| >You keep using that word. Yes, because it's apt. >I don't think it means what you think it means. We both know exactly what it means and it's clear that its aptness bugs you. >But I'm not really interested in tugging on this thread because it's extremely tedious to argue definitions of words in a language where the dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive. I'm not interested in it either, but it's clear: the definition and proscriptive usage doesn't suit your narrative. >You can't replace a culture via immigration that has, as a cornerstone, "Come join us." Yes you absolutely can. If you replace the "come join us" leftist people with ISIS, surprise surprise, you've been replaced. QED. >That's like saying the population of a school has been "replaced" because it graduated an entire generation of students and a new generation is there now. This is a hilariously not well thought out example because it actually proves my point. Yes, if you replace the population of a school with a different ethnic group, you're replacing the original ethnic group. This is like saying if the trout population in a stream goes down, and you replace the dwindling population with salmon, "the relevant continuity [of fish] is unchanged." You've kept the fish population the same, but you replaced the trout with salmon (who are not native there). Thanks for proving my point. QED. >One way out for Japan would be to shift their cornerstones. Or maybe Japan doesn't need "a way out". >If that's not on the table, if a younger generation unserved by the status quo can't find a way to put it on the table... Good luck. Homogenous nations will do fine, even if they upset your IMMIGRATION and unlimited capitalism pyramid scheme Gods. |