[noir_lord]

This is just a tired one at this point, The people who care have picked sides, the people who don't (are probably smarter for not caring) and no one who's picked a side is likely to change their mind.

I don't like what DHH has become or what he says (nor do I have any interest in Omarchy, I prefer Fedora (for many years)/KDE (recently but loving it) anyway) since "As I remember London[1]" was the final straw for me (of lots of straws) but on the flip side but if you only ever use software written by people you ideologically align with you are going to have a bad time.

[1] https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64

[edent]

It is ok to not use software by people you don't like. That's probably a large part of what drew people away from Microsoft, Oracle, etc.

Just like boycotting your favourite chocolate company because they try to undermine breastfeeding in developing countries. Yes, it hurts a little; that's the point of sacrifice.

[tovej]

The issue is that open aource is a community-based development model. If you let nazi's into your community, they will eventually drive away everyone else.

[throwawaypath]

>If you let nazi's into your community, they will eventually drive away everyone else.

Glad that's not what happened, DHH is not a Nazi.

[tovej]

As I said below, DHH has repeatedly shown he's a bad actor, whether you think he's a nazi or not. He will continue to drive away sane people from the communities he's a part of.

He has also quite clearly taken a nazi or ethnonationalist stance. If we allow the term "nazi" to refer to people other than literal card-carrying members of the German Nazi party up until 1945, he fits the description accurately.

[throwawaypath]

>DHH has repeatedly shown he's a bad actor

No he hasn't. Holding heterodox opinions isn't being "a bad actor."

>He will continue to drive away sane people from the communities he's a part of.

He's driven insane people from the communities he's a part of. Sane people will flock to them.

>He has also quite clearly taken a nazi or ethnonationalist stance.

No he hasn't. There's nothing wrong with promoting or protecting the interests of native or indigenous people over those of immigrants or foreigners.

[tovej]

The bad actor part is e.g. shutting down review processes in his company when they contradict his beliefs, and plotting to oust people from RubyGems for having the wrong political beliefs.

And he is an ethnonationalist. In "As I remember London", he claimed Britain was a third native brit, then backed it up with a wikipedia link showing a third of London was white. So in DHH's mind white = British. There's no other way to interpret that, and he hasn't corrected it.

[throwawaypath]

>The bad actor part is e.g. shutting down review processes in his company when they contradict his beliefs

His company, his rules. He banned activist employees from using work as a platform to proselytize their grievance politics.

>In "As I remember London", he claimed Britain was a third native brit, then backed it up with a wikipedia link showing a third of London was white.

This is what happens when you only read posts on Bluesky/Mastodon. He claimed London was only a third "native Brit" which is the factual reality, backed up by Wikipedia. He didn't include "all Whites" just "White Brits." White Brits are the only native Brits to Britain.

>So in DHH's mind white = British.

Wrong. White Brit = native Brit, which is factually correct.

>There's no other way to interpret that

Correct, no other way to interpret the facts.

>and he hasn't corrected it.

"He hasn't removed the wrongthink!"

[noir_lord]

Not unique to Nazi's (though I wouldn't call DHH that either, I'd call him many other things but not that one) open communities (including societies as a whole) have that problem - the paradox of tolerance was written about in "The Open Society and its Enemies" 80 years ago - it isn't a new thing.

The issue is how wide the tolerance is before you decide as a group people need excluding, if you set that too narrow you end up with an immediate conflict, if you set it too wide you risk your open community becoming dominated by one group.

I'm centre left (by European standards) and would definitely be considered "woke" by the people who use it as a negative epithet but I think many open source communities set it too narrow still.

People have a right to their opinions even if I don't agree with them just as I do, there is a line where active opposition is required for me but a lot of the time I disagree with where that line is.

[tovej]

I'm also European and would identify as centre-left. DHH's opinions align with nazi opinions. He wants a return to tradition, is against equality, and speaks in favor of racially pure ethnostates. If it quacks like a nazi...

One reason to actively oppose DHH is that he actively opposes anyone who calls him out, going as far as squashing valid criticism at his own company and ousting them from positions in open source projects (the whole ruby central case).

Even if you don't think he's a nazi, he's shown himself to be a bad actor who doesn't play by the rules.

That's also a kind of behaviour that leads to community vibes going down the drain and other bad actors (nazi or not) taking over.

[noir_lord]

Where do you draw the line though?, from a centre left perspective someone who is center right is going to align more closely with a fascist than you are, it's applying a slippery slope argument to centrist politics, you can't just lump them together and write them off because they are a little right of you.

You can legitmately call out those people for the views they hold, you don't need call them something they aren't.

It would be as stupid as calling me a Stalinist because I'm slightly left of centre, it ends the debate because why would you debate someone you called a Stalinist.

I don't have to like DHH or his views but he's not a fascist.

[edent]

You draw the line at people supporting violent criminals who want an ethnostate. That seems like a pretty straightforward one - and one which DHH has crossed.

If DHH wanted to argue about, say, different taxation strategies or deregulation or supporting our monarchy - those are all things which we can have a reasonable debate about. I don't have to agree on your stance on free school meals and student debt, but we can get along just fine.

https://gizmodo.com/godwin-of-godwins-law-by-all-means-compa...

[_kidlike]

exactly... people happily use software from Nazis (not that DHH is one) without knowing. The only difference is that DHH openly writes about his opinions (its called free speech).

Good luck to anyone wanting only ideologically compatible software. They'll end up with pretty much nothing left to use.

Same applies to companies that produce goods. It's a never ending hole.

[jmye]

At some point, every person who says the words "free" and "speech" consecutively (especially in such a smarmy, snotty way), needs to understand that it's not a shield from criticism nor an obligation to continued association. I'm really tired of hearing about the concept from people who don't, evidently, understand what it actually means but just want to use it as an "you have to accept me and what I say no matter what" bludgeon.