11 ms·
"Freedom to compute" cannot be separated from "Freedom to exist" as it explicitly depends on it. The authors of Omarchy pay lip service to the former while taki
by TehCorwiz 22d ago
"Freedom to compute" cannot be separated from "Freedom to exist" as it explicitly depends on it. The authors of Omarchy pay lip service to the former while taking a stance against the latter.
- throwawaypath 22d ago[flagged]
- TehCorwiz 22d agoSee links further down: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49448069 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49448069
- throwawaypath 22d agoNothing in that linked comment points to where DHH specifically takes a stand against the "freedom to exist."
- TehCorwiz 22d agoI disagree. Calling for ethnic cleansing counts to me as taking a stance against a group's right to existence.
- deleted 22d ago[deleted]
- throwawaypath 22d agoHe didn't call for ethnic cleansing.
- stymaar 21d agoHe did. He claimed that the demographic has changed and he advocates for reverting this change. And it turns out that forcibly altering the demographic of an era is the literal definition of ethnic cleansing (and by the way the phrass has historicallt been coined with the specific meaning of removing Muslim people from Serbia, by the people who intended to perform that “cleansing”, so it's particularly apt here).
- throwawaypath 21d ago[flagged]
- e12e 21d ago>> He did not call for forcibly altering the demographic. > When wolves get out of control, you shoot them. When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them. And while I'm quoting: MerriamWebster: Xenophobe > one unduly fearful of what is foreign and especially of people of foreign origin DHH: > You can rest assured that I'd be in the streets waving a Danish flag if these were my conditions in my native country. I think that's a pretty universal sentiment. There's absolutely nothing racist or xenophobic in saying that Denmark is primarily a country for the Danes, Britain primarily a united kingdom for the Brits, and Japan primarily a set of islands for the Japanese. I would say saying that is pretty much the definition of xenophobic. Worse, in the context of DHHs rants, it comes off as racist - I don't get the sense he wants to throw out Norwegians from Denmark, for example. Although shurly there are Norwegian migrants and foreign workers in Denmark.
- throwawaypath 21d agoNo where did you quote where he's calling for forcibly altering the demographic. Enforcing immigration laws is not ethnic cleansing. >And while I'm quoting: >MerriamWebster: Xenophobe >> one unduly fearful of what is foreign and especially of people of foreign origin He doesn't fear foreign people or things so this definition doesn't apply. >I would say saying that is pretty much the definition of xenophobic. Except it's not, words have meaning. Supporting indigenous people and their rights to their native homelands is not xenophobic. >Worse, in the context of DHHs rants, it comes off as racist - I don't get the sense he wants to throw out Norwegians from Denmark, for example. That's your interpretation, not the facts, and not what DHH has said.
- majorchord 22d agoI'm not seeing anywhere that he actually claims someone doesn't have a right to exist. I see lots of people using colorful, subjective interpretations of other things he said to try and push a narrative, but that's all.
- ath3nd 22d agoDHH has the capacity to assess that going full on white supremacist is still relatively frowned upon, so he does only as much as he thinks he can get away with. Sponsoring his badly made OSS and giving him any type of a limelight will only embolden him and the likes of him. I personally want nothing to do with him and anything he touches.
- dijit 22d agoI'm becoming really upset at people whom I otherwise align with for taking absolute statements that don't make sense. DHH said some stuff you disagree with, incidentally while I have always identified with strong social systems, welfare, high taxes and things like free healthcare, I can't say I disagree with the core of what he tried to say, because there has been seizemic ethnic change within a single generation - and people not talking about it is actually fuelling the extreme position. So when you say "has a right to exist", what do you mean exactly? Because if I was to stand in the lobby of a parliamentary building and was forcibly removed, would that mean I don't have the right to exist? You have a right to exist, just not here, just like how White English people have no right to exist in India, and White Dutch people don't have a right to live in Zimbabwe. Saying "Hey, this demographic and major cultural change in the last 20 years makes the environment different" is considered racism- which has the obvious consenquence of making the word "racist" have less power.. It's not racism to notice this, it's racist to think anyone else is lesser than natives or to group "them" and treat an ethnic group as a homogenous bloc. I'm reminded of the phrase "if you don't respect me, I won't respect you" whereby respect can mean as an authority or as a person, and they mean "if you don't respect me as an authority, then I won't respect you as a person". You're saying "if you don't let me do everything I want then you're denying that I have the right to exist at all" which is a type of hysteric language which permits any atrocity in response it can be framed as an act of self defence. Stop it.
- john_strinlai 22d ago>Saying "Hey, this demographic and major cultural change in the last 20 years makes the environment different" is considered racism perhaps if he said it like this, rather than comparing Roma to wolves that should be shot and comparing immigration as something to be survived like a bombing blitz, people wouldnt care as much >it's racist to think anyone else is lesser than natives or to group "them" and treat an ethnic group as a homogenous bloc. that is what he is doing
- dijit 21d ago[flagged]
- 22d ago
- skywhopper 22d agoLiterally any post on his personal blog in the past few years, for a start.
- throwawaypath 15d agoNothing there. You must be mistaken.
- quotemstr 22d agoNo, it is definitely possible to make great software without inserting messaging on irrelevant issues into it. Whatever the quality of Omarchy, DHH is right about parts of the free software world becoming entangled worth various irrelevant causes.
- rbanffy 22d agoI have a feeling the right to exist might be something very relevant to a lot of people.
- quotemstr 22d agoThis equivocation on the word "exist" doesn't work anymore. It's not 2018 anymore. Normal people with common sense understand that keeping politics separate from technology isn't the same thing as existential violence. Nobody, to "exist", needs to make software political.
- ath3nd 22d ago[dead]
- psionides 21d agoI feel like ironically their whole thing is doing exactly that, except in the other direction…
- _def 22d agoFully agreed. I have yet to encounter someone who is claiming something elss and is not privileged enough to just not need to worry about this. Ignorance doesn't reduce the political tech entanglement, it just... ignores it. Which is fine, do whatever. But don't claim it's not related.
- rbanffy 21d ago> I have yet to encounter someone who is claiming something elss and is not privileged enough to just not need to worry about this 1000x this People who say they don’t need their rights guaranteed do that because they never realised they were protected their whole lives.
- like_any_other 22d agoTake one glance at history, and you'll see that having a sovereign ethnic homeland is crucial to that "freedom to exist". So you're wrong on both counts - they are also taking a stance for the latter, and the two freedoms can be separated. Distributing FOSS does not require one takes a stance on every ethnic and political conflict on Earth. The GNU manifesto never once talks about the occupation of Tibet. This "cannot be separated" is nothing but a cheap attempt to attach your own cause to some other, more widely accepted cause.
- rbanffy 21d ago> Distributing FOSS FOSS never was about the right of the distributor. It’s been always about protecting the user. The way to do it is to give the users a set of rights that cannot be revoked.
- nozzlegear 21d ago> Take one glance at history, and you'll see that having a sovereign ethnic homeland is crucial to that "freedom to exist". United States disproves this harebrained theory.
- like_any_other 21d agoLike climbing free solo once disproves the need for a safety rope.