[sgentle]

To quote DHH: "when much of the media reports a story like this, it's often without citing the specific words in question"

I think you lose a lot when you abstract away someone's words as "positions that alienate". Pineapple on pizza is a position that alienates, as is forced sterilisation of criminals. So here's some specific words:

> 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 [ie white, as specified by the Wikipedia article the words "native Brits" link to]

> 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.

He doesn't think brown people belong in the UK. His "positions" are racism. He's racist. That's the problem.

Where have all the enlightenment-values rationalist monks gone now that we so desperately need people to combine P and P -> Q?

[sgentle]

As I said, the Wikipedia article is what the words "native Brits" links to.

Here's the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London

Here's what the article says:

> In 2011, it was reported for the first time that White British people had become a minority within the city

How could you possibly come to the conclusion that it's not about race? Do you think he linked to the wrong article by accident?

[epakai]

His specific words were "it's no longer full of native Brits" with a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London

Then he goes on to point out more than sixty percent of the city were "native Brits" in 2000, but that number corresponds to the White British categorization.

Ergo he's conflating White British with native British.

He also said "A statistic as evident as day when you walk the streets of London now." Maybe he is extremely observant, but I don't think that follows unless he is talking about skin color.