While I don’t disagree with the premise of this article, it does a piss poor job at rebuttal. It tries to explain that migrants and asylum seekers won’t get to vote in this next election, don’t draw SS/Medicare benefits today, and anyway the census is only every ten years, etc. But the “great replacement” stuff is about fears about changing the population over the long term, so this kind of counterargument either falls flat or will be interpreted as gaslighting.
The real die-hards don’t think it’s a scheme to create a permanent Democratic majority; they think it’s a plot to ethnically replace white Americans. At its core, the great replacement is about demographics, not democracy.
The article doesn’t try to rebut this because of the staggering number of premises you need to accept before you can even reach such a conclusion. It’s really not worth unpacking here.
I disagree. That is precisely the thing that needs to be unpacked and rebutted, because it’s the actual thing these people are worried about. Not the financial sustainability of Social Security, or whatever.
Though it’s worth explaining how all of this works to understand how nonsensical Musk’s beliefs are, the facts don’t really matter to people who are convinced that the great replacement is actually happening. The real die-hards don’t think it’s a scheme to create a permanent Democratic majority; they think it’s a plot to ethnically replace white Americans. At its core, the great replacement is about demographics, not democracy.
They go into further details after that.
Edit: Second half may have been generous. It’s the last few paragraphs though.
While I don’t disagree with the premise of this article, it does a piss poor job at rebuttal. It tries to explain that migrants and asylum seekers won’t get to vote in this next election, don’t draw SS/Medicare benefits today, and anyway the census is only every ten years, etc. But the “great replacement” stuff is about fears about changing the population over the long term, so this kind of counterargument either falls flat or will be interpreted as gaslighting.
Did you … stop reading?
The article doesn’t try to rebut this because of the staggering number of premises you need to accept before you can even reach such a conclusion. It’s really not worth unpacking here.
I disagree. That is precisely the thing that needs to be unpacked and rebutted, because it’s the actual thing these people are worried about. Not the financial sustainability of Social Security, or whatever.
Wasn’t that the whole second half of the article?
They go into further details after that.
Edit: Second half may have been generous. It’s the last few paragraphs though.