This week in woke idiocy: Indians don't need floatation devices because of "eons of experience" ...

[laughing dog]

That is not what you wrote. You wrote the very telling "being Indian does not mean they know anything" .

Which means that the quality of Indianness does not in itself impart any knowledge. It does not mean that being Indian means they know nothing.

The plain reading of the your "being Indian does not mean they know anything" does mean they don't know anything. That may not have been your intent (but it is consistent with your posts), but the words mean what they mean.

The plain reading of "being Indian does not mean they know anything" is (Not(For All X(If I(X) Then K(X)))). The plain reading of "they don't know anything" is (For all X(If I(X) Then Not(K(X)))). Those don't mean the same thing. Jumping from the one to the other is a non sequitur.

Apparently your interpretation of plain reading and mine are different.

 

[laughing dog]

First of all, they are not "indigenous".

I don't think we can have a meaningful conversation on this subject without a mutual understanding of the term "indigenous". It's a problematic term, given the ugly human history of invasion, genocide, oppression and occupying culture's assumptions that decent folk will assimilate.
Tom

You are asking that from someone who is refering to Native Americans as "Indians" even though they are not.

English just doesn't have a non-problematic term for the ethnicity under discussion. All the candidates are problematic, so everybody just has to pick his poison.

"Indigenous" is problematic as Tom said. "American Indian" is problematic because it's based on a navigational error. "Indian" is problematic because it's based on a navigational error plus it's ambiguous. "Native American" is problematic because it's a half-truth, rather like using "Christian" to mean "Evangelical Fundamentalist Protestant". "First Nations" is problematic because it's a lie. "Siberian-American" is problematic because the designated people's ancestors didn't come to America from Siberia. The obvious reasonable term derived from the pattern commonly used for other ethnicities, "Beringian-American", is problematic because hardly anybody would know what it means. (And of course any term at all will become problematic on account of impoliteness if a discussion participant who is of the relevant ethnicity just dislikes it, for any reason or no reason. But that needn't concern us unless a Beringian-American complains or a non-Beringian-American uses an ethnic slur.)

That being the context in which we make our respective terminological choices, pulling a rhetorical power move by seizing on somebody else having picked a different poison from one's own preferred poison is problematic.

I was pointing out the irony in Derec's claim. It appear it was not as long-winded as yours.

 

[Swammerdami]

The general topic of this thread seems to be Stupidity, so let's review some of the basics of that topic.

"IQ" is, at best, ambiguous but we'll use it for brevity. If I had to guess, I'd estimate that the IQ of the average D voter is only 2 or 3 points higher than that of the average R voter. The variance is of course quite high so it becomes pointless to compare them. There are smart Ds, smart Rs, stupid Ds, stupid Rs. Duh. Is this news to anyone?

And of course the word "stupid" is used very loosely in political discussions. I'll guess that Dubya Bush and Dick Cheney had higher IQs than John McCain, but I — and most politically aware Americans — are happy to call Bush and Cheney "stupid", but would not use that term with McCain. In fact, "stupid" is often applied, as shorthand for a more elaborate adjectival phrase, to clever but evil people. Again, I don't think this is news to anyone.

And note in the quote below that I wrote "stupid or criminal." Derec addressed only the "stupid." And again, does that omission by Derec surprise anyone?

Stories of Republicans acting stupid or criminal are a dime-a-dozen — Ho-hum, dog bites man. But a Democrat saying something stupid? That's welcome as a revelation that we're all human and "To err is human."

Nah. Plenty of dumbass Democrats too. Especially in Congress. But this story had some local flavor, so it was more interesting than AOC et al.

But is she qualified for higher office? Does this blunderer come up to the standards of Lauren Boebert or MTG?

Or a Sheila Jackson Lee? Two Vietnams living side by side. AR15s shooting .50 cal bullets and weighing as much as 10 moving boxes. Come on, Swam, do not sell your Dems short! Plenty of idiots among their ranks!

Boebert's and MTG's IQs may be higher than the average GOP Congressperson for all I know.

Am I old-fashioned? I prefer law-abiding compassionate legislators over evil haters who get elected by pushing lies. Given this view — which I think is widely shared — it's a sad commentary that you were reduced to another mis-speaker. Did you start a thread when Obama supposedly thought there were 57 states?

But I did oblige you! I clicked both your links. I did not, however watch the YouTube and so don't know where, if at all, the gun nut takes Ms. Lee's comments out of context. For me, the most interesting question about the YouTube is How did you come to watch it? Do you subscribe to the whinger's channel; did you search for it; or did YouTube offer it to you unbidden?

(I'm pot calling kettle black. I get much of my U.S. political news by watching Stephen Colbert. I don't search for him: Google presents him as a choice when I go to Youtube to listen to a song or watch a movie preview, and I'm often happy to oblige. )

TL;DR. For four years the U.S. was led by a cretinous sociopath. It's becoming increasingly apparent to all but the most stubborn that he is a criminal. Yet a majority of GOP leaders are actively working to steal the 2024 election and restore the orange fascist to power. And the rebuttal to the evil liars and haters is "Rep. Lee misspoke. We've got Josh Hawley, you've got Sheila Lee. Therefore Same-same.", despite that the misspeaking, unlike those of Trump, MTG, etc. was obviously not intended mischievously.

Sincere question: @Derec — Do you even understand the point I'm trying to make in this post?

I know that you DO understand the point. I strongly suspect you will pretend that you don't. Pro-tip: You'd earn yourself a lot of credibility if, just this once, you demonstrated awareness rather than grasping at yet another non-sequitur "Gotcha."

 

[Politesse]

B is outraged by the demand; she knows that she will be punished for failure to comply, but she chooses to go ahead anyway, as she will feel worse for having been coerced into submission by A1,.., An.

This is where you lose me. Why would any adult respond to a simple correction by getting "outraged"? An easy alternative solution would be to apologize and move on. There's no reason to get upset over an accidental mislabeling, or the correction thereof.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

This is where you lose me. Why would any adult respond to a simple correction by getting "outraged"? An easy alternative solution would be to apologize and move on. There's no reason to get upset over an accidental mislabeling, or the correction therefore.

It's not a simple correction, or a correction at all, in the assessment of B. That is point 2. B is outraged at the demand that she utters something she reckons is false, in the scenario. Often, she also reckons that A1,...,An are being either dishonest - and they too do not believe in their correction -, or they are being epistemically irrational for holding that belief. Regardless, usually the demand that she utters something she deems false or be punished is enough, in context.

And yes, there are contexts in which uttering something false is appropriate and accepted. This is one of the contexts in which B reckons it is not, and that might be for a number of reasons, like B's opposing the ideology that fuels the demands, etc.

The variant in which B is given the option to remain silent is one in which, on average, the outrage is probably somewhat less, but still. The key point is that just as A1, ..., An are outraged at B's behavior - they reckon he is behaving unethically to a considerable degree -, B reckons that they are the ones behaving unethically - and to a considerable degree.

 

[Bomb#20]

I don't know why people find it so complicated to simply call people as they prefer to be called.

If you were in a conversation about religion with some evangelical fundamentalist Protestants who felt the proper term for "Evangelical Fundamentalist Protestant" is "Christian", and you did not conform to their usage, so they told you they preferred to be called "Christians", would you regard that as a simple correction, and apologize, and start conforming to their usage, and for the rest of the conversation use the word "Christian" to mean "Evangelical Fundamentalist Protestant"? In this scenario, you're all speaking loud enough to be overheard by others, and you know for a fact that some of the people who will overhear your discussion are Catholics.

 

[Bomb#20]

I was pointing out the irony in Derec's claim. It appear it was not as long-winded as yours.

Oh, is that all? Sorry to take it as more than that, then. But there was no irony -- the people Derec called "Indians" are Indians. Meaning is determined by use, not by etymology. If the name being derived from somebody having made a mistake really meant they aren't Indians, we'd have to conclude people from Canada aren't Canadians.

 

[laughing dog]

I was pointing out the irony in Derec's claim. It appear it was not as long-winded as yours.

Oh, is that all? Sorry to take it as more than that, then. But there was no irony -- the people Derec called "Indians" are Indians. Meaning is determined by use, not by etymology. If the name being derived from somebody having made a mistake really meant they aren't Indians, we'd have to conclude people from Canada aren't Canadians.

Well, if meaning is determined by use, then "Indians" are also "Native Americans" or "Indigenous Peoples".

 

[Politesse]

I don't know why people find it so complicated to simply call people as they prefer to be called.

If you were in a conversation about religion with some evangelical fundamentalist Protestants who felt the proper term for "Evangelical Fundamentalist Protestant" is "Christian", and you did not conform to their usage, so they told you they preferred to be called "Christians", would you regard that as a simple correction, and apologize, and start conforming to their usage, and for the rest of the conversation use the word "Christian" to mean "Evangelical Fundamentalist Protestant"? In this scenario, you're all speaking loud enough to be overheard by others, and you know for a fact that some of the people who will overhear your discussion are Catholics.

Yes.

Actually, it would be pretty awkward to say "Evangelical Fundamentalist Protestant" over and over anyway, but I wouldn't call someone a fundy to their face, certainly. All else aside, I'm a timid fellow.

I also don't see religious associations as being in quite the same category of thing as a racial designator, though I do believe in being respectful in both cases when possible.

 

[Bomb#20]

The plain reading of the your "being Indian does not mean they know anything" does mean they don't know anything. That may not have been your intent (but it is consistent with your posts), but the words mean what they mean.

The plain reading of "being Indian does not mean they know anything" is (Not(For All X(If I(X) Then K(X)))). The plain reading of "they don't know anything" is (For all X(If I(X) Then Not(K(X)))). Those don't mean the same thing. Jumping from the one to the other is a non sequitur.

Apparently your interpretation of plain reading and mine are different.

Heh. Assuming a plain reading itself must be described plainly, that's:

The plain reading of "being Indian does not mean they know anything" is "Some Indians don't know anything". The plain reading of "they don't know anything" is "All Indians don't know anything". Those don't mean the same thing. Jumping from the one to the other is a non sequitur. What Derec wrote wasn't a "vile statement".

What you wrote, on the other hand...

That is not what you wrote. You wrote the very telling "being Indian does not mean they know anything" .

Which means that the quality of Indianness does not in itself impart any knowledge. It does not mean that being Indian means they know nothing.

The plain reading of the your "being Indian does not mean they know anything" does mean they don't know anything. That may not have been your intent (but it is consistent with your posts), but the words mean what they mean.

The rest of your post is not worth the effort of response.

But the rest of his post proves your parenthesized assertion is incorrect. You snipped out Derec's statement "Just because somebody is Indian does not tell us anything about any knowledge they may or may not have." If it were the case that Indians don't know anything, then that would imply that just because somebody is Indian does indeed tell us something about any knowledge they may or may not have. Therefore your hypothesis about what Derec meant was inconsistent with his posts. So when you claimed it was consistent with his posts, you were making a false damaging claim about Derec -- a claim you could easily have determined for yourself was false simply by reading a sentence you judged not worth the effort of response but fully worth the effort of snipping out.

I was pointing out the irony in Derec's claim. It appear it was not as long-winded as yours.

Oh, is that all? Sorry to take it as more than that, then. But there was no irony -- the people Derec called "Indians" are Indians. Meaning is determined by use, not by etymology. If the name being derived from somebody having made a mistake really meant they aren't Indians, we'd have to conclude people from Canada aren't Canadians.

Well, if meaning is determined by use, then "Indians" are also "Native Americans"

Certainly.

or "Indigenous Peoples".

Well, indigenous persons. I don't know of an Indian being said to be an indigenous people, unless you count Chingachgook.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I don't know why people find it so complicated to simply call people as they prefer to be called.

If you were in a conversation about religion with some evangelical fundamentalist Protestants who felt the proper term for "Evangelical Fundamentalist Protestant" is "Christian", and you did not conform to their usage, so they told you they preferred to be called "Christians", would you regard that as a simple correction, and apologize, and start conforming to their usage, and for the rest of the conversation use the word "Christian" to mean "Evangelical Fundamentalist Protestant"? In this scenario, you're all speaking loud enough to be overheard by others, and you know for a fact that some of the people who will overhear your discussion are Catholics.

Yes.

Actually, it would be pretty awkward to say "Evangelical Fundamentalist Protestant" over and over anyway, but I wouldn't call someone a fundy to their face, certainly. All else aside, I'm a timid fellow.

I also don't see religious associations as being in quite the same category of thing as a racial designator, though I do believe in being respectful in both cases when possible.

Imagine now that the discussion takes place not in meatspace, but in a forum like this. Do you still submit to the demands of the Evangelicals? If your answer is 'yes', then suppose there are also Catholics in the conversation, who will find it offensive if you use "Christian" to mean "Evangelical Fundamentalist Protestant". Do you still submit to the demands of the Evangelicals? If your answer is 'yes', at least do you understand why the Catholics would be motivated not to submit?

 

[Politesse]

I don't know why people find it so complicated to simply call people as they prefer to be called.

If you were in a conversation about religion with some evangelical fundamentalist Protestants who felt the proper term for "Evangelical Fundamentalist Protestant" is "Christian", and you did not conform to their usage, so they told you they preferred to be called "Christians", would you regard that as a simple correction, and apologize, and start conforming to their usage, and for the rest of the conversation use the word "Christian" to mean "Evangelical Fundamentalist Protestant"? In this scenario, you're all speaking loud enough to be overheard by others, and you know for a fact that some of the people who will overhear your discussion are Catholics.

Yes.

Actually, it would be pretty awkward to say "Evangelical Fundamentalist Protestant" over and over anyway, but I wouldn't call someone a fundy to their face, certainly. All else aside, I'm a timid fellow.

I also don't see religious associations as being in quite the same category of thing as a racial designator, though I do believe in being respectful in both cases when possible.

Imagine now that the discussion takes place not in meatspace, but in a forum like this. Do you still submit to the demands of the Evangelicals? If your answer is 'yes', then suppose there are also Catholics in the conversation, who will find it offensive if you use "Christian" to mean "Evangelical Fundamentalist Protestant". Do you still submit to the demands of the Evangelicals? If your answer is 'yes', at least do you understand why the Catholics would be motivated not to submit?

In direct conversation with someone? I'm likely to agree to call them whatever they like, though if that is "Christian" I will also continually and doggedly remind them of the diversity and variations of their faith that are out there, of the sheer variety of persons they are claiming to speak on behalf of, and most of those Roman Catholic. A habit which, I assure you, is as irritating and upsetting to Evangelicals as it is to the usual atheist crowd around here. This is getting off topic, though. My point is that I think the best policy is generally to refer to Native nations by their own preferred demonyms when possible. Usually, that's the traditional name of their people rather than any racial term, or if the latter categorization is required by the situation, as in legal discussions, "Indian", "Native", and "First Nations" are the terms in common use these days depending on what region you're in. Quibbling about whether any of those are "literally correct" is about as pointless as arguing with a fundamentalist about whether their beliefs are truly "fundamental" or not. These were always socially assigned, not technically descriptive, terminologies.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

In direct conversation with someone? I'm likely to agree to call them whatever they like, though if that is "Christian" I will also continually and doggedly remind them of the diversity and variations of their faith that are out there, of the sheer variety of persons they are claiming to speak on behalf of, and most of those Roman Catholic. A habit which, I assure you, is as irritating and upsetting to Evangelicals as it is to the usual atheist crowd around here.

First, remember that the Catholics are also in the conversation. Why would you ignore them and use the word 'Christian' as demanded by the Evangelicals in the conversation?

Second, if you use "Christian" to mean "evangelical fundamentalist Protestant", then saying that Catholics are Christians would be simply false, and the Evangelicals would win the debate vs. you by simply pointing out - correctly! - that Catholics are not Christians, and that you are making patently false claims. And it would be of no use of you to say that Catholics are Christians, because they are obviously not so. And it is obvious that Catholics are not Christians because you just agreed to a meaning of the word 'Christian' such that Catholics are obviously not Christians! Can you understand why those Catholics would not want to submit to the demands of those Evangelicals?

This is getting off topic, though. My point is that I think the best policy is generally to refer to Native nations by their own preferred demonyms when possible. My point is that I think the best policy is generally to refer to Native nations by their own preferred demonyms when possible. Usually, that's the traditional name of their people rather than any racial term, or if the latter categorization is required by the situation, as in legal discussions, "Indian", "Native", and "First Nations" are the terms in common use these days depending on what region you're in.

That was not your question; you asked why someone would not want to call people as they preferred to be called.

That aside, I do not agree in general. I mean, it might be better in meatspace to avoid a fight, in some cases. Other than that, words like 'Italian American', 'Mexican American', 'Indian American', 'Korean American', etc., identify the place where some of the ancestors of some Americans came from. 'Native American' does not work like that. The term 'native American' means someone born in America. Capitalizing "Native" and using the construction for a group of people whose ancestors came from some parts of Asia tends to imply in context that they have a greater claim to the territory, or something along those lines. I would rather not use it (side note: of course, you can see here that the demands are not being made by people identifying as "Native Americans" - who are not present -, but by left wingers.). The term "First Nations" involves an obviously false claim, as it is used for nations that surely were not first.

Quibbling about whether any of those are "literally correct" is about as pointless as arguing with a fundamentalist about whether their beliefs are truly "fundamental" or not. These were always socially assigned, not technically descriptive, terminologies.

Actually, terms like 'Korean American', 'Italian American', etc., do have a meaning, and one can use them to make true or false claims. The use of 'Native American' in a context like that, or the 'First Nations' false claim, do have consequences, because words have meaning, which is given by usage, and hijacking of words tends to lead to confusion and consequences some of your opponents want to avoid.

 

[laughing dog]

The plain reading of the your "being Indian does not mean they know anything" does mean they don't know anything. That may not have been your intent (but it is consistent with your posts), but the words mean what they mean.

The plain reading of "being Indian does not mean they know anything" is (Not(For All X(If I(X) Then K(X)))). The plain reading of "they don't know anything" is (For all X(If I(X) Then Not(K(X)))). Those don't mean the same thing. Jumping from the one to the other is a non sequitur.

Apparently your interpretation of plain reading and mine are different.

Heh. Assuming a plain reading itself must be described plainly, that's:

The plain reading of "being Indian does not mean they know anything" is "Some Indians don't know anything". The plain reading of "they don't know anything" is "All Indians don't know anything".

We disagree.

Those don't mean the same thing. Jumping from the one to the other is a non sequitur. What Derec wrote wasn't a "vile statement".

Whether something is a "vile statement" is a matter of judgment which may differ among people.

What you wrote, on the other hand...

That is not what you wrote. You wrote the very telling "being Indian does not mean they know anything" .

Which means that the quality of Indianness does not in itself impart any knowledge. It does not mean that being Indian means they know nothing.

The plain reading of the your "being Indian does not mean they know anything" does mean they don't know anything. That may not have been your intent (but it is consistent with your posts), but the words mean what they mean.

The rest of your post is not worth the effort of response.

But the rest of his post proves your parenthesized assertion is incorrect. You snipped out Derec's statement "Just because somebody is Indian does not tell us anything about any knowledge they may or may not have."

Derec made an ex post explanation. I was referring to what he actually wrote in the previous post.. Which should be clear from the text you quote where I point what he wrote and said it may not have been what he meant.

In my view, he has a long history of derogatory posts about "Indians".

If it were the case that Indians don't know anything, then that would imply that just because somebody is Indian does indeed tell us something about any knowledge they may or may not have. Therefore your hypothesis about what Derec meant was inconsistent with his posts. So when you claimed it was consistent with his posts, you were making a false damaging claim about Derec -- a claim you could easily have determined for yourself was false simply by reading a sentence you judged not worth the effort of response but fully worth the effort of snipping out.

You have misconstrued the argument which leads you to your slanderous accusation (see above). Being consistent with his posts does not mean every one of his posts. In my view, it is consistent with his posting history.

 

[Politesse]

Why would you ignore them and use the word 'Christian' as demanded by the Evangelicals in the conversation?

How is it any of their business what someone else prefers to be called?

You seem to be thinking that if someone asks to be identified as a Christian (or a Canadian, or Navajo, or non-binary, or a Republican), and I do, that means I agree to every social claim they might possibly make about that label, up to and including how mnay people from other groups are also "allowed" to claim the same label. This does not follow in the least. Referring to other people as they prefer to be called in no way constitutes a blanket endorsement of every belief they might have. It's just good manners, not a philosophical claim.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

How is it any of their business what someone else prefers to be called?

You mean the Catholics? Well, they too want to be called 'Christians', and they do not want the word 'Christian' to mean "evangelical fundamentalist Protestant". One might similarly ask: how is it any of the Evangelical's business what Catholics want to be called?

By the standard that you propose, you ought not to be submitting to the Evangelicals' demands.

In reality, though, the standard is a pretty bad one. When people are speaking in their language (e.g., a variant of English), it is of course their business when someone else wants them to stop using some of the words in their own language, and furthermore, make threats of serious social punishment if they fail to submit.

You seem to be thinking that if someone asks to be identified as a Christian (or a Canadian, or Navajo, or non-binary, or a Republican), and I do, that means I agree to every social claim they might possibly make about that label, up to and including how mnay people from other groups are also "allowed" to claim the same label.

Actually, I was going by your own reply to B20's question - in which you said you would agree to use the word 'Christian' to mean "evangelical fundamentalist Protestant" - and your further replies. If you meant to say something else, it seems you misunderstood B20's question.

This does not follow in the least. Referring to other people as they prefer to be called in no way constitutes a blanket endorsement of every belief they might have. It's just good manners, not a philosophical claim.

It does follow from that you were using the word to mean that, not that you would agree with their claims. I mean, you are not agreeing with their claims when you say Catholics are not Christian, because 'Christian' there only means "evangelical fundamentalist Protestant". In practice, though, it would very much look like you would agree, because others would interpret the word differently if they are not aware of your choice of words. And that impression is part of what makes their demands unjust - though there is more, of course.

As for whether it's good manners, I tend to think it's the other way around: it is generally wrong to demand that a person either:

1. Asserts what they believe to be false, or
2. Change the meaning of the words they use, when those words that are not in any way meant to insult, harass, etc.

Usually, the people making the demands intend to coerce people into doing 1.; sometimes, it's just 2, but often it's 1. and 2. in an inconsistent fashion. They tend to be outraged by what they perceived as unjust behavior, when in reality there is no injustice involved, except in their own actions by making such demands. Some resist, and then they are the target of the wrath of those demanding either 1. or 2.

 

[Politesse]

You mean the Catholics? Well, they too want to be called 'Christians', and they do not want the word 'Christian' to mean "evangelical fundamentalist Protestant". One might similarly ask: how is it any of the Evangelical's business what Catholics want to be called?

If the Catholics wish to be called "Christians", that's fine, too. I'm happy to do so. They don't get to decide what anyone else is or isn't called, nor is anyone's autonym a "definition" of anything. If I call you Angra Mainyu, am I making an ontological claim that you and only you can be defined as an Angra Mainyu and anyone else who tries to call themselves that is a liar? Of course not. I'm just calling you as you prefer to be called, as any sane, adult, non-asshole would do.

I note that it's almost exclusively outsiders who demand to call Natives by homogenous collective racial terms in the first place. No one is making a claim about what defines them; when given actual freedom of self definition, most people (of any background) prefer to be named primarily as members of their claimed culture or nation, not their assigned race, and Native folks are no different on that point. This is a question of constrained preference, of what derogatory label they find least offensive out of limited set of offensive alternatives, not some grand claim about what they think they are or would like to be.

Let me ask you, when someone asks you what you are or where you're from, do you answer "a White"? Why or why not? Is it literally true? Is it an ontological claim about objectively true facts? Or is it just a label, and not even really your preferred label? I certainly don't care to be called a white, but I understand that questions of law and sociology (or government forms) will sometimes require it. In such cases, I certainly prefer "White" to "Caucasian" or "Aryan" or "Cracker" even though none of those terms have any factual basis whatsoever. Because race as a concept is bullshit, and the labels it generates have a lot of history but not much logic behind them as a rule.

 

[Elixir]

No danger of anyone here missing what goes on in right wing extremist media while Derec is here to keep us up to speed.
YAWN

 

[TomC]

"problematic" is not the same as "complicated".

I believe I was the one who first used the term problematic in this thread. The context in which I used it was the grand sweep of human history. That's unfortunately rife with invasion and occupation. Genocide, oppression, and slavery are huge.

In the much smaller, better understood, and contemporary context of 21st century Washington State, indigenous isn't very problematic at all. Less problematic than similar words, like european. The word seemed pretty tightly defined as "member of a recognized tribe". I don't think that's at all controversial.
Tom
ETA ~ @Derec ~

 

[Politesse]

No danger of anyone here missing what goes on in right wing extremist media while Derec is here to keep us up to speed.
YAWN

Ah, poor sweet summer child. I envy your naivete, thinking that Derec's links are what the extremists are up to these days. Derec's favored brand of thinly veiled racial passive-aggression is what typifies the modern center-right, not the extremists. The real extremists of today do not read the Daily Mail, or any other mainstream newspaper/tabloid. Pointedly not. Because they are too "woke".