Hacker News Reader

Comment by badsectoracula | Hacker News Reader

What if the authors of the service are of the opinion that their job is only to provide the service and not to play the role of a thought police?

By checking out the "Projects" page, only the "Moonman Doom" mod for doom - a shitty mod that you see from 10 miles away that only 10yo at best would take seriously, assuming 10yo today know and care about Doom and modding - fits your description. Checking out 11 pages of projects (there is more but i got bored), everything else is the same stuff you'd find on GitHub: game engines, lisp implementations, web projects, games, etc and none fit your description (at least in their own description).

> speaks volumes to me about the author's character and state of mind

Guilt by association much? The only thing that speaks about someone's character and state of mind is their own actions, not the actions of others (and no, association is not an action).

View on HN

I clicked the "Projects" page out of curiosity, not because I have 10-mile vision. You don't need to be particularly farsighted to see the slurs on that page (and now that I check, the repo README), either.

> Guilt by association much? The only thing that speaks about someone's character and state of mind is their own actions, not the actions of others (and no, association is not an action).

The last time I checked, I wasn't a court. I'm a private citizen who chooses to use projects and products based on a broad ethical code. One of the elements of that code is not supporting people who seem to be, at best, ambivalent towards associating with bigots.

> You don't need to be particularly farsighted to see the slurs on that page (and now that I check, the repo README), either.

My point is that nobody would nor should take that project any more seriously than the drawing of a teenager who is trying to be "edgy".

> The last time I checked, I wasn't a court. I'm a private citizen who chooses to use projects and products based on a broad ethical code.

Sure, you can act as you like as long as you understand that your freedom ends at the point where someone else's start. However this code of yours is not shared by everyone so you cannot expect people to not find it dodgy that you are making accusations about someone based on something they didn't do.

> One of the elements of that code is not supporting people who seem to be, at best, ambivalent towards associating with bigots.

It is your code, but to me that sounds like "you are either with us or you are against us" :-P.

> My point is that nobody would nor should take that project any more seriously than the drawing of a teenager who is trying to be "edgy".

Like I said in response to 'ehsankia, it would be unreasonable for me to want to police the language of edgy teenagers everywhere.

The original question was "why I gave a damn," and I think I answered it: I find myself concerned when I see projects and products hosts on venues that are aggressively receptive of bigoted language (if not bigotry itself, and that's a big if).

> that you are making accusations about someone based on something they didn't do.

I stated my observation based on something they did do: choose to host on a service that appears (on principle) to be happy to host epithets. That makes me question their character and state of mind; it's neither hard evidence nor an accusation.

> It is your code, but to me that sounds like "you are either with us or you are against us"

I stated my beliefs in the first person intentionally. There's no "us," only me.

> I find myself concerned when I see projects and products hosts on venues that are aggressively receptive of bigoted language (if not bigotry itself, and that's a big if). [...] I stated my observation based on something they did do: choose to host on a service that appears (on principle) to be happy to host epithets. That makes me question their character and state of mind; it's neither hard evidence nor an accusation.

I understand. I still think it is offtopic and not worth the mention (as predicted by others, this discussion is derailed with the only ontopic bits of interest being near the bottom of the page), but at least i see your logic.

> I stated my beliefs in the first person intentionally. There's no "us," only me.

It was a reference to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27re_either_with_us,_or_ag...

Association with and tolerance of racists and fascists has consequences.

https://gitgud.io/moon-men/moonman-doom

you are probably taking this stuff too serious.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com