I'm just reposting it though. I haven't followed any of this myself.
I'm just reposting it though. I haven't followed any of this myself.
Can someone expand on what this means? Is it a continued relationship between Ruby Central and DHH, or the maintainers and DHH? Why does the other party have a problem with that?
EDIT: It seems the post was clarified since I copy/pasted this, and it's RC and DHH. Why do the maintainers have a problem with this? I though the stated reason was about RC removing everyone's access with no warning.
> In 2000, more than sixty percent of the city were native Brits. By 2024, that had dropped to about a third.
He then uses a statistic that "only a third" are native brits in 2021, which roughly lines up with the "White British" line in the chart.
You can argue that "white supremecist" is a charged and problematic term, but I'd say that "Here he complains about too many brown people in London." is a fairly accurate representation of the article. I'd say "disgraceful slander" is a bit too strong as a rebuttal.
I got pointed to the blog post, and it was such a strikingly-bad hot take that I had to write a response: http://paulbjensen.co.uk/2025/09/17/on-dhhs-as-i-remember-lo...
In my opinion, initially I thought "Oh David's been sucked into some kind of social media bubble (on X) or disinformation space", but then as I read the post, down to the bit where he started talking about "demographic replacement", I came to the view that this is who he is a person.
It's shocking and disappointing.
In Canada here, we have land acknowledgements and it's politically correct to say we stole the land and should give it back to the natives. Then when native Europeans want to keep their land, it's white supremacy...
It's a very obvious double standard.
Where EU countries (I know this excludes the UK but it didn't for a long time) allow easy long-term immigration by EU policy. Even with Brexit, I don't think that culture of easy immigration is going to just up and disappear. So having a culture and/or policy of easy immigration alongside "well, actually, not those guys" where "those guys" includes anybody who's not already culturally/ethnically part of the nation is, minimally, counter-productive and perhaps a bit hypocritical.
Unfortunately not - the page is a html export from a markdown editor (Typora), not a blog engine.
can we clarify... by whom? just kidding :) whether a country is "allowed" to do something is probably a red herring.
spitballing here, i think folks who engage in criticism of ethnonationalism are most likely to criticize the ethnonationalism they see close to home, as opposed to what might be happening on the other side of the planet.
there are valid critiques of japan's treatment of its nondominant ethnicities, and lots of anecdotal experiences covering the same, but it's a lot easier to discuss the nuances of an issue like this when you're more intimately familiar with the culture and sociopolitical history of a region.
That is a white supremacist rhetoric and fascist rhetoric. Looking for racial purity based on geography was a core tenant of the Nazis [1], some of the most famous white supremacists (white german supremacists. Nobody is at their level.)
It's not libel if it's true.
> 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.
If you don't believe that's the case, then tell me exactly what that phrase means other than to exclude some group. To claim "these are not real Americans".
> who isn't American?
Is this a trick question? People who were not born in America are clearly not American, save for naturalized citizens and a handful of other caveats. If you were born in Iceland, Greenland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark (just picking some traditionally/predominantly-white countries to really drive it home) and are not the child of a diplomat or even a citizen: you are not American.
Seriously: do you believe you are Japanese? If you actually are Japanese, do you think you're Peruvian, too? Are you also a Liechtensteiner? People are citizens of specific nations, believe it or not - this is not some new, misunderstood concept.
> means other than to exclude some group
Why is it a foregone conclusion that exclusion is automatically unjust?
Are countries not permitted to exclude people? Again: this is not based on race. Does one have an automatic right to immigrate wherever they please?
Hasn’t been correct for at least the past decade, if you post here there’s a good chance you would be able to relocate to Japan and have permanent residency within 1-3 years.
Japan has one of the most generous immigration policies in the developed world at the moment.
I'm done, you aren't been honest in this exchange.
But let me spell it out.
When someone says "America for the Americans" they are saying "not the Latinos or Muslims or brown people I don't like". This is crystal clear with how ICE is currently operating and by the number of Latino citizens they've arrested.
Also, yes, someone that naturalizes is American. We're a melting pot nation. You can be two things. American and Japanese. American and Peruvian, American and Mexican. Where you or your parents were born does not take away from you being American.
Feel free to write more about how "actually no, it's just a patriotic call".
Overtime I gave him so much benefit of the doubt, and steelmanned his arguments because I really respected him as a Software Engineer and I aligned with him on his views in technology... But that blog post was the last straw. It's clear-as-day racism. No room for misinterpretation.
I was willing to overlook his remarks about DEI, Trump, Kirk, etc.... because there were nuggets of truth and genuine pain points.. but it turns out he was a racist, white supremacists all along. Sigh...