zlacker

>>bradge+(OP)
I don't follow this kind of thing so forgive my ignorance. Why was "platforming" DHH bad? Honest question.

>>kkaske+H9
Judge for yourself: https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64 (a web search on "Tommy Robinson" would help with context).

>>jjgree+qb
Are you sure you posted the right article? There's nothing about Ruby or RubyGems in it.

>>rs_rs_+td
There is, however, a whole lot that says a lot about the character of DHH in it, such as by repeating rhetoric of the UK's racist far-right.

>>vidarh+Qe
Pushing everyone who doesn't have a 100% positive opinion on mass immigration under the label of "racist far-right" actively contributes to the strengthening of said "racist far-right". I hope you're aware of that.

>>bakugo+zg
Maybe the problem is the native Brits. Because the link he posted shows that the third of London he calls Native British is just White British.

Do you think non-white can’t be native British. Is Idris Elba not native British?

After hie many generations are you native British or is it impossible if you are not white?

This isn’t about mass immigration, it’s just about immigration as such.

That’s far-right.

>>croes+3o
> Because the link he posted shows that the third of London he calls Native British is just White British.

The table doesn't distinguish "British" from "non-British" for non-white people, so it would be rather hard to account for that.

But if he's referring to an ethnicity (really a narrow group of ethnicities) rather than a nationality then of course that would entail a range of skin tones what people would normally call "white". And yes, that thinking would necessarily exclude Idris Elba.

But then if this is really about worrying about "white people", then why is he also excluding the non-British white people from his figure? Can it really not just be that there exists an English ethnicity (and Scottish and Welsh) that has been there for centuries and has nowhere else to go?

> This isn’t about mass immigration, it’s just about immigration as such.

There is no such distinction.

You ask "after how many generations are you native British"; I can equally well ask "after how many immigrants is it mass immigration".

The point is that the rate of immigration has been sufficient to completely overwhelm the native birthrate, causing a rapid demographic shift.

When the UK colonized India in the first place, the population did not become minority-Indian at all, let alone within the space of a couple of generations.