> Cancelling "Hey"
> I definitely don't believe in trying to change people's minds by shouting at them or shaming them
> I definitely don't believe in trying to change people's minds by shouting at them or shaming them
seems to me like they want to make a (polite) argument instead of explicitly calling them “heretic” to quote the article.
They also quite obviously seem to refer to cancellling the subscription here and not trying to invoke "cancel culture". The first few paragraphs make this quite clear.
Normal working families with kids live next to these parks and rely on them as open space, it is part of the Danish socialist welfare system and care for the working man. Defacation and open cooking plus thrash by not your own weak but foreigners has real cost to those that can’t afford to move.
May want to read the Wikipedia entries on both Denmark and socialism.
The article made it pretty clear that they're not arguing against deporting people who are camping in parks though, and just arguing against generalizing the issue as being about the entire ethnic group. Are you claiming that somehow having a communal kin based socialist society makes it impossible to have, using the term in the article, "individuated enforcement"?
The group talked about here came in through mass migration and are in group conflict with working peoples interest in having safe communal open spaces, while being a net negative contributor to public pools of resources used to help the average man and disproportionately contributing to theft.
From a Scandinavian perspective you choose group solidarity with your own working man over the stranger that did not come in through high skill merit.
It’s our country and we have no obligation to let anyone in, especially a group that culturally conflict with ours in ways that violate our social contract and ability to provide basic standards of living to our own kin.
But they're already in, legally, according to the laws you defined? It's hard to believe that you have such a well-defined social contract that literally everyone agrees that means you can't let in people of another ethnic group if the laws made by the people you suggest literally don't support mass deporting everyone who fits into the group you mention.
Scandinavia is in a much better spot than the UK, which voted in favor of brexit to stop flow and instead received replacement migration.
When Scandinavia entered Schengen it was all Western European countries that explicitly kept Eastern European countries out.
Asylums were rare, low in number and strictly enforced to known political refugees with very few arriving until the UN started funding migrant transports & EU started requiring quotas from the third world through EU at the risk of severe fines if you say no.
There was no vote on these changes to what was previously very strong borders.