> Someone will dig through some old forums/news group/twitter posts that someone made and use that as a stick to beat them with.

This is not about digging up some old careless post. It’s about his current views which he posts proudly online.

I’ll note your post pulls a classic trick:

- these views are not that important to who he is

- anyway even if he did hold those views it’s not that big of a deal

- but also I agree with those views (even tho I am but a humble, reasonable centrist)

> Secondly, constantly berating him for having the wrong opinions and not explaining why those opinions are wrong are more likely to entrench his positions and anyone that is sympathetic to those opinions.

People have tried that.

DHH is at best a pseudo-intellectual troll.

Everything I've read has been accusatory, including the two articles linked on the topic we are discussing.

I do indeed accuse him of being a pseudo-intellectual troll, and that is the kindest interpretation of things he has actually written, including “As I Remember London”, which is creepy, deliberately misleading, has clear white-nationalist subtext and openly supports a crooked bigoted thug.

That wasn't quite what I meant when I replied to you.

I disagree with your interpretation being the kindest.

The kindest interpretation is this: I believe he has been deceived. What happened to him (and this has happened to a lot of people) is that he has gone down the political rabbit hole after realising that some things he has believed his whole life may have been a mislead. That leads you to go through avenues that are often frequented by grifters and all sorts of other conmen.

Therefore, you come to the wrong conclusions.

People online constantly berating him everytime his projects are mentioned doesn't allow him an out, doesn't allow him to move and eventually get away from listening to the people that have deceived him.

If you are actually interested, I would look at the UFO community where this happens, as it isn't politically charged (at least not in the same way). Many of the people deceived have no education in science or engineering and are often looking to explain something that may have happened to them (often this may be a hallucination or just something weird they've seen).

Nope, sorry. There are things in that article that are really a long way beyond having been deceived. They cannot and must not be minimised in that way. And nobody who criticises them should feel any blame if he doubles down; he is a wealthy privileged white man who is solely responsible for the things he says.

> There are things in that article that are really a long way beyond having been deceived

I don't believe so. Can you explain exactly how it is impossible he is deceived?

> They cannot and must not be minimised in that way.

Why not? To me what I described is what fits 100%. You just asserting that is the case hasn't explained why I might be incorrect.

You clearly haven't taken what I've explained to you on board at all. I suggest you bother checking out any of how this occurs in any other conspiracy circles, e.g., UFOs or just watching something that promotes conspiracy theories, such as Hunting Hitler (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5248878/). It's the same mechanism, just a different form.

> And nobody who criticises them should feel any blame if he doubles down; he is a wealthy privileged white man who is solely responsible for the things he says.

I am not saying people should feel blame for criticising him. I am saying that should be blamed for brow-beating him.

Are you telling me he cannot be deceived because he is wealthy? Plenty of wealthy and privileged people are/have been deceived.

I am not going to waste my time watching videos about UFO nuts to try to gain insight into why what DHH said about London is somehow a result of him being deceived and not his own fully formed opinions that he affirmed by deliberately writing them in his blog.

He is a grown man. Be serious.

All you are telling me is that you are going to be wilfully ignorant. That is intellectually dishonest.

Constantly reiterating that he can't have been deceived when I've told you how it happens to people and there are similar examples elsewhere is being an ignoramus.

Is he, or is he not, fully responsible for the words in his blog that he wrote a year ago and has not amended or corrected despite very clear corrections of his misstatements of fact? (This is not even the only article where he has done that)

I don’t really give a crap if he was deceived, or how much pushback he gets, or whether he feels trapped by his own actions. He’s a big boy, he wrote what he wrote.

What he wrote is xenophobic pseudo intellectual nonsense tinged with white nationalist tropes, in support of a crook and a thug, and he is a fully grown man who is responsible for his own words on a commercial blogging platform he runs. He has access to all the same sources of information anyone else has.

You can call me names all you like but I think it’s kind of weird that you would go to bat for him like this.

The disagreement isn't about whether he is or isn't responsible for what he said. I am not denying this.

What I find strange is that you said specifically that he couldn't have been deceived and then tell describe Tommy Robinson as a crook. Your internal logic isn't consistent.

What I am trying to explain to you is that this may not because he some sort of unrepentant racist. It happens because it is partly a reaction to people like you who are preachy and moralistic and due to him getting listening to the wrong people after his world view is rocked.

I've fallen down the political/conspiracy rabbit hole myself. I've seen it happen to other people. So I can empathise with someone coming to the conclusions he has.

The fact that you are unwilling even bother entertaining any explanations is a moral failing on your part and is leading to the increasing political polarisation that we see today.

You are part of the problem as much as he is and the people that I believed deceived him.

> You can call me names all you like but I think it’s kind of weird that you would go to bat for him like this.

I said you were an ignoramus based on your statements made to me. You were unwilling to bother doing some basic investigation. This is quite frankly unacceptable tbh, after you express such strong views.

Also is nothing weird about what I am saying at all. I am suspect like others have done to me you just want to call me a secret fascist, simply because I don't want to condemn someone because they have expressed what is at the end of the day is simply unpopular viewpoint.

I am also fed up of this being brought up every time the project is mentioned. It is tiresome. That is it.

Why are you comparing someone that said a mild anti-abort thing to DHH tho? can you describe with your words what is DHH main talking points? mild racism? mild eugenics?

You don't see anything wrong with his posts because you hold similar beliefs, you are just putting yourself in the center, which is typical.