Earlier quoted context omitted.
I made it about halfway through that article before giving up. It's all opining on "racists" without highlighting what the actual things were that were said.
This is a pretty decent run down (and DHH has taken it much further since this post was published): https://jakelazaroff.com/words/dhh-is-way-worse-than-i-thoug...
It's incredible how badly some things date[0].
> It turns out that when DHH says “native Brits”, he’s specifically referring to white Brits. That’s why it’s “a statistic as clear as day when you walk the streets of London”: it’s his coy way of saying that too many of the 59% of Londoners born and raised in the UK are not white.
Well - yes. What is a Brit? If over the course of 20 years New Dehli became majority Russian, and someone mentioned the outsize changes that this has wrought on the city, that would be normal. Because (in this hypothetical) Russian people living in the city, or their descendents, are not suddenly going to become Indian culturally or ethnically, even if they carry an Indian passport.
It will become a totally different city, and not the city you once loved, and the city you once loved probably cannot be returned. If the change is done mostly additively, as with London, then the property prices will shoot up, energy costs will shoot up, and water shortages will happen, as one would expect with drastic people import over a short period of time.
These are just facts.
I could keep going, but the fallacies in this article are just so rampant I don't know where to start. If you have a specific section you feel strongly about I'm happy to engage there - maybe we agree on that bit, or maybe we don't.
[0] https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/epstein-files-pizzagat...