Ask Lemmygrad

I started writing a couple different approaches to this, but they didn't seem quite right. I'm going to try again and see if 3rd time is the charm.

An important thing to remember is that reactionary "questions" often carry with them assumptions or claims that aren't necessarily true. It's framed like a question, but structured like a statement.

And you aren't owed them a serious response, in part for that reason.

Let's go through these to demonstrate what I mean:

Why do we always have to put ourselves and our cultures last by not serving pork in school canteens because of muslims

The implicit claim: "We [already doing a lot of bullshit with the assumed 'we'] always [assumes this is something that is constantly happening and never goes another way] have to [implies the 'we' is disempowered and has no say] put ourselves and our cultures [doesn't even get into what those cultures are but judging by what follows, the implication is 'white'] last [so claiming that not only are people accommodating the priorities of another group, but that this puts their own priorities dead last] by not serving pork in school canteens because of muslims [claiming not only that pork is not served in school canteens, which the question provides no evidence for, but also that it's "because of Muslims" and it assumes that pork is some kind of pivotal culture thing that is being pushed aside]."

Phew, that's a lot of horseshit in one small sentence. And it's not a real question. It's a form of rhetoric that is meant to evoke a response. The implication is that something is being taken from you and the expected response is, "I have to take it back."

Oh but it goes on:

or allowing underage girls to wear a hijab in school, to let their families oppress them

Look at how fast the rhetoric has shifted. Before it was implying that the "we" is a disempowered group who "has to" do stuff. Now it implies that the "we" is actually the one in power, who is making the decisions, "allowing" the dress codes of girls to be determined by the girls' families instead of by the "we". So already we can see that hint of white supremacy doing its thing of pretending to not have power, even as it exercises it, and vilifying the non-white cultures.

Why do we let people immigrants live off our government benefits when they haven’t paid a single euro in taxes before they came here

The implicit claim: "We [here we go again] let people immigrants [once again implying the 'questioner' is actually among the group that is in charge, after all] live off our government benefits [another unproven claim that in this case is likely absolute horseshit of exaggeration and distortion] when they haven’t paid a single euro in taxes before they came here [this one straight up doesn't make sense - how and why would you pay taxes before you come to a place? last I checked, taxes are based on a government taking a portion of what you make to go to funding. if you make nothing, a portion of 0 is 0].

A further point is that they are using the word immigrants, but I have to wonder if they are even actually referring to people who are all immigrants by choice or if some of them are refugees. And refugee is an even more vulnerable position to be in than somebody who really wanted to be, and planned to be, an immigrant.

So I mean, if you have to, you can look at them like the "Jesse, what the fuck are you talking about" meme.