Ruby Central's Attack on RubyGems [pdf]

In the linked article, DHH links out to a wikipedia article titled "Ethnic groups in London"[0].

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.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London

just double checked, there is a separate section of the article that has the "foreign born" population of london, which is 36%, so he's definitely excluding any non-white english people there.

I used to work at a Ruby on Rails shop many years ago (New Bamboo, now part of ThoughtBot) which is in London.

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.

No dog in this race but, as an outsider, it's always seemed really odd that some countries (Japan sticks out) are allowed to prioritize cultural preservation but European countries are not.

A very ironic example is that Americans moving to Mexico is seen as bad, whereas Mexicans moving to the US is seen as necessary by the left...

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.

That's an interesting observation and I think it comes down to immigration policy. I haven't actually looked into it but I've heard that Japan basically doesn't allow for long-term immigration, except probably in exceptional cases like PhDs.

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.

This is only one of many examples over years of DHH’s ideology. Analyzing this one instance (the most recent) does not change anything, this is a drop in a bucket

There aren't a whole lot of people celebrating Japan's immigration policies. Further, their policies have been around for quite some time. It's one thing to continue enforcing decades old policies and quite another to create those same policies today.

Don't write long blog posts about how your country doesn't have enough white people (and should start deporting brown people) and you won't be called a white supremist. Pretty simple.

Thanks for your post! Is there a way to add a comment there?

You're welcome.

Unfortunately not - the page is a html export from a markdown editor (Typora), not a blog engine.

> it's always seemed really odd that some countries (Japan sticks out) are allowed to prioritize cultural preservation

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.

Or maybe don't call someone names corresponding to behavior that they haven't endorsed.

Nowhere does the blog post say that, which is why this is libel.

> 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.

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.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nur_f%C3%BCr_Deutsche

Maybe don't repeat nazi slogans if you don't want to be labeled a white supremacist.

> 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.

How is nationality equivalent to race? Watch this:

America should be a country for Americans.

Which race am I talking about here?

The real question is who isn't American? When someone says "X is for Xes" they are implicitly saying "and not for Ys".

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".

Totally dodging the issue. You claimed "white supremacist" was an accurate title, cited Nazis who invaded other countries and eradicated the local culture/population/racial groups without assimilating (eerily similar to mass immigration), and then immediately moved the goalposts when it was illustrated how ignorant such a statement could be.

> 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?

> I haven't actually looked into it but I've heard that Japan basically doesn't allow for long-term immigration, except probably in exceptional cases like PhDs.

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.

You are feigning ignorance.

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".