Wanting to make sure that Big Tech plays by the rules is one thing, but I still think it’s pretty crazy that he said Republicans now stand “for the little guys”. Even in December 2024 I think that’s a pretty crazy thing to say.

Of course there’s the fact that Proton’s CEO praised Trump. Here’s his tweet:

All societies have morals right? In pretty much any country, if you say something that is considered bad in that country, people won’t like you. That’s not censorship, it’s just morals. In many countries, racism is usually considered bad, so if you say something that seems racist, many people won’t like you.

If DHH wanted to make a point about culture in London then it’s possible to do that without tying it to ethnicity.

Let’s not say that reverse racism is a real thing, because that’s an imaginary racist trope.

My view is that racism can happen to any ethnicity: black, brown, white, anybody. It depends on the situation. If a business run entirely by white people disallows entry to a black person because they’re black, that’s racist, but if the races were reversed (a business run entirely by black people disallows entry to a white person because they’re white), I’d say that’s also racist. In fact if I end up talking to a white person about racism I might deliberately give them an example of a situation where a white person could experience racial discrimination, because that might make them think “fair point, I would dislike it if someone was racist to me, so maybe racism is a bad thing”.

I’m not a fascist or a troll, and if someone wants to read exactly what DHH wrote, then they can click on the link to his blog post, which is in my summary. I think it’s good that you’re quoting more of it to be honest, so people can see what he wrote, and they can decide for themselves what they think about it. I’m not trying to “whitewash” anything, I just wanted to give people an overview of the situation so they can draw their own conclusions, whether positive or negative.

Firstly because when he says London is “no longer full of native Brits” he links to a Wikipedia page about ethnic groups in London. So he seems to be talking about ethnicity. Secondly, he says that these “native Brits” are now “about a third” of London. Looking at the Wikipedia page he linked to, the stats show that white Brits were 37% of London according to the 2021 census, which is about a third. It seems to me that’s probably what he’s talking about.

If “native Brits” just meant people born in the UK, or people with a British passport, then those figures are higher: 59% and 77% of London respectively (that page says that “In 2021, more than 4 in 10 (40.6%) usual residents in London were non-UK born, and more than 1 in 5 (23.3%) had a non-UK passport”).

I think DHH is talking about ethnicity specifically though, not culture. He said London is “no longer full of native Brits”, and he describes “native Brits” as now forming “about a third” of London. White Brits were 37% of London at the 2021 census, so I think that’s what he’s talking about.

It’s possible to express disagreement with a cultural practice without making it about ethnicity. E.g. someone might object to men and women being separated for religious prayer. They might believe that men and women should pray together. It’s possible to make that point without making it about ethnicity.

I’m just interested to see what the other side of the argument might be. Sometimes you might very strongly disagree with other people’s views, or even be disgusted by those views, but you might still want to find out what those views are.

Ethnicity and culture are different. A person can choose to adopt whatever culture they want regardless of their ethnicity. Also if you said something like “I don’t want that particular ethnicity to move to my neighbourhood due to their culture” then I think that’s probably racist. I think it’s fine to object to certain cultural aspects as long as you don’t tie it to ethnicity though. E.g. if you said “I object to a cultural practice of treating women worse than men” then I think that’s okay.

He doesn’t seem to be talking about culture. He didn’t say something like “London has fewer pubs than it used to”. Instead he seems to be referring specifically to ethnicity. His interest in London seems to be reduced because more non-white people now live in London.

Is it okay for DHH to express his unhappiness that London is no longer mostly White British? He said “I thought I might move there one day… Now, I wouldn’t dream of it. London is no longer the city I was infatuated with in the late '90s and early 2000s. Chiefly because it’s no longer full of native Brits.”

Let’s say a lot of white people move to a previously black area. This causes a prominent person to write a blog saying “I thought I might move there one day… Now, I wouldn’t dream of it. It’s no longer the place I was infatuated with. Chiefly because it’s no longer full of black residents.” That would be racist wouldn’t it?

This is why I joined feddit.uk. If I want UK-centric stuff then I can look at “local” posts. If I want to see more stuff (including US stuff) then I can look at “all” posts.

the British are brainless

I don’t think it makes sense to make judgements about the intelligence of everyone in a country based on an action done by some people in that country.

Maybe the UK needs politicians like they’re starting to get in the USA. If you don’t know this guy pictured, he’s running to be mayor of New York. His campaign is all about making necessities more affordable (rent, food, transport), and his poll numbers are pretty good.

The only issue I had was his police “apology”. I get why. It’s him trying to make sure he can control them as governor. It’s basically him acknowledging the militarized police state and playing politics. It’s not what we want to hear though.

I just watched the interview. I thought his apology was fine. Surely if you want a safe society then you need an effective police force? Obviously you don’t want an unjust police force, and Zohran mentioned that, but I think what normal law-abiding people want is an effective and just police force who can keep everyone safe.

The thing about the Convention is that it constrains governments, and it constrains the way that governments can treat minorities and people it doesn’t like… If we were out of the ECHR, you wouldn’t have that constraint

Tories are salivating at the thought

at what point should france have just accepted that nazis owed france?

at what point should ukraine stop fighting russia and just let them have the land they have taken?

That’s why I mentioned Dresden though. The Allies did bomb German civilians in Dresden as part of their efforts to defeat the Nazis, and that attack has been criticised because they harmed civilians, rather than just military targets.

Anyway, if we’re going to say that Israel should never have been established by force and forced expulsions of Palestinians, perhaps that is true. I suppose the same can be said about the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. Therefore maybe Israel should pay compensation to Palestinian families who were affected by forced expulsion.

do i take a side? yes the side that has killed less civilians deliberately.

I see. Personally though if I came across two serial killers, one of whom had killed 5 people, and the other of whom had killed 20 people, I would say both were wrong. I wouldn’t say that the killer of 5 people was necessarily a better person. If both of these killers had the same firepower, maybe they both would have killed similar numbers of civilians.

I think it would make sense for Palestine to have an army. If they did have an army, and if that army tried to push the Israeli military out of the West Bank (internationally recognised as Palestine), that might make sense. It is strange that Israel has borders but they’ve gone beyond them (into the West Bank and into Syria), which is supposed to be illegal, and the West has just been okay with that.

Women and children were killed by Hamas in 2023 right? Also Israelis might be made to train in the IDF but that doesn’t mean every Israeli supports an aggressive policy towards Palestinians.

I’m not trying to take either side really - I think both Israel and Hamas should not have killed civilians. You said I should read the history, yeah maybe I should. Palestinians who were forcibly expelled from what is now Israel, maybe they should get compensation from Israel.

I think ethnic cleansing like mentioned in your link is bad. But does that justify Hamas attacking Israeli civilians? You mention liberation from the Nazis - the British and Americans bombed Dresden to try to defeat the Nazis, but they bombed many civilians, which is why some people see that attack as morally bad. The nuking of Japan also killed many civilians, and is also seen as pretty terrible. If attacking civilians in those cases was bad (it probably was) then maybe Hamas attacking Israeli civilians was bad, and Israel attacking Palestinian civilians was bad.