7 ms·

I'm sorry, maybe I'm out of the loop. David said he wants an open group no one cares about politics or whatever you support, you are welcome to join. Seems pr

by watty 24d ago

I'm sorry, maybe I'm out of the loop. David said he wants an open group no one cares about politics or whatever you support, you are welcome to join. Seems pretty inclusive?

deleted 24d ago
[deleted]
javierhonduco 24d ago
I agree it sounds inclusive but I find it to be in tension with some of his previous writings: - https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64 https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64 - https://world.hey.com/dhh/wolves-sheep-and-gypsies-ba44af6a https://world.hey.com/dhh/wolves-sheep-and-gypsies-ba44af6a
hakunin 24d ago
You can say politics don't matter, but if elsewhere you lay out your controversial opinions, people will self-select whether you like it or not. And since this is such a predictable thing, it's very likely done intentionally.
- ramblerman 23d ago
  People can come together on a project and not involve their politics in that project or their communal interaction. And then in their own private sphere they are free to express their opinions. The fact this is confusing to people beggars belief
  - hakunin 23d ago
    Why does it beggar belief? If a loudly woke person started a computer club, would you want to join? Why is it hard to believe that someone loudly anti-woke starting a club cannot make people stay away?
maeln 24d ago
I am not saying this is the case here. I don't know DHH much, and I don't really care for the whole situation. But using and fronting 'openness' (especially around the 'no-politics', which is political, thing) is a typical way to create non-mixed, non-open community. The idea is you claim to be open to everyone. This includes people who are judged to be undesirable elsewhere. In fact, you make sure those people want to join by specifically targeting and vilifying specific organization (in this case, you could say Nix or whoever he is talking about). So, by design, you don't create a mixed community, but one with the specific population that feels rejected by whatever or whoever you are targeting/opposing. Because of this concentration of a specific population, member of the organization you are targeting will not be welcomed (which mean it is not truly open). They are on paper, but nobody wants to be part of a community made in majority by people who dislike you. Now, all this can be used actually for good, for example to create community for the oppressed marginalized or whatever. But it can also very easily be turned into a fascist utopia. It alls come to how you set the rules and how you enforce them within the community, and also simply the people that you are trying to group up. Trying to create a community for disabled people to push for more accessibility within free-software is laudable. Trying to group up people who thinks X or Y are 'clown' usually only lead to the creation of negativity-focused/ego-driven communities. EDIT: Also, and this is more my (very subjective) opinion, but people who are fronting 'no-politics', 'openness' with no clear claim that whoever they are pointing to are not open, and typically talk about free-speech (not the case here), are typically PoS with big egos who got rejected from the main communities for being PoS and now want to create their own PoS community. See also twitter EDIT2: Actually, an easy example of this is with reddit. There is often subreddit that I created in reaction of moderation and people being ban from main subreddit X or Y. If you go and look at those communities, they are usually not of very high quality, even more trigger happy on the ban hammer, and have a single focus on what got them ban from the main subreddit in the first place. A very easy example is r/europe vs r/europe_sub. The latter being extremely, if not entirely focused on immigration and being borderline or openly racist.
jauntywundrkind 24d ago
> I'm going to pass on this one. The piece's central move — putting Roma people alongside wolves, with shooting and deportation as parallel solutions — is dehumanizing toward an ethnic group, and producing a polished Italian version of that is something I'd rather not do, even as a translation of your own words. An actual LLM response David posted talking about the brand of "openness" he wants to see in the world. That he posted to the hey.com blog, thinking it makes the LLM look bad. Nearly unbelievable but there it sits, so it stands!!! Fascists and racists and anti-woke MAGAt dipshits and JK Rowling loons are who David feels are being excluded, are who need to be included, so they can rail against others with abandon. Omacom is a fascist right wing organization designed to be a funding target for a right wing insurgency in Linux, some shitty dotfiles that somehow are going to be funded to the point where they form a beacon to stand and work against the free open peaceful citizens of Linux, to drive strife and bedlam and suffering forward, like fascist right wing projects everywhere lust for. Insighting tensions and terrormongering the world. It's not even hidden. Thanks OP. It's on clear display. The wolves know how to use the weapons of words against the free and open and inclusive people. They always have. Their quest for din and bedlam on earth has no real respect for anything but their own right to shout and hurl their rage as they see fit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
psionides 22d ago
If you want a project without politics, you talk about the great technicals of your project, not go on a long unhinged rant about how everyone else is clowns because of their politics

by watty 24d ago

I'm sorry, maybe I'm out of the loop. David said he wants an open group no one cares about politics or whatever you support, you are welcome to join. Seems pretty inclusive?

deleted 24d ago

[deleted]

javierhonduco 24d ago

I agree it sounds inclusive but I find it to be in tension with some of his previous writings: - https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64 https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64 - https://world.hey.com/dhh/wolves-sheep-and-gypsies-ba44af6a https://world.hey.com/dhh/wolves-sheep-and-gypsies-ba44af6a

hakunin 24d ago

You can say politics don't matter, but if elsewhere you lay out your controversial opinions, people will self-select whether you like it or not. And since this is such a predictable thing, it's very likely done intentionally.

ramblerman 23d ago
People can come together on a project and not involve their politics in that project or their communal interaction. And then in their own private sphere they are free to express their opinions. The fact this is confusing to people beggars belief
- hakunin 23d ago
  Why does it beggar belief? If a loudly woke person started a computer club, would you want to join? Why is it hard to believe that someone loudly anti-woke starting a club cannot make people stay away?

maeln 24d ago

I am not saying this is the case here. I don't know DHH much, and I don't really care for the whole situation. But using and fronting 'openness' (especially around the 'no-politics', which is political, thing) is a typical way to create non-mixed, non-open community. The idea is you claim to be open to everyone. This includes people who are judged to be undesirable elsewhere. In fact, you make sure those people want to join by specifically targeting and vilifying specific organization (in this case, you could say Nix or whoever he is talking about). So, by design, you don't create a mixed community, but one with the specific population that feels rejected by whatever or whoever you are targeting/opposing. Because of this concentration of a specific population, member of the organization you are targeting will not be welcomed (which mean it is not truly open). They are on paper, but nobody wants to be part of a community made in majority by people who dislike you. Now, all this can be used actually for good, for example to create community for the oppressed marginalized or whatever. But it can also very easily be turned into a fascist utopia. It alls come to how you set the rules and how you enforce them within the community, and also simply the people that you are trying to group up. Trying to create a community for disabled people to push for more accessibility within free-software is laudable. Trying to group up people who thinks X or Y are 'clown' usually only lead to the creation of negativity-focused/ego-driven communities. EDIT: Also, and this is more my (very subjective) opinion, but people who are fronting 'no-politics', 'openness' with no clear claim that whoever they are pointing to are not open, and typically talk about free-speech (not the case here), are typically PoS with big egos who got rejected from the main communities for being PoS and now want to create their own PoS community. See also twitter EDIT2: Actually, an easy example of this is with reddit. There is often subreddit that I created in reaction of moderation and people being ban from main subreddit X or Y. If you go and look at those communities, they are usually not of very high quality, even more trigger happy on the ban hammer, and have a single focus on what got them ban from the main subreddit in the first place. A very easy example is r/europe vs r/europe_sub. The latter being extremely, if not entirely focused on immigration and being borderline or openly racist.

jauntywundrkind 24d ago

> I'm going to pass on this one. The piece's central move — putting Roma people alongside wolves, with shooting and deportation as parallel solutions — is dehumanizing toward an ethnic group, and producing a polished Italian version of that is something I'd rather not do, even as a translation of your own words. An actual LLM response David posted talking about the brand of "openness" he wants to see in the world. That he posted to the hey.com blog, thinking it makes the LLM look bad. Nearly unbelievable but there it sits, so it stands!!! Fascists and racists and anti-woke MAGAt dipshits and JK Rowling loons are who David feels are being excluded, are who need to be included, so they can rail against others with abandon. Omacom is a fascist right wing organization designed to be a funding target for a right wing insurgency in Linux, some shitty dotfiles that somehow are going to be funded to the point where they form a beacon to stand and work against the free open peaceful citizens of Linux, to drive strife and bedlam and suffering forward, like fascist right wing projects everywhere lust for. Insighting tensions and terrormongering the world. It's not even hidden. Thanks OP. It's on clear display. The wolves know how to use the weapons of words against the free and open and inclusive people. They always have. Their quest for din and bedlam on earth has no real respect for anything but their own right to shout and hurl their rage as they see fit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

psionides 22d ago

If you want a project without politics, you talk about the great technicals of your project, not go on a long unhinged rant about how everyone else is clowns because of their politics