannis "The context is that the "You will not genocide the White Race" chant is so completely paranoid, that the "yes, we will" response to it can be nothing but a joke." I would disagree. I believe that there are definitely people who would say "Yes, we will" completely seriously. Generally, they're on the extreme Left Wing, and believe that "whiteness" is a power structure that needs to be destroyed - getting rid of "White privilege" by getting rid of White people. That's leaving aside extreme Black Power/Black Lives Matter types who just hate White people. – nick012000 Dec 17 '20 at 12:21
  • 3
    @nick012000 See, this is the reason: your answer is directly arguing for this white-supremacist conspiracy theory, one which is used to justify all kinds of political and racist violence. We're not going to allow answers that, for example, argue that white people are the devil, or that Jews eat the blood of Christian children, and we're not going to allow answers that argue that there's a conspiracy to commit genocide against the "White Race", at least not without a whole bunch of specific and objective evidence – divibisan Dec 17 '20 at 17:11
4

My guess is the answer lacked sources, and presented rather extreme interpretations as fact, without much nuance or consideration of alternative interpretations. Thus the people who closed the question probably thought you are a right wing extremist trying to push right wing propaganda.

The primary problem of the answer is that it makes an extreme leap by taking a "you" written by what seem to be counter protestors to refer to "white people". It's very likely that messages written by counter protestors are addressed to the people they protest against. According to the article linked by the original question, that would be:

Several groups that attended last month's protest marched again on Saturday. Those included the Proud Boys, a self-proclaimed "Western-chauvinist" organization known for violent confrontations with left-wing protesters. It's considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

An average outside observer would probably interpret the "you" to refer to far right extremists in general, while counter protestors probably assumed the people they protested against to be Nazis (I say this due of the slogan being a direct response to a chant used by Nazis at Charlottesville).

The leap from "far right extremists " to "white people" is quite extraordinary, and needs a very well supported argument. Your answer tried to provide that by referencing the extremist belief that hard left-wing protestors "want [white people] broke, dead, [white people's] kids raped and brainwashed, and they think it's funny". While you can use that belief as an argument to support why extremists might assume the "you" to refer to "white people", you failed to either distance yourself from that belief, or provide any evidence that the belief (which contradicts the average reader's experience) is based on reality, which allowed readers to assume you yourself might be an right wing extremist.

A far less controversial approach to explain why "you" is read as "white people" by right wing extremists is to focus on the "us" in the original "Jews will not replace us" and the extremists' belief that they fight and speak for white people as a whole.

You also only presented the PoV of right wing extremists without alternatives, which again reinforces the readers' assumption that you might be a right wing extremist pushing right wing propaganda. A more balanced answer would provide point of views of multiple groups, or at least clearly state that it is only presenting the PoV of a specific group.


I still think your answer is relevant in the context of the original question, because it contains 2 valuable points:

  1. Regardless of intent behind the statement - which we can only guess - it makes sense to address how different groups of people interpret the statement, which my answer does not.

  2. Some far right extremists will interpret the statement as an endorsement of white genocide, based on the (mistaken) far right belief that left wing and antifa counter protestors see themselves as enemies of white people. So the far right extremists might assume "you" in the message to refer to the left's enemies which right wing extremists falsely assume to be "white people" in this context.

1
  • 2
    I don't think I agree with your argument for the value of this answer. While I do think it's valuable to know how the far-right might interpret it, a question that allowed answers for every possible interpretation would be much too broad. I think this question is only answerable here if we assume there is a specific, objective answer, which can only exist if we're asking about the intentions of the people who wrote the sign, not every possible interpretation – divibisan Dec 17 '20 at 17:24
4

TLDR (although I took no part in deleting or even down-voting your answer), looking at it now and even more at your meta-post here, you simply come across as an apologist of the White genocide conspiracy theory.

I mean just re-read your post here:

You could argue that maybe the "White genocide" idea is paranoid [...]

Even if you would argue that the genocide might not be happening [...]

What do you really mean by that? Your statements leave a lot of room for interpretation that (you think) it may be happening.

Likewise your main-space post had a long convoluted sentence "splainin" the beliefs of the conspiracy theory in detail ending with:

increasing immigration from non-White nations - and yes, this would count as a genocide under international law

Am I quoting you out of context here? Do you mean that immigration really counts as genocide under international law? The long Wikipedia page on the conspiracy theory doesn't mention that those believing in it bring much in the way of international law arguments to the table. So this seems like an odd, obscure twist you've added to the shebang, again giving the impression you're elevating their argument to a more credible level.

All your questions how fix all this come across a bit too much like sealioning.

1

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .