Indigenous displacement is an idea from postcolonial theory often used to normatively criticize western nations; often using statistical demographic change as evidence of the charge.
My question is: why this doesn't idea apply to London?
2/ The point I am trying to bring out here is related to a question asked by the philosopher Joseph Heath: "What is the difference between a settler and an immigrant?"
Concepts like "indigenous displacement" appear to be neutral descriptions but are in fact normatively loaded...
3/ And the result is that they get deployed according to the normative political considerations of the person using them.
This is why Europeans who move to the U.S. are called "settlers" but Syrian refugees get called immigrants.
4/ The goal of that tweet was to call attention to the normative character of the supposedly neutral descriptions that radical leftists use in the service of their theorizing and describing of various aspects of demographic concerns related to immigration.
"Catholics would be tolerated on the fringes of society"
This sentence is why the dissident right will fail. Trad-Caths/Catholic Integralists see protestants as an abhorration of the true faith. So there's *zero* chance they ever agree to be "tolerated at the fringe of society."
The dissident right has a Protestant wing and a catholic wing.
Protestant DR types think some form of *protestant* Christianity (usually but not always some form of Calvinism) needs to be the default religion of the public.
Trad-caths think it should be catholicism...
And the trad-caths are never, evr, going to let the protestant calvinists (whom the catholics view as a heretical abhorration of true Christianity) force catholics to be merely "tolerated at the fringes."
Likewise, protestants will *never* submit to catholic rule. Ever.
Since "noticing" appears to be a thing, I'd like to say that I "notice" things as well....And I can't help but *notice* the obsession that certain people have with Israel, even though other nations (China, India, Russia, etc) impact the U.S. far more....
I also can't help but notice that those same sorts of people are obsessed the influence of wealth Jews, but have nothing to say about the influence of money from China, Qatar, Russia, India, and so on.
The Jews are, apparantly, an item of incredibly deep concern...
For a great number of people, and I can't help but *notice* that the far greater and more pernicious influence (and subversion) coming from foreign money in other countries gets mysteriously ignored, and I *notice* that Israel is held to a higher standard than every other country
1/ Wokeness is the alloy of the political ideology and moral value framework from Critical Theory with the social constructivist worldview and epistemology of postmodernism.
As the political side of woke recedes culturally, it leaves behind the underlying postmodern worldview.
2/ The teleology of the woke project came from the moral commitments of intersectional social justice (Trans-rights, Race based activism, etc)
Those movements are being dissolved by their own incoherence and absurdity (Land acknowledgements, claiming men can become women, etc)
3/ The dissolution and exhaustion of the political movement that provided the teleology and moral value framework for wokeness leaves the entire social movement around which those things were built without any thing to serve as locus for meaning, purpose, or values.
The left has what @wesyang calls a "Vertically Integrated Messaging Apparatus." It's an apparatus of messaging distribution which is owned and operated by leftists top to bottom, and disseminates only the information which aligns with leftist moral norms and political priorities.
@wesyang The lefts messaging apparatus used to be the information distributor for all of society (we called it "mainstream media") but new media alternatives and the rollback of social media censorship regime's mean society is no longer a captive audience for the lefts messaging apparatus
For decades it was the progressive leftist worldview from which the norms of public life and the values of the common culture were derived. The at-large culture was the home of leftists, and conservative evangelicals were treated like unwanted guests.
Those days are over.
The culture is changing so quickly that people are about to get whiplash. It's no longer the case that the default values of public life are those of the social-justice left, (or of "progressives") and progressives no longer get to determine what is allowed in "polite company."
In other words, the progressives no longer get to simply assume that their goals, values, and priorities get to take center stage in the at-large culture.
The presumption of progressive leftists that they get to set the terms of the debate no longer carries any weight.
For years conservatives told people that leftists used violence and intimidation to silence dissent, and the media downplays and ignores it. Charlie Kirk's assassination proved the right was correct, and gave them the moral high ground in the culture for the first time in decades
Kirks' assassination validated what the right had been saying about free speech, censorship, and political violence exactly because Charlie was a vigorous free speech advocate who was killed for his speech.
Free speech is therefore the root of the rights' moral highground...
This means the right now has the backing of the culture, and the culture largely *agrees* with what the right has been saying about free speech, cancel culture, intimidation, censorship, information supression, and so fourth.