[wagwang]

That article is full of gems like

> Researchers have variously estimated the Muslim population of France at between 8.8% and 12.5% in 2017, and less than 1% in 2001,[64][65] making a "replacement" unlikely according to MacKellar.

[pona-a]

You quoted the number but skipped the part where MacKellar says the whole premise relies on treating 3rd- and 4th-generation citizens as “not French.”

> While the ethnic demography of France has shifted as a result of post-WWII immigration, scholars have generally dismissed the claims of a "great replacement" as being rooted in an exaggeration of immigration statistics and unscientific, racially prejudiced views.[12] Geographer Landis MacKellar criticized Camus's thesis for assuming "that third- and fourth- generation 'immigrants' are somehow not French."[63] Researchers have variously estimated the Muslim population of France at between 8.8% and 12.5% in 2017, and less than 1% in 2001,[64][65] making a "replacement" unlikely according to MacKellar.[63]

[dijit]

Feels weird to call them ethnically French, especially when the context being presented is religion.

The assumption being made is that they’ll ditch the religion after four generations? I don’t see data for that assumption, maybe it is not 100%, but its certainly not as low as 20% apostacy.

Thus I would take serious issue with that statement, it is evidence of an ethnic or religious replacement.

[pona-a]

Religion isn’t ethnicity. Did England become less British after Catholics fell from a vast majority to ~10% post-Reformation?

And the actual numbers still don’t show a majority shift. Even if every Muslim in France kept their religion, they’d be ~10% of the population — far from "replacement".

[wagwang]

The real comparison, which idk why you didnt make, is the islamic control of iberia, to which the answer is, YES!

Also anglicism is like, catholicism without a pope... also it was created by the king, not imported from another continent.

[dijit]

Take that up with the author of the article.

Also, you missed the point entirely if the topic is “the population of x has gone from 1% to an estimated upper of 12.5% in 20 years” and your answer is “its below 10% right now”.

Not only are you potentially immediately wrong, since the number today could exceed 10%, it also doesn’t speak to how those demographics might be shaped by disparities in birthrates or continued migration.

But, you know that, you’re just trying to argue for some reason.

[dijit]

funny, my votes went from +4 to -1 inside of 5 minutes despite this comment being at +4 for 11 hours.

Either that’s a strong coincidence or vote manipulation is rife here.