6 ms·

> Most of what you described is just disinformation though “We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066” is accurate: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h

> Most of what you described is just disinformation though “We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066” is accurate: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/white-britons-could-be-minority-by-2066-2137329.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/white-briton... Burning the Koran is not a statement of fact, so it cannot be disinformation. "young white girls are being raped by these grooming gangs" is also accurate (though the precise number is contentious, mostly because the police turned a blind eye, or even actively aided the gangs): https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/britains-grooming-gang-scandal-report-claims-250000-victims-1803240 https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/britains-grooming-gang-scandal-rep... So can you be more specific in what you were referring to as being "disinformation"?

selimthegrim 2mo ago
Why is it we never hear about the Muslim prosecutor who put them away?
52-6F-62 2mo ago
lol, this is odd. British =/= Briton And English most certainly =/= Briton. No more than English == Iroquois
- suslik 2mo ago
  I see this a lot, but it depends on how you define these terms. If person A defines British such as British = Briton, you categorically claiming that British =/= Briton is not really an argument, just a statement of belief. An argument would be why you think your definition is better, more correct, etc.
Steve16384 2mo ago
> “We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066” is accurate Accurate as in someone said it? Centuries ago, people were worried that if the number of horses increased at the current rate, we would be waist-deep in horse manure. And you admit yourself that the "precise number is contentious".
- like_any_other 2mo ago
  > Accurate as in someone said it? Centuries ago, people were worried that if the number of horses increased at the current rate.. "Someone" being a population expert. Of course, "if we do nothing about it" is implied - if nothing could be done, why even bring it up? But of course you know this, and stretching a best estimate prediction by an expert to somehow qualify as "disinformation" is not arguing in good faith. > And you admit yourself that the "precise number is contentious". The man jailed did not state any number, and was not in jail for getting the number wrong, so that objection is irrelevant. I only add the caveat to avoid an argument about the number that the source cited.
inigyou 2mo ago
Nobody can predict what will happen in 2066 any more than people in 1986 could predict there would be an AI bubble today. The slogan doesn't even mean anything. Who's "we"?

selimthegrim 2mo ago

Why is it we never hear about the Muslim prosecutor who put them away?

52-6F-62 2mo ago

lol, this is odd. British =/= Briton And English most certainly =/= Briton. No more than English == Iroquois

suslik 2mo ago
I see this a lot, but it depends on how you define these terms. If person A defines British such as British = Briton, you categorically claiming that British =/= Briton is not really an argument, just a statement of belief. An argument would be why you think your definition is better, more correct, etc.

Steve16384 2mo ago

> “We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066” is accurate Accurate as in someone said it? Centuries ago, people were worried that if the number of horses increased at the current rate, we would be waist-deep in horse manure. And you admit yourself that the "precise number is contentious".

like_any_other 2mo ago
> Accurate as in someone said it? Centuries ago, people were worried that if the number of horses increased at the current rate.. "Someone" being a population expert. Of course, "if we do nothing about it" is implied - if nothing could be done, why even bring it up? But of course you know this, and stretching a best estimate prediction by an expert to somehow qualify as "disinformation" is not arguing in good faith. > And you admit yourself that the "precise number is contentious". The man jailed did not state any number, and was not in jail for getting the number wrong, so that objection is irrelevant. I only add the caveat to avoid an argument about the number that the source cited.

inigyou 2mo ago

Nobody can predict what will happen in 2066 any more than people in 1986 could predict there would be an AI bubble today. The slogan doesn't even mean anything. Who's "we"?