moderatecentrist

Firstly because when he says London is "no longer full of native Brits" he links to a Wikipedia page about ethnic groups in London. So he seems to be talking about ethnicity. Secondly, he says that these "native Brits" are now "about a third" of London. Looking at the Wikipedia page he linked to, the stats show that white Brits were 37% of London according to the 2021 census, which is about a third. It seems to me that's probably what he's talking about.

If "native Brits" just meant people born in the UK, or people with a British passport, then those figures are higher: 59% and 77% of London respectively (that page says that "In 2021, more than 4 in 10 (40.6%) usual residents in London were non-UK born, and more than 1 in 5 (23.3%) had a non-UK passport").

I think DHH is talking about ethnicity specifically though, not culture. He said London is "no longer full of native Brits", and he describes "native Brits" as now forming "about a third" of London. White Brits were 37% of London at the 2021 census, so I think that's what he's talking about.

It's possible to express disagreement with a cultural practice without making it about ethnicity. E.g. someone might object to men and women being separated for religious prayer. They might believe that men and women should pray together. It's possible to make that point without making it about ethnicity.

I'm just interested to see what the other side of the argument might be. Sometimes you might very strongly disagree with other people's views, or even be disgusted by those views, but you might still want to find out what those views are.

Ethnicity and culture are different. A person can choose to adopt whatever culture they want regardless of their ethnicity. Also if you said something like "I don't want that particular ethnicity to move to my neighbourhood due to their culture" then I think that's probably racist. I think it's fine to object to certain cultural aspects as long as you don't tie it to ethnicity though. E.g. if you said "I object to a cultural practice of treating women worse than men" then I think that's okay.

He doesn't seem to be talking about culture. He didn't say something like "London has fewer pubs than it used to". Instead he seems to be referring specifically to ethnicity. His interest in London seems to be reduced because more non-white people now live in London.

Is it okay for DHH to express his unhappiness that London is no longer mostly White British? He said "I thought I might move there one day... Now, I wouldn't dream of it. 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."

Let's say a lot of white people move to a previously black area. This causes a prominent person to write a blog saying "I thought I might move there one day... Now, I wouldn't dream of it. It's no longer the place I was infatuated with. Chiefly because it's no longer full of black residents." That would be racist wouldn't it?

This is why I joined feddit.uk. If I want UK-centric stuff then I can look at "local" posts. If I want to see more stuff (including US stuff) then I can look at "all" posts.

Maybe the UK needs politicians like they're starting to get in the USA. If you don't know this guy pictured, he's running to be mayor of New York. His campaign is all about making necessities more affordable (rent, food, transport), and his poll numbers are pretty good.

Cars are obviously good for long distances but maybe cars could be banned from city centres (perhaps with exceptions for disabled people who rely on cars, and goods vehicles should probably be allowed). For getting around a city, people can use public transport, or bicycles, or their feet to walk.

Also in cases where cars are used, electric cars are probably a good idea because it results in cleaner air.

The thing about the Convention is that it constrains governments, and it constrains the way that governments can treat minorities and people it doesn't like... If we were out of the ECHR, you wouldn't have that constraint

Tories are salivating at the thought

at what point should france have just accepted that nazis owed france?

at what point should ukraine stop fighting russia and just let them have the land they have taken?

That's why I mentioned Dresden though. The Allies did bomb German civilians in Dresden as part of their efforts to defeat the Nazis, and that attack has been criticised because they harmed civilians, rather than just military targets.

Anyway, if we're going to say that Israel should never have been established by force and forced expulsions of Palestinians, perhaps that is true. I suppose the same can be said about the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. Therefore maybe Israel should pay compensation to Palestinian families who were affected by forced expulsion.

do i take a side? yes the side that has killed less civilians deliberately.

I see. Personally though if I came across two serial killers, one of whom had killed 5 people, and the other of whom had killed 20 people, I would say both were wrong. I wouldn't say that the killer of 5 people was necessarily a better person. If both of these killers had the same firepower, maybe they both would have killed similar numbers of civilians.