John, thank you for confirming my point. You’re framing demographic change (which happens all the time) through the language of “replacement.” That’s not morally neutral language. It’s a framing that only makes sense as something negative -- fear, loss, something to resist -- regardless of whether you actually use the words “existential threat.”JohnH wrote: ↑Sat Jun 28, 2025 3:04 pm Szd,
I made an explicit choice not to learn more about this specific conspiracy theory ever since the original accusation, and I am continuing to choose not to do so.
You are projecting something on to me that is simply not true; specifically, adding “existential threat”, which I never said. I left it open for debate if demographic change (or replacing a people) is good or bad. Was replacing Native Americans and First Nations peoples and states with European settlers good or bad? That’s a separate topic to discuss.
But did the replacement happen? Absolutely it did. Are you denying that it did? Is it wrong to call that “replacement”? Where I live, the original peoples of this land remain only in the names of rivers and towns.
What happened to Native Americans wasn’t “replacement.” It was colonialism. They were victims of an intentional project by colonial powers (and later the U.S. government) to dominate them, steal their land, and erase their culture. That’s not even in the same moral universe as asylum seekers, refugees, or even economic immigrants.
I can accept that you initially didn't know the roots of the Great Replacement conspiracy theory. There's been a deliberate effort to mainstream the theory with conservatives over the past few years. Tucker Carlson mentioned it numerous times when he was at Fox News. But once you did find out where this conspiracy theory came from, weren't you curious? At what point do we become responsible for the beliefs we hold?
None of us are such original thinkers that we come up with our ideas all on our own.