2 ms·

You seem to be the one equating 'brit' to skin color.

by pelagicAustral 1y ago

zvmaz 1y ago
How does he know who is "native brit" and who is not? Rhetorical question.
- milesrout 1y ago
  [dead]
freehorse 1y ago
We all know what dhh meant, dont play naive
slightwinder 1y ago
Visual appearance is the main indicator to identify the perceived culture of some random person on the streets, so it's a justified assumption the writer was talking about this.
- throwawaypath 1y ago
  The only "Brits" native to Great Britain are White Brits. Visual appearance is a strong indicator.
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
No, really, DHH does that in the linked article. > Chiefly because it's no longer full of native Brits. In 2000, more than sixty percent of the city were native Brits. By 2024, that had dropped to about a third. A statistic as evident as day when you walk the streets of London now. I personally don't see how it could be "as evident as day" simply by walking around and observing without bringing skin color into it. Walking the streets of London doesn't reasonably include the activity of investigating the citizen status of everybody one sees so he's presumably not observing "native or not". And if he's not observing that, then it seems reasonable to think he's observing their skin color. At least, it does without him clarifying what he was otherwise observing. But some of the words also link to a wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London) which doesn't actually support his point unless you look at numbers that explicitly concern race. More specifically, I can't find the race-agnostic numbers which corroborate the specific (approximate) numbers he gave. There's a "White British" row in a table that has a value of 36.8% for the 2021 census. It shows 59.79% for the 2001 census. It's hard to compare strictly with citizenship using the numbers he linked to, which seems another reason to assume he was thinking in terms of skin color. On top of the fact that the wiki article is titled "Ethnic groups in London", which is not relevant to citizenship status, nor whether they "natively" got their citizenship. I mean, seriously, what evidence could he even be using to make the claim that a mere 1/3 of London's population is comprised of "native Brits", if we start with the assumption that it's not what he observed of others' skin color? (Not rhetorical despite the tone, please answer if you have an idea.)
- throwawaypath 1y ago
  The only "Brits" native to Great Britain are White Brits. It has nothing to do with race, everything to do with ethnicity. Austrians are racially White, but are not native to London. There's nothing wrong with promoting or protecting the interests of native or indigenous people over those of immigrants or foreigners.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]

You seem to be the one equating 'brit' to skin color.

zvmaz 1y ago

How does he know who is "native brit" and who is not? Rhetorical question.

milesrout 1y ago
[dead]

freehorse 1y ago

We all know what dhh meant, dont play naive

slightwinder 1y ago

Visual appearance is the main indicator to identify the perceived culture of some random person on the streets, so it's a justified assumption the writer was talking about this.

throwawaypath 1y ago
The only "Brits" native to Great Britain are White Brits. Visual appearance is a strong indicator.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago

No, really, DHH does that in the linked article. > Chiefly because it's no longer full of native Brits. In 2000, more than sixty percent of the city were native Brits. By 2024, that had dropped to about a third. A statistic as evident as day when you walk the streets of London now. I personally don't see how it could be "as evident as day" simply by walking around and observing without bringing skin color into it. Walking the streets of London doesn't reasonably include the activity of investigating the citizen status of everybody one sees so he's presumably not observing "native or not". And if he's not observing that, then it seems reasonable to think he's observing their skin color. At least, it does without him clarifying what he was otherwise observing. But some of the words also link to a wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London) which doesn't actually support his point unless you look at numbers that explicitly concern race. More specifically, I can't find the race-agnostic numbers which corroborate the specific (approximate) numbers he gave. There's a "White British" row in a table that has a value of 36.8% for the 2021 census. It shows 59.79% for the 2001 census. It's hard to compare strictly with citizenship using the numbers he linked to, which seems another reason to assume he was thinking in terms of skin color. On top of the fact that the wiki article is titled "Ethnic groups in London", which is not relevant to citizenship status, nor whether they "natively" got their citizenship. I mean, seriously, what evidence could he even be using to make the claim that a mere 1/3 of London's population is comprised of "native Brits", if we start with the assumption that it's not what he observed of others' skin color? (Not rhetorical despite the tone, please answer if you have an idea.)

throwawaypath 1y ago
The only "Brits" native to Great Britain are White Brits. It has nothing to do with race, everything to do with ethnicity. Austrians are racially White, but are not native to London. There's nothing wrong with promoting or protecting the interests of native or indigenous people over those of immigrants or foreigners.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]