DHH and Omarchy: Midlife Crisis • Hacker News Board

Re: DHH and Omarchy: Midlife Crisis

#41

Post by tovej » Wed, Nov 12, 2025, 8:26 AM UTC

throwawaypath wrote: post #39

tovej wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be shifting definitions by moving from native Brits to "indigenous" Brits. And conveniently not responding to the point that native means you're born somewhere. Native is the word DHH uses. The indigenous claim is also funny, because that would refer specifically to Celtic peoples in Britain. And the modern white British population is not predominantly Celtic, and definitely not indigenous. The Anglo-Saxo…

>You seem to be shifting definitions by moving from native Brits to "indigenous" Brits. Definitions for words you clearly don't understand are not "shifting" anywhere. >And conveniently not responding to the point that native means you're born somewhere. I've responded multiple times, you're refusing to acknowledge it because it destroys your narrative. Native does not mean "you're born somewhere." Many cows are born…

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/native

Native quite literally means associated with birth. It does also mean something that's lived somewhere since prehistoric times.

If we use the first definition, then white brits and everyone else born in the UK are native.

If we use the second definition then neolithic farmers with an Anatolian material culture are native. Since they were replaced there are no natives in that sense in the UK.

But there is no interpretation where white brits are native and second generation immigrants aren't.

Re: DHH and Omarchy: Midlife Crisis

#42

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Nov 12, 2025, 4:18 PM UTC

tovej wrote: post #41

throwawaypath wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You seem to be shifting definitions by moving from native Brits to "indigenous" Brits. Definitions for words you clearly don't understand are not "shifting" anywhere. >And conveniently not responding to the point that native means you're born somewhere. I've responded multiple times, you're refusing to acknowledge it because it destroys your narrative. Native does not mean "you're born somewhere." Many cows are born…

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/native Native quite literally means associated with birth. It does also mean something that's lived somewhere since prehistoric times. If we use the first definition, then white brits and everyone else born in the UK are native. If we use the second definition then neolithic farmers with an Anatolian material culture are native. Since they were replaced there are no natives in that sens…

[deleted]

Re: DHH and Omarchy: Midlife Crisis

#43

Post by throwawaypath » Wed, Nov 12, 2025, 4:20 PM UTC

tovej wrote: post #41

throwawaypath wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You seem to be shifting definitions by moving from native Brits to "indigenous" Brits. Definitions for words you clearly don't understand are not "shifting" anywhere. >And conveniently not responding to the point that native means you're born somewhere. I've responded multiple times, you're refusing to acknowledge it because it destroys your narrative. Native does not mean "you're born somewhere." Many cows are born…

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/native Native quite literally means associated with birth. It does also mean something that's lived somewhere since prehistoric times. If we use the first definition, then white brits and everyone else born in the UK are native. If we use the second definition then neolithic farmers with an Anatolian material culture are native. Since they were replaced there are no natives in that sens…

>Native quite literally means associated with birth.

Yes, and the only current ethnic group birthed in England are the English. British Asians derive their ancestry from Asia, the ethnic group is not native to, nor born from England. They're non-indigenous to the UK/Europe. You inadvertantly proved my point.

QED.

>If we use the first definition, then white brits and everyone else born in the UK are native.

Not at all, the non-native ethnic groups are not native to the UK. Notice how only English people are listed as native to England.

>If we use the second definition then neolithic farmers with an Anatolian material culture are native.

As are their descendants which are the English.

>Since they were replaced there are no natives in that sense in the UK.

Their descendants, the native ethnic group known as English people, are native to the UK.

>But there is no interpretation where white brits are native and second generation immigrants aren't.

Wrong, this is the only interpretation: "The English people are an ethnic group and nation native to England, who speak the English language, a West Germanic language, and share a common ancestry, history, and culture."

Re: DHH and Omarchy: Midlife Crisis

#44

Post by marrs » Thu, Nov 13, 2025, 12:32 AM UTC

tovej wrote: post #40

marrs wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Re racism: Read the "As I remember London" post, it's full of language and selective facts painting brown people as criminal. I didn't read it that way at all. I certainly didn't see him "painting brown people as criminal". I read it predominantly as the musings of a man afraid to lose his culture in the same way the Cockneys lost theirs. Now it's my experience that most fears are exaggerated - and perhaps his fear…

You seem to be incredibly confused. DHH's fears are all feeling no fact. The "Pakistani rape gangs" targeting "white british girls" and trying to tie brown people to increasing theft is made specificly to paint brown people as dangerous. No mention of the fact that the perpetrators were all native brits, part of whom had Pakistani heritage, no mention of the fact that white people are more likely to commit child sexu…

> DHH's fears are all feeling no fact.

They're mostly feelings (which is what I said above), but there are plenty of facts in that article as well.

> The "Pakistani rape gangs" targeting "white british girls" and trying to tie brown people to increasing theft is made specificly to paint brown people as dangerous.

Where does DHH say that the characteristics of the Pakistani rape gangs extend to all brown people, or even to all Pakistanis? You've made that leap all by yourself. And his remark on phone theft doesn't make reference to race at all; nor does the article he links to. They were just talking about the rise in crime, and you again added the racial element yourself. Instead he's criticising the police, firstly for not dealing with the rise in crime, and secondly for their authoritarian behaviour.

As for what he doesn't mention, that doesn't make him far right any more than your failure to acknowledge his points about authoritarianism makes you far right.

> A nation is not a state, it cannot be democratic. A nation is a socially constructed group identity, it's not the same as your country. A state can be multinational, as the UK is.

You're very good at being pedantic on points that don't further the conversation. I think you know what I was getting at. If you don't, please ask for clarity. Otherwise, perhaps you could address the point directly rather than deflect from it.

> Racist ideology, and the very idea of races, comes from right wing ideas like nationalism and colonialism

That's your assertion and I doubt it very much; moreso given the very obvious racism that's been peddled by the left that I mentioned in a previous comment, and that you refuse to acknowledge. And what makes you think colonialism is a right wing idea? Have you never heard of The Soviet Union? Or is that the right kind of empire? More likely, racist ideology is as old as the human race, and is a simple manifestation of tribalism.

But you're right at least that, since the far left have been slandering everyone to the right of Mao as far right - especially if they're a liberal, the real far right are now able to hide in plain sight.

But I'm really not interested in having an argument about which of these rancid ideologies is worse. Frankly, they're largely indistinguishable to me, and are both equally detestable.

> The left is interested in combating these ideas

Some of us are. Some right wingers are as well. Others of us want to use race to sow division. (Did I get it right this time?) And those people, as far as I'm concerned, are the worst kind of racists because they mask it behind feigned compassion. At least the far right are honest about their superiority complex.

Re: DHH and Omarchy: Midlife Crisis

#45

Post by tovej » Fri, Nov 14, 2025, 6:51 AM UTC

throwawaypath wrote: post #43

tovej wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/native Native quite literally means associated with birth. It does also mean something that's lived somewhere since prehistoric times. If we use the first definition, then white brits and everyone else born in the UK are native. If we use the second definition then neolithic farmers with an Anatolian material culture are native. Since they were replaced there are no natives in that sens…

>Native quite literally means associated with birth. Yes, and the only current ethnic group birthed in England are the English. British Asians derive their ancestry from Asia, the ethnic group is not native to, nor born from England. They're non-indigenous to the UK/Europe. You inadvertantly proved my point. QED. >If we use the first definition, then white brits and everyone else born in the UK are native. Not at all…

The English are not descended from the neolithic peoples that lived on the British isles. And second generation immigrants are also "birthed" in England (and the rest of the UK).

You're just wrong on the basic facts now. But that's no surprise, you're a nazi.

Re: DHH and Omarchy: Midlife Crisis

#46

Post by tovej » Fri, Nov 14, 2025, 7:02 AM UTC

marrs wrote: post #44

tovej wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be incredibly confused. DHH's fears are all feeling no fact. The "Pakistani rape gangs" targeting "white british girls" and trying to tie brown people to increasing theft is made specificly to paint brown people as dangerous. No mention of the fact that the perpetrators were all native brits, part of whom had Pakistani heritage, no mention of the fact that white people are more likely to commit child sexu…

> DHH's fears are all feeling no fact. They're mostly feelings (which is what I said above), but there are plenty of facts in that article as well. > The "Pakistani rape gangs" targeting "white british girls" and trying to tie brown people to increasing theft is made specificly to paint brown people as dangerous. Where does DHH say that the characteristics of the Pakistani rape gangs extend to all brown people, or ev…

In a text that introduces itself with a section describing the increase in brown people, if you talk about crime in the next section, the context is brown people. And you know it, unless your reading comprehension skill is on the level of a toddler.

And the point about confusing nations and states is salient, because that is exactly what nationalists do. Using them synonymously is a rhetorical device which strengthens a nationalist conception of statehood. It lays the groundwork for ethnonationalist to further confuse the right to citizenship with ethnicity.

I'm not being pedantic here, I'm dismantling misconceptions in the premise of the discussion.

Re: DHH and Omarchy: Midlife Crisis

#47

Post by throwawaypath » Mon, Nov 17, 2025, 5:59 AM UTC

tovej wrote: post #45

throwawaypath wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Native quite literally means associated with birth. Yes, and the only current ethnic group birthed in England are the English. British Asians derive their ancestry from Asia, the ethnic group is not native to, nor born from England. They're non-indigenous to the UK/Europe. You inadvertantly proved my point. QED. >If we use the first definition, then white brits and everyone else born in the UK are native. Not at all…

The English are not descended from the neolithic peoples that lived on the British isles. And second generation immigrants are also "birthed" in England (and the rest of the UK). You're just wrong on the basic facts now. But that's no surprise, you're a nazi.

>The English are not descended from the neolithic peoples that lived on the British isles.

Yes they are, sourced above.

>And second generation immigrants are also "birthed" in England (and the rest of the UK).

Immigrant ethnic groups are not birthed in England, which is why they're not considered English nor "native." Their ancestry is foreign. Foreign ethnic groups are non-indigenous to England.

>You're just wrong on the basic facts now.

"Your facts are wrong!" the Marxist chortled just moments after unironically claiming men can be pregnant. All of the basic facts agree with DHH and my comments.

I provided sources, you have not. The facts are: only the English are native to London.

>But that's no surprise, you're a nazi.

But that's no surprise, you're a marxist.

Re: DHH and Omarchy: Midlife Crisis

#48

Post by throwawaypath » Tue, Nov 18, 2025, 7:06 PM UTC

throwawaypath wrote: post #47

tovej wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The English are not descended from the neolithic peoples that lived on the British isles. And second generation immigrants are also "birthed" in England (and the rest of the UK). You're just wrong on the basic facts now. But that's no surprise, you're a nazi.

>The English are not descended from the neolithic peoples that lived on the British isles. Yes they are, sourced above. >And second generation immigrants are also "birthed" in England (and the rest of the UK). Immigrant ethnic groups are not birthed in England, which is why they're not considered English nor "native." Their ancestry is foreign. Foreign ethnic groups are non-indigenous to England. >You're just wrong o…

Not surprised that I'm not going to get a response, that happens when people lose after being called out on their delusional claims.

Would you look at this, "non-indigenous minorities" [0]. Lists all the nonnative groups to England, ethnic groups that were not "birthed" in England, nor Europe.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Europe

Re: DHH and Omarchy: Midlife Crisis

#49

Post by marrs » Wed, Nov 19, 2025, 9:23 AM UTC

tovej wrote: post #46

marrs wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> DHH's fears are all feeling no fact. They're mostly feelings (which is what I said above), but there are plenty of facts in that article as well. > The "Pakistani rape gangs" targeting "white british girls" and trying to tie brown people to increasing theft is made specificly to paint brown people as dangerous. Where does DHH say that the characteristics of the Pakistani rape gangs extend to all brown people, or ev…

In a text that introduces itself with a section describing the increase in brown people, if you talk about crime in the next section, the context is brown people. And you know it, unless your reading comprehension skill is on the level of a toddler. And the point about confusing nations and states is salient, because that is exactly what nationalists do. Using them synonymously is a rhetorical device which strengthen…

> In a text that introduces itself with a section describing the increase in brown people, if you talk about crime in the next section, the context is brown people. And you know it, unless your reading comprehension skill is on the level of a toddler.

I absolutely don't know it. Reading comprehension is being able to accurately describe what's written; not inferring insinuations and presenting them as fact. You can't even get your first sentence right. DHH doesn't say London is now full of brown people; he says London is no longer full of native Brits. If you look at the chart in the article he links to, you'll notice that many (not quite most) of the immigrants he's talking about are white; but you presume they must be brown. Then you see a subset of Pakistanis mentioned and it just reinforces your cognitive bias.

Try to empty your mind of these preconceptions and read the article again.

> And the point about confusing nations and states is salient, because that is exactly what nationalists do.

Where does DHH do that in the article? Please provide an actual quote this time instead of some vague interpretation.

I'm still unclear what point you're trying to make about nations in the first place anyway. Earlier you said:

> Re nation: a nation is the socially constructed identity I was talking about. It can be mono- or multicultural, and people from other cultures may be integrated, it's all vibes-based depending on the nation. But one thing is clear, if you're born into a culture you are part of the culture, and so through a civic nationalist logic you are automatically part of that nation. Also note that nation does not equal state or country.

So if a nation can be made up of multiple potentially divergent cultures then it's clearly not tied to culture. If it's not tied to state either, then is it just tied to region? If it is, then what value does a nation even have? Why even name it? Britain is a state and a nation. Does that make it nationalist? Is it therefore a lost cause to begin with, as far as you're concerned?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're from mainland Europe, because your concept of nationhood seems to be rooted in European nationalism.

Re: DHH and Omarchy: Midlife Crisis

#50

Post by tovej » Wed, Nov 19, 2025, 10:41 AM UTC

throwawaypath wrote: post #48

throwawaypath wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The English are not descended from the neolithic peoples that lived on the British isles. Yes they are, sourced above. >And second generation immigrants are also "birthed" in England (and the rest of the UK). Immigrant ethnic groups are not birthed in England, which is why they're not considered English nor "native." Their ancestry is foreign. Foreign ethnic groups are non-indigenous to England. >You're just wrong o…

Not surprised that I'm not going to get a response, that happens when people lose after being called out on their delusional claims. Would you look at this, "non-indigenous minorities" [0]. Lists all the nonnative groups to England, ethnic groups that were not "birthed" in England, nor Europe. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Europe

Here's your own "source" (wikipedia) on neolithic people on the British isles.

"Recent genetic studies have suggested that Britain's Neolithic population was largely replaced by a population from North Continental Europe characterised by the Bell Beaker culture around 2400 BC, associated with the Yamnaya people from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe."

And you can't use the fact that wikipedia uses the term "non-indigenous" for a group to prove a point about "non-native", when what your arguing is that they mean the same. That's a circular argument, the premise is only true if the conclusion is true.

There's also a category error here, whether a group belongs to non-indigenous minorities says nothing about indigenous majority, which is what you're claiming the English are. They would not be present in "non-indigenous minority" because they are not a minority.

Again, you're the only one bringing up "indigenous" as a relevant concept. Something that neither DHH nor anyone else but you in this discussion is arguing about.