top | item 46687778

(no title)

itisit | 1 month ago

DHH’s argument was about rapid demographic change and loss of a majority culture, grounded (rightly or wrongly) in concerns about social cohesion. An argument you can disagree with, but not reduce to racial preference without distortion.

discuss

order

wesselbindt|1 month ago

Fair point, as can be seen from this quote here (emphasis mine):

> 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.

Here it clear that the thing you refer to as majority culture, DHH refers to as "native Brit". So what majority culture is he talking about that dropped from about 60 to about 30% in that time? Helpfully, DHH links to a wikipedia page on the ethnic makeup of London to clarify his point. The group that dropped from 60 to 30 is that of native white Brits. So the majority culture he's explicitly referring to is that of native white Brits. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

itisit|1 month ago

You’re doing it again. You’re taking a descriptive proxy he used and treating it as dispositive evidence of motive, instead of engaging the underlying claim about what happens when a historically dominant, locally rooted culture ceases to be a majority.