In other news

I always assumed the phrase came from navies when only men were on board. Plus 'man' basically refers to humans anyway.

Does this mean Luigi Mangione isn't a real American?

Only the Woke Mob of Peabrains (Trademark Pending) don't comprehend that 'man' refers to all people regardless of gender.

That said, I'll sometimes deliberately use 'gender-inclusive' language to avoid undo discomfort and rancor and confusion from the ranks of the Perpetually Indignant.*

*A delightful term I learnt from the late, great P. J. O'Rourke.

Not so much on small ships, I'm told.

I’m over it. You don’t even understand what a conditional is.

You don’t understand when they should and should not be used. You’re like an over educated nincompoop, the same as most of our politicians, which is probably why you’re so deep with the political system.

Compared to someone with actual analytical skills and independence of thought you’re little more than a trained monkey who’s finally learned to stop rubbing his nose in his own shite.

You can be a British citizen without being any of those things by ancient descent. British is quite a capacious term-- not surprisingly when a century ago there was a global empire whose subjects were all British citizens.

citizen yes, we were discussing something else though

I formalized your position accurately and showed the logical entailment and how you are not committed to saying that anyone becomes ethnically British, which is what Luciom seemed to be trying to say you were saying. This would be true whether someone believed in a British ethnicity or not.

But just like the deranged leftist Hamas supporter you are because you are so obsessed with crapping on liberals you want to pick out some part of my argument that you don’t even understand to try to make me look stupid. Yet because you are such a low IQ troll it just makes you look stupid and unable to track an argument

ts;dr

Yeah i heard it once. Someone has to be responsible for making sure eyes are on the person overboard at all times, then they launch rescue vessels.

I can't tell if you're joking or not.

After sailors have been at sea for months, even Luckbox starts to look good.

No a man overboard is deadly serious

I read that article you posted btw. I just don't really know enough about it to say anything.

This is also a linguistic bug (feature) of any nationstate where the same word is used to describe both a nationality and an ethnicity.

This linguistic bugs means that the sentence "You can be Danish without being Danish" is reasonable, just poorly worded. If we wrote the sentence out using terminology that actually differs, it is is pretty straightforward: "You can be a Danish citizen without being ethnically Danish".

Now, unfortunately this issue often becomes tangled and controversial, because racists and anti-racists look for each-other, and they'll find what they're looking for even if it isn't there. Which is sad, because a reasonable and grounded discussion on ethnicity vs nationality and how we perceive it could be good.

It's not even the "ethnical" but yes.

The idea is more "you can be technically a danish citizen, but we still will treat you as non danish for any measuring of what actual danish people do vs what actual non danish people do".

And it's not ethnically because there can be different ethnicities making up "actual danish". Like in italy we have the german speakers, in the UK they have indians/pakistani who settled a long time ago and so on.

You can very well be actually british and should be treated and considered as such if your ancestors first moved into the UK in the late 19th century even if you are "brown"!

But if newcomers commit dramatically more crimes than anyone else, and instead people like jalfrezi insist on treating a rwandan son of rwandans as native *for the purpose of crime statistics*, that's the actual attempt to lie to hide the dramatic disastrous contributions of recent immigration from specific countries.

Which is what the actual topic is about. Trying to gauge which immigrant group are net negative for society *so that you deport them and stop taking them in*. Ultra immigrationists deny that can ever be a sensible societal goal so they do their best to obfuscate measurement of their negative contributions.

The other thing they do of course is to insist to measure ALL immigrant contributions, claiming that if the number is positive then ALL immigration is positive, denying we can slice immigrants up depending on their country of origing (and individual education and so on)

He's native in the sense of being a UK citizen and being born here. Much as many second generation Indians here call themselves British Indian, not Indian, he might call himself British Rwandan. You want to remove that word British and that's completely wrong.

Imagine a new nation is formed, comprising France, Italy and Switzerland. All French, Italian and Swiss passports are cancelled and replaced with a new Fritas passport and there are no borders.

You, Luciom, are now a Fritasian along with all the other citizens of those three countries.

Someone emigrating to Italy from Spain would become a Fritasian while still retaining their Spanish ethnicity, hence Fritasian Spanish, while you are now a Fritasian Italian, in much the same was as I'm British English (or vice versa).

Young adults who emigrate to work make a net positive economic contribution.

Ok i am following that logic.

Now, let's say 10 or 20 or 50 years after Frita has been created, someone wants to measure how original french/italian/swiss groups are doing... to understand if it was a mistake to take italy in for example ok?

And say you are Spain, and you have elements to think Fritans can be good but not if they are ex-italians... like say the USA *treated southern italians differently from norther italians for immigration purposes for many decades*.

So we still need a way to measure *ACTUAL ANCESTRY CONTRIBUTION* because it's ESSENTIAL to decide whether it makes sense to keep taking in people of that country among other things, or to kick them out if legally possible among other things.

Ofc people who want to make the "melting pot", even if it includes horrenouds populations, irreversible, would oppose any such attempt.

in aggregate as a group yes. Every single one of them lol no.

And a decisive no for those with low income if then they are allowed to take in 2+ non working relatives through family reunion (!!!!!) which is a huge topic in the UK specifically these days.

Taking in a 26y old who didn't complete high school and washes dishes in a restaurant can be barely positive IF he is never allowed to take even a single dependant in. If he is alllowed to take his chronically ill father in after some years that's a disaster for taxpayers.

But ofc even for the 26y old alone, you have to measure over the life cycle. You cannot measure only in the present, you have to account for when that person will be a burden for pension and NHS. You can't claim "positive contributions!" because he isn't getting a pension yet nor he uses the NHS much as he is young.

And? So you do your analysis, asking people to describe themselves as Fritasian or Fritasian Italian or whatever and then what are you complaining about?

This is so generalised it's completely worthless.

And you're missing the crucial point that many low paid immigrants have kids who become major contributors. Just one recent example of my circle - Amite's parents were Indians who came to the UK in the 1970s and worked as an NHS hospital porter and a cook. Amite studied, took his accountancy exams and now is a high earner. He's not unusual among second generation immigrants to the UK in wanting to do well in life.