Hacker News Reader

Comment by aeon_ai | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

> Omarchy is literally resulting in the sale of hundreds of framework devices

What's backing this claim?

Anecdata - But I feel confident in it. If you join the Omarchy discord, people regularly cite buying either a Framework or a Beelink, with a lean towards the former, to put Omarchy on.

I tend to presume that the creator/consumer rule applies, and that for every one person that says it out loud, there are 9 others who are doing the same thing silently.

> I have yet to see evidence DHH is a far-right racist.

Clearly linked in the above thread: https://jakelazaroff.com/words/dhh-is-way-worse-than-i-thoug...

Before reading the rest of the article from there the paragraphs about native brits seems a bit weird regardless of the good or bad of what's implied with it. 'Why doesn't he say white brits instead of native brits.' Because he doesn't mean that? I know Belgians more pasty white than me. wouldn't call them native flemish or native belgian. They're culturally romanian and turkish and even selfidentify as such, champion their sports teams and talk about their cultural issues. They're not indigenous even if born here and retain strong ties to the respective relevant countries and communities. They can't be subconsciously tied to a local area by dialect, name or cultural elements or the like.

If he had said indigenous i don't think the writer would have liked it any better tho.

Similarly many comments in the original thread who take great issue with the term who i don't expect to see reeling when native americans or palestinians, etc, etc are refered to.

Yeah - I read it. My comment stands.

Nothing in that article is evidence to the claim that DHH is far-right. Not wanting unlimited immigration is not a far-right stance. Nothing wrong with wanting a homeland with historical ties for indigienous people.

Bernie from 2016 was promoting the sort of immigration reform that today would get him called a Nazi.

What does Bernie have to do with this? #whataboutism

Bernie is clearly not someone who would be considered a fascist or nazi but his positions from 2016 expressed now would label him as such by the section of the population who jump straight to that nomenclature.

What I meant was: Why are you talking about Sanders polical views when the issue at hand is Framework's tonedeaf response to the OP's concerns.

Your comment about Sanders might be true (although I doubt that he would espouse the same views as articulated in DHH's blog post https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64) but it does not add anything to the discussion here, which is why I mentioned whataboutism.

EDIT: and now I re-read the post you were replying to which was indeed about political orientations and how they are viewed over time. My bad.

Still, I think this particular avenue of debate is not going to yield much progress for anybody.

But also, more recently, there are very loud voices labeling everything left of "far right" as "extreme radical leftist".

And, yeah, I'm with your second paragraph. I think much of the country thinks that illegal immigration is a problem, and also thinks that Trump's enforcement of it has been unreasonably brutal and cruel. And a bunch of them think that trans people don't belong on womens' sports teams and that kids shouldn't transition, and also think that trans people don't deserve to be beaten and killed for being trans. And a bunch of them think that wealth inequality is a real problem, and also are deeply skeptical of the proposed solutions. And so on.

Many people are not really sold on the entirety of either party's platform. Unfortunately, all they get to do is vote every two years. One bit of feedback every two years. So Trump thinks he's got a mandate for everything he wants to do, but what he really has is a vote that the country wasn't happy with the way things were going under Biden.

(Now, true, there are also lots of people who are completely bought in to one side or the other. But since such people tend to be more vocal than the not-really-sold-on-either-side types, it makes it easy to overestimate how many people are zealots.

Re: Illegal immigration - republicans voted against their own reforms.

But also this is insane “both sides…”ing. One side is “Trans people should be able to do xyz” and the other side… deploys troops into American cities? Takes citizens out of their homes and trashes them? Like “We want this transperson to play soccer” vs “We gotta get rid of democrats”.

Be real please.

Where "do xyz" means "gain access to opposite-sex spaces without consent of those for whom these spaces are intended". This is an important issue for women and girls in particular, as female spaces are necessary for privacy, dignity and safety - and in the case of competitive sports (e.g. "play soccer"), fairness.

If we're being real, telling males they can use women's and girls' spaces is very unpopular policy.

Sure I see that. But if you think this issue, which was manufactured (https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/no-link-between-tran..., https://www.thepinknews.com/2018/12/07/anti-trans-group-bath...) and not particularly thought out (you want a dude with a beard walking into the women’s bathrooms instead?) but if you are like “I care so much about this minor social issue that affects basically no one that has been going on for decades with zero incidents that I will turn a blind eye to a military force getting more funding than the NIH to roll around in masks, unmarked and take American citizens without due process and deport them illegally just as the one of many easily shown crimes (even before the gross Epstein stuff) then yeah sorry, you are on the wrong side of this. There is nothing to debate there. Like I don’t like a lot of democrat policies but I dislike authoritarian governments more and it boggles the mind that people equate the two. But then you remember how minority groups have been used forever to give governments the ability to control people through fear and prejudice and it all makes sense again. Pick the weakest group and make them the target. The most banal of playbooks.

Women prisoners have been sexually assaulted, raped and impregnated by males who were transferred in to the female prison estate as a direct result of gender identity policies introduced by Democrats. These are some of the most vulnerable women in society and they've been sacrificed on the altar of authoritatian trans absurdity. They are a minority group that Democrat politicians happily discard and abuse and ignore.

This might just feel a minor social issue to you, but many people - including ones who usually vote Democrat - are looking at outcomes like this and wondering why on earth they should trust this party with anything.

That's not to say the Republicans are any better. There are two wrong sides here.

> Women prisoners have been sexually assaulted, raped and impregnated by males who were transferred in to the female prison estate

Those occurrences are terrible, no doubt about it.

When designing policy, we need to look at both directions: How many trans people get raped because they don't get transferred? So far all the data I have seen indicates that trans people are far more likely to be assaulted than to assault.

It seems to me that we should choose the option that results in the fewest assaults.

The option that results in the fewest incidents of violence is segregation within the male prison estate. Which is already done for protection of vulnerable male prisoners incarcerated there. Pedophiles, ex-cops, gang informants, etc.

Democrat policy that enabled males to voluntarily transfer into women's prisons wasn't driven by analyzing data on male-on-male violence, but from the absurd belief that if a man says he's a woman then he is a woman.

That implementing this belief might have horrendous outcomes for female prisoners wasn't even a consideration. Even though this was pointed out to them many times over, by feminist groups and others. They just did it regardless.

Yep - I think you and I (and a lot of other middle of the road folks) agree generally.

> I have yet to see evidence DHH is a far-right racist

You haven't seen that because there is none.

But the right left will label anybody that has even a slight disagreement as far right.

Nowadays a bunch of things (not all of them, of course) labeled as far right are perfectly fine, so much so that it's the stuff that democrats from 15-20 years ago would have advocated for.

15-20 years is a long time. If you were in the 80s and had 15-20 year old beliefs you’d wanted colored bathrooms back.

Thank you for being a reasonable voice.

Today Nazi == "Someone I don't like." It's overused so much it literally has no meaning.

DHH's only sin was creating Ruby on Rails, not his politics (same with Brendan Eich who I hope one day apologies to the world for inventing JavaScript).

Most reasonable people left Hackernews a long time ago when they banned the balance. Almost all that's left on here is echo-chamber.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com