International law might not always be properly enforced but it’s still real. When it’s not enforced properly I guess there are two obvious ways in which we can respond. We can either say “oh well international law is obviously useless, let’s not bother with it” or we can say “international law should be upheld consistently across all countries - let’s support politicians who will implement this”.

I don’t think China is automatically bad but I do think countries around the world should be careful with China. It seems to me that the PRC government is determined to expand Chinese power aggressively, even if this means breaking international rules. E.g. a UN tribunal ruled that China’s claims in the South China Sea aren’t valid, but China does not respect this ruling, and China continues to seize islands in this region. Then of course you have the PRC cracking down on free political expression, and seemingly mistreating ethnic minorities.

I think Jess Phillips seems like a decent person, I’ve watched her speak about the issue of violence against women and girls before. Here’s what the grooming survivors who support her have said:

“Jess Phillips has remained impartial to the process, only listening to feedback [and] we want her to remain in position for the duration of the process for consistency,” they wrote.

“Her previous experience and drive to reduce VAWG [violence against women and girls] and her clear passion and commitment is important to us.”

They praised Phillips, who they said had “devoted her life to hearing and amplifying the voices of women and girls who would otherwise have been unheard” and had helped some of them access support.

Probably beyond my hoodwinking skills. Also I’m not northern myself, I was just wondering what kind of person they would consider to have a “socially appropriate background”. Posh accent, wealthy family, and from South East England, I would expect.

I was a manager at Woolworths back in the day, I swear… but this family would probably say my accent isn’t posh enough to tutor their child.

The article says the fine has now been cancelled, but originally someone from the council defended the fine by saying:

We are committed to protecting Richmond’s waterways and keeping our borough’s streets clean and safe.

Pretty ridiculous. Coffee is an organic substance right? Made from roasted coffee beans. I could maybe understand if someone was pouring industrial chemicals into the sewers but coffee surely shouldn’t be a problem.

Also of course big water companies get away with dumping sewage into rivers, but a very small amount of coffee apparently needs to be harshly punished. One rule for big business and another rule for common people.

Interesting. I do think it’s a threat if hostile entities own critical pieces of British infrastructure. But I think Russia is also a threat that should be remembered, and jihadis can be a threat too, and also violent criminals who might be motivated by Christianity, white supremacy, etc.

The biggest threat to national security isn’t jihadis or the Russians, it’s privatisation and global free market capitalism.

Why not “all of the above”?

All societies have morals right? In pretty much any country, if you say something that is considered bad in that country, people won’t like you. That’s not censorship, it’s just morals. In many countries, racism is usually considered bad, so if you say something that seems racist, many people won’t like you.

If DHH wanted to make a point about culture in London then it’s possible to do that without tying it to ethnicity.

Let’s not say that reverse racism is a real thing, because that’s an imaginary racist trope.

My view is that racism can happen to any ethnicity: black, brown, white, anybody. It depends on the situation. If a business run entirely by white people disallows entry to a black person because they’re black, that’s racist, but if the races were reversed (a business run entirely by black people disallows entry to a white person because they’re white), I’d say that’s also racist. In fact if I end up talking to a white person about racism I might deliberately give them an example of a situation where a white person could experience racial discrimination, because that might make them think “fair point, I would dislike it if someone was racist to me, so maybe racism is a bad thing”.

I’m not a fascist or a troll, and if someone wants to read exactly what DHH wrote, then they can click on the link to his blog post, which is in my summary. I think it’s good that you’re quoting more of it to be honest, so people can see what he wrote, and they can decide for themselves what they think about it. I’m not trying to “whitewash” anything, I just wanted to give people an overview of the situation so they can draw their own conclusions, whether positive or negative.

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?

the British are brainless

I don’t think it makes sense to make judgements about the intelligence of everyone in a country based on an action done by some people in that country.

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.

The only issue I had was his police “apology”. I get why. It’s him trying to make sure he can control them as governor. It’s basically him acknowledging the militarized police state and playing politics. It’s not what we want to hear though.

I just watched the interview. I thought his apology was fine. Surely if you want a safe society then you need an effective police force? Obviously you don’t want an unjust police force, and Zohran mentioned that, but I think what normal law-abiding people want is an effective and just police force who can keep everyone safe.