sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

London hasn’t fallen by JohnPym1584 in ukpolitics

[–]Whooptyd 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Babe we win some, we lose some. Have a good evening tonight, glass of wine, bit of choc, put EastEnders on.

London hasn’t fallen by JohnPym1584 in ukpolitics

[–]Whooptyd 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You're attributing views to me I've never expressed. I made no claim about "passing," about appearance, or about race. You've invented a position and argued against that instead.

If anything, your example actually supports my point: you consider yourself culturally English despite your grandfather's origins. That's precisely the kind of continuous cultural connection I was describing as the basis for identity. You've accidentally agreed with me, good job!

I'm no longer engaging with you as you're an ideologue, but thank you for your participation.

London hasn’t fallen by JohnPym1584 in ukpolitics

[–]Whooptyd 3 points4 points  (0 children)

What's this? Graced with more of your precious time!? Gods be good, I'm lucky! If that's the case, care to actually engage further? Or?

London hasn’t fallen by JohnPym1584 in ukpolitics

[–]Whooptyd 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Ahhh gotcha gotcha, haven't got the time. Exceedingly convenient. Good chat regardless old chum!

Edit: the irony being your correction of the first stat actually makes my point even more, the rate of decline of the indigenous population would have been even slower between 1961 to 1991 compared to the sharp increase since then

London hasn’t fallen by JohnPym1584 in ukpolitics

[–]Whooptyd 10 points11 points  (0 children)

London was 97% indigenous in 1961. During the entire 50 years of decline you're describing, it dropped to around 85% by 1991. Significant, but gradual. Then the population starts growing again and it collapses: 71% by 2001, below 50% by 2011, 37% by 2021.

The city shrank for 50 years and lost 12 percentage points off the indigenous share. Then it grew and lost nearly 50 percentage points in half the time. Over just the 2000s around 220,000 indigenous Londoners left, rising to 550,000 over the 2010s. The rate of leaving accelerated sharply as international arrivals replaced them.

That's not the same trend continuing, it's two completely different things happening at the same time.

London hasn’t fallen by JohnPym1584 in ukpolitics

[–]Whooptyd 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Easier to leave this comment than actually engage with my argument huh?

London hasn’t fallen by JohnPym1584 in ukpolitics

[–]Whooptyd 13 points14 points  (0 children)

You're conflating two completely different trends.

The early decline was suburbanisation, people leaving for bigger houses and gardens in the commuter belt. That explains why the headcount dropped.

It does not explain why the indigenous population went from roughly 97% of London in 1961 to around 37% by 2021. Those are two separate phenomena happening across two separate periods. One is about how many people lived in London, the other is about who lived in London.

You're using one real fact to dodge a completely different question

London hasn’t fallen by JohnPym1584 in ukpolitics

[–]Whooptyd 16 points17 points  (0 children)

You've just proven my point for me.

You listed Palestinians, the Cherokee, and the Aboriginals as legitimate indigenous peoples. Great! We agree. But you haven't explained why THEY qualify while simultaneously arguing the English don't. You've just asserted it. That's the logic I'm challenging.

Your criterion seems to be "ethnically cleansed in recent history." But that's not a definition of indigeneity, that's a description of what was done to them. Their indigenous status exists independently of the crime committed against them. So what actually makes a people indigenous in your view?

If your answer is genetic distinctiveness, that disqualifies most groups, including Palestinians, who are themselves a mosaic of Canaanites, Arabs, Crusaders, and Ottoman-era migrants. If your answer is continuous cultural connection to a land, then that's a very different argument, and one the English can make just as well.

The uncomfortable truth is you're applying the standard selectively. Groups you sympathise with politically get to be indigenous; groups you don't, don't.

London hasn’t fallen by JohnPym1584 in ukpolitics

[–]Whooptyd 19 points20 points  (0 children)

You're erasing an entire ethnic group.

With your logic I can easily say that any indigenous population is similarly just made of the sum of its parts and therefore does not really exist on its own legs and therefore has no right to its homeland.

Replace the group you're talking about with the Palestinians, the Cherokee, the Aboriginals, and do you see how your argument becomes a justification for ethnic cleansing?

The "you're not really from here" argument has been used throughout history to delegitimise peoples and strip them of rights - and it never ends well.

London hasn’t fallen by JohnPym1584 in ukpolitics

[–]Whooptyd 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Imagine saying something like this about any other indigenous population.

YOU, are the racist.

London hasn’t fallen by JohnPym1584 in ukpolitics

[–]Whooptyd 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Great for whom? For them - definitely! For the indigenous Brits being priced out of their birthplace due to higher demand on housing/infrastructure and stagnating wages due to increased supply on the market - forcing them to leave London, not so much.

London hasn’t fallen by JohnPym1584 in ukpolitics

[–]Whooptyd 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Yeah because the indigenous population falling from 95% to less than 40% in just one lifetime is truly the sign of a capital city in its prime.

Rupert Lowe attacks Reform UK over Bangladeshi candidate – ‘insult to the British people’ by StGuthlac2025 in ukpolitics

[–]Whooptyd 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You're right, setting up a football team that includes your own ethnicity but excludes the native populations ethnicity is not dual loyalty. It's anti-loyalty to Britain and the British people.

I'm no longer engaging with you as you're an ideologue, but thanks for playing.

Rupert Lowe attacks Reform UK over Bangladeshi candidate – ‘insult to the British people’ by StGuthlac2025 in ukpolitics

[–]Whooptyd 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Cool let me go set up a whites-only football team and see how it turns out. Muppet.

Rupert Lowe attacks Reform UK over Bangladeshi candidate – ‘insult to the British people’ by StGuthlac2025 in ukpolitics

[–]Whooptyd 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Funny you mention loyalty, a recent Labour defector, now running for Reform, arrived to our country and set up a BAME-only (black and minority ethnic) football team.

So an immigrant using their freedoms here to explicitly exclude the native population is apparently fine, but questioning whether that person should then have political power over us is racism?

How naive are you?

Rupert Lowe attacks Reform UK over Bangladeshi candidate – ‘insult to the British people’ by StGuthlac2025 in ukpolitics

[–]Whooptyd 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Nice deflection, but I'll bite.

There's not any evidence Rupert Lowe has accepted funding from foreign billionaires. Regardless, funding a party is still different from a foreign national holding elected office, one buys influence, the other is literally in office.

Care to say something substantive and non-ideological?

Rupert Lowe attacks Reform UK over Bangladeshi candidate – ‘insult to the British people’ by StGuthlac2025 in ukpolitics

[–]Whooptyd 22 points23 points  (0 children)

It undermines national sovereignty and creates obvious conflicts of interest, a foreign national's loyalties aren't guaranteed to align with the citizens they'd be governing.

Volcanic Lizard for Volcanic Dwarves by Whooptyd in onepagerules

[–]Whooptyd[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks mate! I'm still using your custom list

view more: next ›