I just read the London article and I'm not sure that everyone would come to the same conclusion. If you've ever traveled to Japan, I'm sure it's no surprise that almost everyone there is Japanese. If, over the course of 25 years, it went from 98% Japanese to say 60%, I hope that we can both agree that it would be noticeable, and that the added diversity wouldn't necessarily mean that Japan is a better and stronger country, especially if native Japanese people were getting arrested for opposing the changes. I think that's the core argument being made, even if it makes for a nuanced and uncomfortable topic to discuss. Not all immigration is created equal either. Large scale immigration (legal or not) can be a financial burden for countries as opposed to selecting letting through competitive talent.
Yeah, I'm personally also unsure of what's so problematic about his London article. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a country to want to protect its native population, especially if said native population have lived there for an extremely long period of time.
I think it's only viewed as racist because the native population of England are white.
As someone who lives in the UK the post is full of right wing and in many cases racist tropes
London has always been multicultural, Stephen Yaxley Lennon (Tommy Robinson) is a racist agitator, yes there were Asian men grooming and raping women but so do white men.
When there were riots after the Southport murders 20% of them men who were arrested had convictions for domestic and sexual abuse
You might need to live here to recognise it but DHH’s post repeated racist far right talking points
I used to go home during lunch every day to let my dog out. Many days, I was so busy that it seemed like a super chore that would really put me behind. But, it's insane how many insights I had and problems I solved when I forced myself to step away for a bit and do something else. Oddly, now that I work from home, and probably have more time to step away for 10-15 minutes, I do it less. Good reminder to start doing this more!
Using #respond_to? is normally a code smell. The point of duck typing is exactly that it allows you to avoid checking the type of a class. As long as the object responds to the correct messages, the type does not matter.
#respond_to? is fine, it's really more #is_a? that is a code smell, in my opinion. As long as you're dispatching based on #respond_to? (i.e. "does this respond to each") by calling the method you're checking, when it does respond, you're fine as far as duck typing goes. It's when you check #is_a? and then dispatch based on type where things get weird.
An example I always used to use was something like a method that could take a single item or a collection:
def unpicky(something)
if something.respond_to?(:each)
# unpack using each or recurse to something.each do |item| unpicky(item) end
else
# main body
end
end
reply