A board member's perspective of the RubyGems controversy

The reason might seem odd. But it ocurred to me that if you want to use immigration to reduce crime, including rape, the obvious solution is to ban all male immigration.

That shocked me because it seems so wildly discriminatory. Yes, most violent crimes are committed by men. But very few men commit violent crimes. Banning male immigration would punish a large group for the appalling actions of a few. Making it about "$some_country's men" doesn't seem a whole lot better. It's still unjust to punish someone for someone else's crime.

If anyone is curious about the exercise, I recommend trying it. It was disconcerting to sit with the idea of banning male immigration, really seriously consider it and realise how viscerally shocked I was by the idea.

Edit: for context, in the UK right now, phrases like "rape gangs" are part of the debate/argument about immigration.

There's nothing racist about the facts. How one responds to it can indeed be racist -- ie. "all people of one of said nationalities are like these ones" would be racist. But observing that a nationality of immigrants are vastly overrepresented is just using your eyes to observe reality.

But my point was that I am absolutely sure the majority of Norwegians _want Norway to remain a country that retains its cultural history_ while not being exclusive to one ethnic group. It's about retaining a majority.

I don't understand why that sentiment is so problematic here on HN, because simultaneously people are clamoring for a Palestinian state for the Palestinian people.

Why can't Norway have a Norwegian state for the Norwegian people? Or Denmark? Or the UK?

> There are really a lot of us Danes who believed that when people came to this ‘world’s best country’ and were given such good opportunities, they would integrate. They would become Danish, and they would never, ever harm our society. All of us who thought that way have been wrong.

That's objectively observed reality in Denmark. And in Scandinavia in general. It's not about race, it's not about skin color, it's about cultural heritage and values.

All we're saying is that to retain a country's cultural heritage and carry it -- and obviously shape it -- into the future, you have to retain a majority of that heritage, and integrate newcomers. Otherwise it's no longer Denmark.

Disallowing someone from immigrating is not a punishment because there is no right to immigration anyway. In fact I believe we should go even further and see immigrants as investments. If the immigrant is unlikely to have a net positive tax contribution (or at least not being a rapist, for a more realistic target), I don't see any reason to allow him or her to be here. If you accept this idea, there is nothing wrong with training a neural network on characteristics of existing immigrants to predict the future value of a particular potential immigrant.

"We want immigrants to integrate" is not the same as "we don't want immigrants", which is the point you're trying to make.

https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64

London is no longer the city I was infatuated with in the late '90s and early 2000s. 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.

Copenhagen, by comparison, was about eighty-five percent native Danes in 2000, and is still three-quarters today. Enough of a foreign presence to feel cosmopolitan, but still distinctly Danish in all of its ways. Equally statistically evident on streets and bike lanes.

But I think, what would Copenhagen feel like, if only a third of it was Danish, like London? It would feel completely foreign, of course. Alien, even. So I get the frustration that many Brits have with the way mass immigration has changed the culture and makeup of not just London, but their whole country.

you have to retain a majority of that heritage, and integrate newcomers. Otherwise it's no longer Denmark.

what you are asking is not possible without rejecting immigration.

that is the delusion. it is the same all over europe. people expect 100% integration. yet at the same time, prejudices will reject them if they are not completely invisible. that is not possible, and it is not the integration i would want. i have written about this before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44746099

I can't speak for Norway, but in Sweden the only party worth keeping an eye on that adheres to the usual combination of pro-Russia, anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, anti-EU rhetoric etc is Sverigedemokraterna (formerly Bevara Sverige Svenskt, a party based solely on the idea of an ethnostate). They're hovering around 20%.

> But my point was that I am absolutely sure the majority of Norwegians _want Norway to remain a country that retains its cultural history_ while not being exclusive to one ethnic group. It's about retaining a majority.

Is the existence of history dependent on the ethnicity of the person reading it? I'm sure you've met non-native people who are in all other respects very much Norwegian.

Unless you mean to imply that culture is constrained to genetics. I deeply hope that that is not what you meant.

> I don't understand why that sentiment is so problematic here on HN, because simultaneously people are clamoring for a Palestinian state for the Palestinian people.

How many Norwegian cities were leveled by bombs this year? How many were murdered by foreign military?

> Why can't Norway have a Norwegian state for the Norwegian people? Or Denmark? Or the UK?

They do. Here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK

All fully functioning sovereign states, all internationally recognized by their peers and enemies alike.

However this argument is usually used to imply "there should be no limits", and that's obviously not practical nor ethical for anyone involved.

germany has 200.000 open positions in IT right now. what would happen if we invited 200.000 experienced IT people from india? half the people without a job would complain that the indians are taking away their jobs. and lots of people would rant about how all these indians change our culture.

and what about the civil war in syria that produced 5 million refugees leaving the country? or ukraine, another 5.7 million refugees?

do you want to reject them just because you feel they threaten your culture?

since you claim that not having a limit is not ethical, let me quote the german chancellor merkel at the time: "The fundamental right to asylum for the politically persecuted knows no upper limit; that also goes for refugees who come to us from the hell of a civil war."

when merkel said "everyone is welcome" this was literally the first time in my life that i was proud of germany. and you should know that in germany being proud of germany is a politically very sensitive statement usually associated with extreme-right groups.

so when it comes to refugees there can't be an upper limit.and beyond that, the limit depends on the economic situation. if we need the workers, the limit goes up. it has to. culture doesn't factor into it at all. you can't have it both ways.

I can’t believe people are like this. But it explains why Europe is more and more split on this topic: It’s two irreconcilable worldviews and one of them requires ignoring observed reality.

you do not get to turn a generous humanitarian aid gesture into blaming germany for being dumb to let all these people in.

this is not ignoring observed reality. observed reality is a consequence of people not being welcoming enough. of not being supporting and considerate of the foreign culture and not doing enough to befriend these people. as i linked in my other post, i wrote about this before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44746099 we are not letting these people integrate in a way that allows them to keep some of their culture while giving them an opportunity to learn about our culture.

yes, the current reality may be rough. but those are growing pains. and they are consequences of war, and not consequences of allowing to many people to enter the country. by sharing the consequences of these wars germany becomes an ally to the victims, and that is a good thing. rejecting refugees would have turned germany into a villain and an ally of the perpetrators. i'd be ashamed if that happened.

Full disclaimer: Some of my friends are also immigrants from the 80’s. And they’re equally exacerbated by the state of Germany because the country and culture they love is deteriorating out of suicidal empathy.

then i visited asia, and i was shocked how much more friendly and welcoming people are there. if you haven't been there it is unimaginable. same goes for africa. seriously. on a global scale, europeans are the worst in being welcoming. so, yes. germans are not welcoming enough. they are principled however, and it is those principles that made them invite those refugees.

the state of germany is not deteriorating because of empathy, but because of the unwillingness of some people to adapt and adjust to the new reality. this lack of adaption leads to confrontation, and that confrontation is the cause of any deterioration. the culture is not destroyed by immigrants. it is destroyed by lack of tolerance and unreasonable expectations.