Hacker News Reader

Comment by steve_gh | Hacker News Reader

I'm really pleased to see this happening, but sad that it has come to this.

What I'd really like to see is a whole bunch of people acting more professionally. Who you pray to, who you vote for, and who you sleep with are irrelevant to a professional context - and open source development is a professional context. So everyone needs to keep their professional and personal lives separate. I know that at best I would be disciplined, and at worst sacked if I made comments on the lines that some of the lead players in this sorry saga have made. And that's not pointing the finger at any one person.

View on HN

If who you vote for will put me into a torture camp (or otherwise devalues my life or personhood), then I can't work with you, so no it is not irrelevant.

(neither the "me" nor the "you" here refer to you or me personally ofc.)

Agreed. Your example could sound like exaggerated, but silence is a form of opinion, of vote, of approval. Even in a professional context, because work is part of the society we live in.

This whole "DHH situation" with Rails has put my mind in weird position. I admire the Rails creator, the business man, the speaker. I admire what he builds, how passionate he is about his work and open-source software. But I very strongly disagree with his vision of immigration, nationalism, parenting, well most of his vision of society.

I was made aware about these opinions because people talked about it. Thanks to these people, I read and listen to him with more nuance, more critical thinking. That does not necessarily mean I would discard Rails, cancel the dude or write shit about him, but that surely means that I will be more careful about how the opinions of this 1 person could impact mine, the ecosystem I work with and the larger ecosystem I live in that is society.

> but silence is a form of opinion, of vote, of approval.

No it’s not. Indifference is not approval.

Open source is global and someone in a university in Argentina contributing some features does not “approve” of anything because she didn’t participate in some bickering about US identity politics.

This is a lot more than just US identity politics, as shown by the fully idiotic take on London he did.

Indifference is acceptance of the status quo, though, yeah? Whether that be on a conscious level of active avoidance or on a subconscious level of never mentally aligning it as a priority to build further understanding to form a thought-out opinion.

There actually is a binary view on your stance against things when you see unfettered hate spread by others and choose (at some level) to not have an opinion. We've seen it before, we see it now, we'll see it again. Not everyone has the same privilege as you to remain head under sand until there's no commotion left to dodge.

>Indifference is acceptance of the status quo, though, yeah?

No, the world does not revolve around your pet problems.

I do not know the regional politics of Bulgaria and if people started spewing Bulgarian politics in my open source community, my lack of participation is not acceptance of the status quo. I don’t even know what the status quo is and there are just two sides screeching at each other.

> but silence is a form of opinion, of vote, of approval.

I disagree. We don't have to have an opinion on everything. And what worries me is those (both on the left and on the right) who think that silence is a form of opinion or approval. It's getting very close to "those who are not with us are against us". And that's a worldview I have very little time for.

Yes, I agree with you. Silence, when you do not have an opinion, is totally fine. And yes, not having an opinion on everything is absolutely fine, probably sane even.

I was answering a comment about a vote that would put you in a torture camp, so a vote on which you are certainly opinionated about.

In other words, don't self-censor when you think something is not right.

I'll put it like this.

Close by where I live is a monument for civilians who were taken from their houses and shot by the German occupiers during the last months of WWII. Simply because they were suspected of having distributed pamphlets. There wasn't even evidence to that claim, and retribution was a thing.

I passed that monument countless of times during my youth, giving me pause to contemplate.

It's a tangible reminder of what ultimately happens when people stay silent about something as final and poignant as one group denying the existence of another group for whatever reasons.

I have no problem with expressing differences over world views. I take issue when that world view entails denying the other side's existence because of differences, and a fervent intent to act on that notion.

It's a matter of boundaries, and speaking up.

> And what worries me is those (both on the left and on the right) who think that silence is a form of opinion or approval.

Definitely definitely. When a racist paramilitary is disappearing my neighbors my primary concern is whether people will consider me complicit for publicly stating that I have no duty to interfere.

You don't have to have an opinion on everything but you do have to have an opinion on some things. Or I mean, obviously you don't, but then you have to accept the social consequences of cowardice.

Are you neighbors illegal aliens?

If you believe we shouldn't have borders than just say so.

> that's a worldview I have very little time for

Only people who already live in a position of privilege get to have "little time" and settle for worldviews which advocate for a sort of bland tolerance of extremism. I can assure you, for people who are being actively harmed by hateful rhetoric and political policies, "those who are not with us are against us" is absolutely a reality.

Extremism is in the eye of the beholder. Trying to kick a founder out of a hugely successful project because he thinks there has been too much immigration to London is also an extremist view.

Silence can also indicate disapproval.

Please stop with this type of ridiculous hyperbole.

People would be less inclined to say ridiculous things like this if they didn't keep happening.

When was the last torture camp in the USA?

Well the most famous one is conveniently not on US grounds, but operated by the US (Guantanamo). And then there is https://phr.org/our-work/resources/endless-nightmare-solitar....

"will put me into a torture camp" for sure, but "devalues my life or personhood" is pretty vague. So, for example, if I value guns and consider them necessary for my well being and personal safety, should I refuse to work with anyone who votes for increased gun control? This sounds like a recipe for very fragmented, unstable society.

If gun owners are being denied health care or being told who they can marry ("it's illegal to marry a fellow gun owner"), then yes, they'll probably want to avoid anyone wretched enough to advocate that.

Short of that, it's NBD right? Not really comparable.

It's absolutely comparable. They both involve limiting rights and freedoms.

That's a strawman, because that isn't about the value of my life or my personhood.

I think the salient meta-concept here is "Open source development is an inherently collaborative enterprise, and if people cannot collaborate, it stifles creation of open source projects and software."

There may very well simply be political eras where the floor of trust isn't there for open source to spring forward by leaps and bounds.

I've been in the "keep work and politics" separate camp most of my life. However, with the lines that have been crossed recently, where literal democracy and freedom are at stake, I don't think people have the luxury of keeping work and politics separate any longer. Fascism is bad and people cannot be silent.

Not everyone involved in open source has a boss. I don't care what a boss would hypothetically do to me, so that's not helpful guidance.

Completely agreed. Sorry, other folks, but you have no right to gatekeep my speech in any way in a professional context. Are you a family member? Then sure, we can have a discussion. Am I a member of your private club or otherwise dependent on your approval of my thoughts or beliefs? Then let's talk. Otherwise, leave me alone. You (the collective you) don't get to decide what I am and am not allowed to think and believe.

Nobody is constraining your beliefs or expressions of them. People are exercising their own individual right not to associate with people who express certain beliefs.

Ah. So just good old fashioned bigotry.

Generally, bigotry is bias based on immutable traits. Beliefs are not immutable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com