4 ms·
A direct thing he wrote is "Britain should be a kingdom primarily for the Brits", where previously he has unambigiously defined "Brits" and "native Brits" as "w
by lazyatom 1y ago
A direct thing he wrote is "Britain should be a kingdom primarily for the Brits", where previously he has unambigiously defined "Brits" and "native Brits" as "white British people". That's racist.
- tim333 1y agoThe quote in the London post is >There's absolutely nothing racist or xenophobic in saying that Denmark is primarily a country for the Danes, Britain primarily a united kingdom for the Brits, and Japan primarily a set of islands for the Japanese. with no mention of Brits being defined as "white British people". I'm not sure the source for the Brits=white thing?
- jakelazaroff 1y agoThe source is DHH himself. There is no other possible good faith interpretation of "about a third" "native Brits" based on the Wikipedia article he himself cited. I show this in the post: https://jakelazaroff.com/words/dhh-is-way-worse-than-i-thought/#native-brits https://jakelazaroff.com/words/dhh-is-way-worse-than-i-thoug...
- WickyNilliams 1y agoWhen he's discussing "native Brits" he is clearly, if indirectly, referring to white British people. He links to a Wikipedia page as citation for his statistic, and that statistic on Wikipedia is _explicitly_ about white people. He says 1/3 of London is now native brits. Given this article he links to, how else might you interpret that? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London