[tbrownaw]

> Its not really fair that crazy people are allowed to say crazy things then we, normal people, have to take the high ground and walk away. What if I don't want to walk away? Why do I have to leave a project like it's the plague because you said something insane?

This takes as axiomatic that people with incompatible beliefs in one area cannot work together in a different area.

[jmcgough]

I really like that my job has me working with lots of different people from lots of walks of life, and we are too busy saving lives to think too much about politics.

However, if I found out that one of the physicians I work with doesn't think I should have a job, doesn't think I should have equal rights, and doesn't think I belong in public spaces, then politics would become unavoidable. I'm not going to work for a bigot who sees me as a second class citizen.

Likewise there are a number of long-term Ruby OS contributors who belong to minority groups DHH has been attacking. Would you attend Railsconf if DHH called your ethnicity gangs of rapists, like he recently has?

[Niten]

This is dangerously unhinged hyperbole. What comment by DHH says that you, personally, don't "belong in public spaces"? Be specific.

[fragmede]

I am American, and haven't used Ruby since two jobs ago, so don't have a dog in this fight. Still, going off of https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64 which is supposedly DHH's own words on his personal blog, you get, repeatedly in full so I can't be accused of taking it out of context:

> As soon as I was old enough to travel on my own, London was where I wanted to go. Compared to Copenhagen at the time, there was something so majestic about Big Ben, Trafalgar Square, and even the Tube around the turn of the millenium. Not just because their capital is twice as old as ours, but because it endured twice as much, through the Blitz and the rest of it, yet never lost its nerve. I thought I might move there one day.

> That was then. 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.

and that last sentence links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London showing that, well, they're aren't as many white people in London as there used to be.

Now, I don't want to put words in his mouth, but it's pretty easy to interpret that as non-white people shouldn't be seen in London. That's not exactly "you, personally, don't belong in public spaces?", but it's seems fairly close to me, to anyone that isn't white. I am open to hearing alternate interpretations of what I quoted from DHH's personal blog though.

[zahlman]

> > Not just because their capital is twice as old as ours

Yeah, that's kind of the point. Preserving a culture that is several times as old as the USA.

> > Chiefly because it's no longer full of native Brits.

> [there] aren't as many white people in London as there used to be. Now, I don't want to put words in his mouth, but it's pretty easy to interpret that as non-white people shouldn't be seen in London.... I am open to hearing alternate interpretations

The "alternate interpretation" is that "native Brits" means "native Brits", not "white people". Per your source, in the time frame DHH is talking about, the population was still specifically about 3/5 British. As in, English (and possibly Welsh and Scottish, although I imagine they mostly keep further north). So presumably that's what he actually observed.

A Dane isn't going to see this as a matter of race. Denmark is still about 5/6 ethnic Danish, and a big chunk of immigrants and their descendants are European. The concept of race is just not something you think about when you aren't exposed to it all the time. The difference between an ethnic Dane and and ethnic Englishman is salient to someone like that, in a way that a typical American can't be expected to understand.

We're talking here about people who are in their ancestral homeland. They are the natives of the area; they don't have anywhere to go back to. The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxons have been there since the 5th century — far longer than the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%81ori_people have been in New Zealand, for example. And London was founded by the Romans, even longer ago than that. And those groups were both fully admixed with the indigenous population long before the establishment of modern immigration policy. So now we have recognizable "native Brits" who look different from modern-day "native Italians" or "native Germans". Not to mention, those indigenous island folk would presumably have been quite pale themselves.

If someone were pointing out that the settlements of Turtle Island were no longer full of First Nations peoples, would you make that out to be about race? Rounding all of this off to "white people" is a projection of an Americentric view of race, and frankly offensive. It's strange to me how there are people who put effort into knowing about the cultural and ethnic and religious distinctions found across, say, South Asia, and seem to think themselves morally superior for caring; but couldn't be bothered to do the same for Europe.

[fragmede]

DHH chose to link to Wikipedia's page about ethnic groups in London, which is literally about race and ethnicity. Not accent, cultural practices, or national identity. His use of "native Brits" is telling, especially when he follows it with "[a] statistic as evident as day when you walk the streets of London now." The implication is clear when you contrast this language with demographic data about non-white populations.

Reading further into DHH's blog post reveals even more troubling context. He describes Tommy Robinson organized marches as being "normal everyday Brits." When white supremacist, xenophobic marches are your idea of "normal everyday Brits," the mask rather slips, doesn't it? He attempts to equate these marches with legitimate free speech cases like Graham Linehan, trying to make it all seem like reasonable pushback, as if this is just another historical moment of the isles being "invaded". The rhetoric is telling.

It takes DHH only 701 words before he's linking to articles about Pakistani rape gangs. At this point, we're not dealing with subtle implications anymore.

The argument about Danish cultural context doesn't hold water either. Denmark has its own charged political discourse around Middle Eastern and African immigrants. And DHH has lived in the US for roughly 20 years so he's well aware of how these discussions are perceived. As for the Anglo-Saxon history lesson: they were themselves migrants who mixed with existing populations. London was founded by Romans (also migrants!) and has been a multicultural trading hub for over a thousand years. What "native British" golden age is DHH mourning exactly? The 1950s? The Victorian era built on colonial extraction? When precisely was London purely "native British"?

> So now we have recognizable 'native Brits' who look different from modern day 'native Italians' or 'native Germans'.

I'd be curious to hear more about these supposedly "recognizable" distinctions. This sounds remarkably similar to certain early 20th century anthropological theories that we've since... reconsidered.

[array_key_first]

They can, but it really depends on the belief. Even for you or the most principled person, there is a limit.

And, even if you can, it doesn't mean it's pleasant.

Its one thing if someone is horrible in silent. From experience, horrible people seem to be the most confident and outspoken. Maybe there's a common character flaw that underpins both behaviors.

[toomanyrichies]

> This takes as axiomatic that people with incompatible beliefs in one area cannot work together in a different area.

"Beliefs" are when you think The Strokes are superior to The White Stripes, or that Giordano's deep dish pizza is superior to Lou Malnati's, or that IPAs are better than lagers. I'll happily work with people who espouse those beliefs, despite my beliefs to the contrary.

I won't work with people who describe a Tommy Robinson march as "heartwarming", or who use terms like "demographic nightmare" [1] to describe immigration, or who amplify repeatedly-debunked [2] claims of "Pakistani rape gangs", all of which DHH did. That's bigotry, not beliefs.

British culture isn't being eroded by immigration. It's being shaped by it, just like it has been for thousands of years. Where do you think your culture came from- thin air?!?

- Romans gave Britain roads, baths, and Christianity.

- Anglo-Saxons gave Britain Old English.

- Vikings gave Britain laws and half its place names.

- Normans made French the language of power and fused it with English.

- The Crusades brought new foods, science, and art.

And so on and so on.

It's the height of ignorance to look at that incredibly diverse history, and then say "OK, but right now is the moment in time where we 'lock in' our culture for the rest of time." Culture has never stood still, and no one, not even DHH, gets to freeze it in place. Well, they can try, but they'll be pissing in the wind, just like the Tommy Robinson marchers were.

I'll just leave this here: the folks in this Instagram reel [3], wearing the St. George's Cross flag and clearly on their way to the march, decided to stop and get a curry first. With the caption "When you're on your way to the racist march but the immigrant food is popping."

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

2. https://tekin.co.uk/2025/09/the-ruby-community-has-a-dhh-pro...

3. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DOlJ_JAiKTG/

[rsynnott]

> ‘Bloody Beaker folk. Coming over here, rowing up the Tagus Estuary from the Iberian Peninsula in improvised rafts. Coming here with their drinking vessels. What's wrong with just cupping up the water in your hands and licking it up like a cat?’

[tremon]

repeatedly-debunked claims of "Pakistani rape gangs"

What exactly has been "debunked" about these claims? I realise this is veering off-topic, but the very real facts at the heart of these claims need to be heard. Denying that these things happened only serves to further the abuse the victims have already suffered.

Even the BBC does not deny the existence of these rape gangs nor their heritage:

> It showed how the gang, comprising men of mostly Pakistani and Afghan heritage, plied girls as young as 13 with alcohol and drugs and passed them around for sex. [1]

There is more than 10 years of recorded evidence of these activities, over 250 probable victims, over 90 identified perpetrators, plus a litany of investigation reports detailing the failure of authorities to even properly investigate many of the cases.

> In 2007, Ms Rowbotham and her team had alerted GMP and Rochdale Council about a gang of men of Pakistani and Afghan heritage engaged in child sexual exploitation (CSE) while Ms Oliver resigned from GMP in 2012 to publicly reveal the extent of the police failings. [2]

A senior police officer had to go public to make her own superiours start caring about these crimes. From her wikpedia page:

> When Oliver got upset about the handling of the case, she claims one of her seniors told her, "Maggie, calm down. Listen: What would these kids ever contribute to society? They should have just been drowned at birth". Then, Oliver stormed off the job [3]

Recently, the Greater Manchester Police published multiple investigations into itself. I will quote only the part from the summary that specifically calls out the GMP for deflecting blame for its own failures [4]:

> 2.58. a police source was quoted in the media as saying that the Crisis Intervention Team [..] did not always communicate this to the police and social services.

> 2.59. the two serious case review overview reports published in 2013 explicitly criticised the Crisis Intervention Team for not following child protection procedures and for not communicating appropriately with other agencies [however] the multi-agency CSE strategy group chaired by Chief Superintendent C16 was aware of approximately 127 potential victims who had been referred by the Crisis Intervention Team to children’s social care and that these referrals had not been acted on. This figure later grew to 260 potential victims

> We find this level of misrepresentation quite disturbing. We would have liked to have put our concerns to both the author of the overview reports and the chair of the serious case review panel. These individuals provided a joint written statement that did not directly address these concerns and they declined to be interviewed by the review team.

> 2.60. our review has found compelling evidence to support the view that the Crisis Intervention Team was sharing explicit information with the authorities on the exploitation of multiple children. We also have evidence that, despite these explicit concerns, GMP and Rochdale Council failed to take appropriate action.

> 2.61. it has been a gross misrepresentation to suggest that the Crisis Intervention Team in some way was complicit with this failure and to tarnish the reputation of this small group of professionals

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-66416549

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-67967919

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Oliver

[4] https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/media/9148/operation...

[toomanyrichies]

You're right that the crimes in Rochdale, Rotherham, and elsewhere were very real and appalling, and authorities failed the victims. Nobody is denying that.

What has been debunked are the sweeping claims that:

- Sexual exploitation in the UK is disproportionately or uniquely committed by men of Pakistani or Muslim heritage.

- There exists a singular phenomenon of "Pakistani rape gangs" uniquely distinct from other forms of child sexual exploitation.

- The existence of these gangs proves something essential about Pakistani culture or immigration.

Tommy Robinson, and those on the far-right who share his agenda, have weaponized real cases to push their narratives. The big picture from the CSA Centre's own data is that:

"Of defendants proceeded against for child sexual abuse offences in 2022/23, 88% were White, 7% Asian, 3% Black and 2% Mixed or Other ethnicities." [1]

Compare that to the census: Asians (including South Asians) are 9% of the population but only 7% of offenders (i.e. under-represented). Meanwhile, white Britons are 82% of the population but 88% of CSE offenders (they're actually over-represented). According the Home Office’s own review, "The majority of child sexual abuse gangs are made up of white men under the age of 30." [2]

Racist grifters love to flog lurid myths about "Pakistani rape gangs" to frighten gullible Britons into voting against immigration. And racist griftees eat those stories up, because in their eyes, rape by a non-white person is somehow "worse" or "scarier" than rape by a white person. But if someone is genuinely worried about roving gangs of ethnically homogenous rapists, they should probably avoid Robinson’s marches. Statistically, that's where they're more likely to be.

1. https://www.csacentre.org.uk/app/uploads/2024/02/Trends-in-O...

2. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/15/child-sexua...

[queenkjuul]

Basically any pizza is better than Lou's though :)

[toomanyrichies]

Be very careful about your next few words. ;-)

[zahlman]

> repeatedly-debunked

Your source doesn't establish this. It claims without evidence that Robinson's claims (and those of such partisans) originate in some particular report that I've never heard of despite years of keeping tabs on people who make those claims.

From what I can tell, the claims those people are making about rape in the UK generally have a much broader statistical basis; see e.g. https://archive.ph/jmS6q (the original Statista link isn't working for me, for whatever reason). Claims specifically about the gangs are based in things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploit... (and note all the "See also" links). (But also see tremon's comment.)

The claim about conviction rates is missing the point entirely, that the Robinson protesters allege a wide-scale cover-up and bias against prosecuting the immigrants, ostensibly out of police fear of appearing racist.

> Where do you think your culture came from- thin air?!?

It's not mine (I'm Canadian), but yes, it literally did. Just like everyone else's. Thin air, and time. Time spent on doing things in the same way and noticing the patterns, and socializing.

> And so on and so on.

First off, infrastructure is not culture.

But the important thing is that all those events were centuries ago, taking place over the course of centuries. And in many cases they involved bloody wars and a whole ton of resentment. (Pretty understandable considering that the existing population, in each case, was trapped on an island.)

British culture was created by adapting ideas that were left behind in those conflicts. Just like every other culture is created by people with a shared identity picking up ideas, however they might be sourced, and forming a memeplex around them. That adaptation is what makes it British culture, and not "some combination of Roman, Anglo-Saxon etc. culture that doesn't deserve a name". That's why, for example, there was a Middle English, and eventually just more-or-less-modern English. A big chunk of that involved scholars independently studying Latin for their own reasons.

It's especially galling that you would whitewash the Norman invasions like this, considering the meaning and history of the two-finger salute. The same supposed "white supremacists" leading the charge in the UK still have less than pleasant banter for the French. The British literally developed culture by resisting foreign influence. (The whole "Britannia rules the waves" thing is also "culture", BTW.)

Anyway, none of these things involved the existing government consciously bringing in outsiders and completely transforming the population of major centers in the space of a generation or two. (Meanwhile, there are other parts of Europe — like the part DHH is from — that have not been subject to this. Should the EU be compelling them to follow suit or something?) This isn't about "locking in" culture; it's about understanding how the development (as opposed to displacement, or appropriation) of culture actually works.

> decided to stop and get a curry first

This is actually illustrative. Culture isn't just a curry recipe; it's the ritual of stopping for a curry with your mates. And eating it with English table manners, etc. Meanwhile, I can't fathom that the curry available in London actually reflects the cultural diversity of curry preparation within India; nor can I fathom that it hasn't been adapted in some ways to the local palate.

You can't just gift a cultural artifact to another people. Culture doesn't work that way.

(And if you think about what the word "colonialism" means to you, this should be obvious.)

[mplewis]

Yeah, so let's look at what's going on here. DHH is working to promote the work of notorious white supremacists including Tommy Robinson.