10 ms·

The "what" seems to be purely a reaction to this article DHH posted: https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64 https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-reme

by X0nic 1y ago

The "what" seems to be purely a reaction to this article DHH posted: https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64 https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64 Apparently, the reason is having an incorrect opinion.

lowsong 1y ago
[flagged]
- gedy 1y ago
  I think that term gets tossed around too much flippantly - if you've ever ran into real white supremacists they are a magnitude more scary and dangerous than DHH's dopey opinion.
  - JohnBooty 1y ago
    Regardless of whether or not that's the correct term for DHH.... real white supremacists they are a magnitude more scary and dangerous than DHH's dopey opinion I would like to caution you against the use of the term "real" white supremacists. Are you imagining a "real" white supremacist as guy who burns crosses, is covered with racist tattoos, and openly spouts slurs? Because the effective and dangerous ones are a hell of a lot more stealthy than that. Racism in general, including white supremacy, is more accurately viewed as a spectrum and not a binary racist/non-racist divide.
    - gedy 1y ago
      > viewed as a spectrum and not a binary racist/non-racist divide That's exactly my point why I suggest not watering down the term white supremacy with "I hate this annoying opinion when I interpret it maximally". Calling DHH a white supremacist is silly.
      - queenkjuul 1y ago
        He went on the Internet and said London is worse because it's less white than before. That's at least mild white supremacism
  - habinero 1y ago
    No, the dopey ones are just as bad. They legitimize having bigoted opinions, and having bigoted opinions towards immigrants in an industry founded on immigrants is both short-sighted and not something anyone should support. Nobody ever gets cancelled for actual conservative values like lower taxes and limited government. They get kicked out for being hateful.
  - BizarroLand 1y ago
    Racism isn't boogeymen in white robes hanging people. It's kindly old ladies whose smile disappears the instant they lock onto a brown kid in the grocery store. It's bosses who somehow find a good reason to not give a non-white person a pay raise or time off. It's ordinary people who feel uncomfortable when they encounter people who look different and then they act different towards them. The grand majority of racism is invisible. It's a constant pressure on people who do not perfectly fit into the culture that reminds them that if they do not meet the mark of what that group of people expect from them then the consequences will be extreme. When you are not white and live in a town of generically racist white people, there are countless small things that happen that continuously remind you that your presence is under surveillance and that your permission to exist peacefully in "their" space is an act of grace that you must forever be grateful for. This is something that can be explained to anyone ad nauseum, but until they experience it for themselves it sounds like bs. It's so easy to ignore that most people forget this as soon as their eyes are not looking at these words.
    - gedy 1y ago
      I don't disagree with anything you've said. Just that calling DHH a white supremacist is an exaggeration. It waters down the meaning, and not sure what's left to describe violent street thugs in discourse, I guess "LiTerAL nAZis"?
      - BizarroLand 1y ago
        I mean, his words are the words of a white supremacist. His ideals are the ideals of a white supremacist. Just because he isn't calling for war, murder, famine, pestilence, plague, death, and the fourth Reich all to fall on people of other colors does not mean that he isn't a white supremacist. Like I said. It's easy to overlook. No one should long for a "pure" society. There are no pure humans on this planet outside of a select group of african people who never interbred with neanderthal or denisovians, and as the last bastion of "pure" humans they seem fairly well content to not enforce their superiority on other people. https://www.universityherald.com/articles/70130/20170321/harvard-researcher-says-africans-are-100-pure-human-than-the-rest.htm https://www.universityherald.com/articles/70130/20170321/har... So, let's all just be mutts and get along. Love who you love. Live where you want to live. And let other people do whatever the hell they want to do as long as it does not hurt anyone.
- mrkstu 1y ago
  My goodness, people need to leave their ‘supremacist’ scarlet letters in their bags for when they’re actually earned. The Brits are just as much ‘native’ people to their lands as any aboriginal group. To want to keep their characteristic culture from being wiped out is no more supremacist than any other ethnic group doing the same. The hypocrisy is beyond the pale.
  - habinero 1y ago
    Oh, is this the new talking point? The Brits conquered the world and imposed their "characteristic culture" on everyone else. They don't really get to complain lol
    - mrkstu 1y ago
      Collective guilt is problematic regardless of which direction you point the gun.
      - habinero 1y ago
        It's really telling you jumped right to "guilt". Nobody said the Brits had to feel guilty for their ancestors doing that. Just that they don't get to complain lol
        jadamson 1y ago
        Are Brits not guilty of conquering the world? That would seem to be an honest reading of what you wrote.
        habinero 1y ago
        [flagged]
        jadamson 1y ago
        The user you replied to said "collective guilt", which implies the former, and you seem to be confirming they were correct and that this side track about "feelings" is just you trying to diminish their point. There's no need to lash out, you certainly won't gain anything by doing so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_responsibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_responsibility
- schnebbau 1y ago
  The linked article doesn't mention anything about skin color. Please don't stir hatred like that here.
  - berkanunal 1y ago
    reading a love letter to hitler. What? It doesn't say anything about the skin color? > Tommy Robinson, is a British anti-Islam campaigner and one of the UK's most prominent far-right activists with a history of criminal convictions. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson
  - tzs 1y ago
    In this part of the article: > That was then. Now, I wouldn't dream of it. London is no longer the city I was infatuated with in the late '90s and early 2000s. Chiefly because it's no longer full of native Brits. In 2000, more than sixty percent of the city were native Brits. By 2024, that had dropped to about a third. A statistic as evident as day when you walk the streets of London now. the "no longer full of native Brits" is a link to an article on the ethnic makeup of London. The cite only makes sense as support for his argument if he means white native Brits.
  - mplewis 1y ago
    Yeah! Nothing about skin color. It just boosts Tommy Robinson. I'm sure there's nothing about skin color involved in what Tommy Robinson believes.
JohnBooty 1y ago
As far as I can tell, the direct chain of events preceding this coup-like event was: Ruby Central hosts DHH at RailsConf in July --> Sidekiq withdraws funding from Ruby Central --> Ruby Central is essentially entirely dependent on Shopify. The "what" seems to be purely a reaction to this article DHH posted: Strictly speaking, DHH's September blog post could not have driven this unless there was a time machine involved. However, DHH has made some contentious political statements in the past so perhaps what you're saying is true in a larger sense. It's certainly possible that Shopify's actions had nothing to do with either side's politics in particular, and they decided it was simply safer for them to control Ruby Cental and RubyGems rather than rely on an independent organization with unstable funding (that they were basically solely funding anyway according to the article) I don't love that outcome. As a Ruby fan, I don't want Ruby or bits of its infrastructure controlled by a particular organization.
- JBiserkov 1y ago
  Ruby Central [announces that it will] hosts DHH at RailsConf [6 weeks before the event is due to happen, when it's too late for people to refund their conference tickets and plane tickets too] in July 2025. A dick move.
  - zahlman 1y ago
    Announcing guests late for a convention (when the arrangements might not have been finalized until that point) is "a dick move", because some attendees might not like the idea of the guest being there (despite no compulsion to interact with said guest) and find it too late to cancel (on things they voluntarily committed to based on the existing expected content, fully accepting the risk of future change)? No, I think the dick move (in the https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0la5DBtOVNI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0la5DBtOVNI sense) is raising hue and cry because the opportunity to see another influential person at a convention somehow ruins the rest of the convention for you. And are we seriously arguing that the creator of the thing should be barred from a convention about the thing?
testdelacc1 1y ago
It’s pretty galling to see someone who’s never lived in London talk mad shit about it. London is my home, not DHH’s. He knows fuck all, which is why he repeats tired, overcooked falsehoods. What he’s saying is that he only considers white British to be legitimately British. He would look at former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and current Mayor Sadiq Khan and dismiss them as insufficiently British. Too much melanin I guess. He’s even excluded white people from elsewhere who were born in Britain if they have a non-British ancestor. So according to DHH and his ilk Nigel Farage’s children wouldn’t be counted as white British despite having white mothers (Irish and German), being born to a British father in Britain and living all their lives in Britain. What the fuck is the point of dividing people like this? “Just an opinion” my ass. DHH and people like him are dehumanising my fellow Londoners.
- typpilol 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - testdelacc1 1y ago
    I did respond to one of his falsehoods, you must have missed it in your hurry to post this pithy putdown. DHH and his gang of “White Replacement” reptiles overstate the facts by saying 40% of London is white British. Nigel Farage is a leader of a British far right party who exclusively has children with foreign women. His children are as white as he is, British citizens who’ve lived all their lives in Britain. To any reasonable person, even someone who struggles to mingle with non-white people like DHH, Farage’s children would be white British. But the stats would count them as “white - Other”, which is another 20% of London. They twist the stats to suit their narrative.
    - typpilol 1y ago
      So how many percent are white British?
      - testdelacc1 1y ago
rockyj 1y ago
This article is just so politically charged and opinionated that it is hard to believe that it is coming on a "tech blog". Not to mention, a while back the very same company wanted its employees to have no political discussions at workplace in a widely published article.
- petralithic 1y ago
  It's not a tech blog, it's his personal blog, and it's quite in line with that company post previously; advocate for whatever policies you want on your own time and platform but not on the company's, and since this is his personal blog, he is doing exactly that.
  - muglug 1y ago
    It’s published on hey.com, which is a 37Signals product. Also it’s sort of hard to separate the guy who offers his opinions on his blog and the same guy who offers his opinions at a tech conference.
    - mostlysimilar 1y ago
      There's plenty to criticize DHH for but to be fair world.hey.com is a feature of the email platform that lets you easily post a blog. He's using his own software/platform and I realize the optics, but you could post your own thoughts at world.hey.com/muglug too.
      - zeckalpha 1y ago
        Not if you are a Basecamp employee who needs their job and disagrees with DHH.
        zchrykng 1y ago
        Benefit of being one of the owners/cofounders. If you don’t like your bosses’s opinions, you are free to work somewhere else.
cardanome 1y ago
The victim mindset of these people is on another level. DHH presents the openly transphobic Graham Linehan as some kind of free speech victim. Oh, I should read the actual tweet? Funny the actual tweet is so much worse than I imagined. If a trans-women is in a space that she is legally entitled to be in, according to him one should: > Make, a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him[he means the trans-women] in the balls He is literally telling people to be violent against trans people. And then cries when actions have consequences. These people are like the school yard bully who will start a fight with you then cry "timeout, timeout" when you punch back. And go to the teacher to convince you they are the real victim.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- xmonkee 1y ago
  I was actually shocked he included those tweets as if they were incredibly benign. I now believe this is an intentional move on his part. He knows the tweets are crazy incendiary, he just wants to filter out the audience early. This trend of catering to far right fan boys while maintaining plausible deniability is happening everywhere.
  - cyanydeez 1y ago
    Its tge intent of the far right to always double down on the banality of hate. Its essentially a psychological martingale problem.
- tbrownaw 1y ago
  > DHH presents the openly transphobic Graham Linehan as some kind of free speech victim. The thing about free speech is that it's only relevant if someone with power hates what you say. See also: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/52416-the-trouble-with-fighting-for-human-freedom-is-that-one https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/52416-the-trouble-with-figh...
  - 1oooqooq 1y ago
array_key_first 1y ago
I don't know why everyone pretends that having an incorrect opinion is some untouchable thing and we just have to respect it. Everyone, you included, has opinions that they find unpalatable. Pretty much all of human history has been "cancelling" people for "incorrect opinions". I mean, what were the crusades? Or world war II? There's no, like, gun to your head saying you have to respect things you don't respect. Some things are just not respectable. You're allowed to be like "no" and then decide to get as far away from the person as possible. And, relatedly - you don't have to run away. You can push them away. Its not really fair that crazy people are allowed to say crazy things then we, normal people, have to take the high ground and walk away. What if I don't want to walk away? Why do I have to leave a project like it's the plague because you said something insane? Anyway, just my two cents. Also, just to be clear: I don't think DHH is crazy or evil. I'm addressed the broader concept, not this specific case.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- tbrownaw 1y ago
  > Its not really fair that crazy people are allowed to say crazy things then we, normal people, have to take the high ground and walk away. What if I don't want to walk away? Why do I have to leave a project like it's the plague because you said something insane? This takes as axiomatic that people with incompatible beliefs in one area cannot work together in a different area.
  - array_key_first 1y ago
    They can, but it really depends on the belief. Even for you or the most principled person, there is a limit. And, even if you can, it doesn't mean it's pleasant. Its one thing if someone is horrible in silent. From experience, horrible people seem to be the most confident and outspoken. Maybe there's a common character flaw that underpins both behaviors.
  - mplewis 1y ago
    Yeah, so let's look at what's going on here. DHH is working to promote the work of notorious white supremacists including Tommy Robinson.
JeremyNT 1y ago
He's been posting controversial stuff for quite a while, you certainly can't distill this to one blog post. DHH stopped trying to cultivate an inclusive community some time ago. The ruby community can ill afford to drive away more prominent maintainers, yet that is what is happening here, as the corporate interests are aligned with DHH even if the rest of the community is not.
- jmcgough 1y ago
  The ruby community has been putting up with DHH's behavior for 20 years [1]. He's just become worse and more of an outspoken bigot lately. [1] https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/dhh-says-f-you/57797 https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/dhh-says-f-you/57797
g8oz 1y ago
So he is a Tommy Robinson fan? Yikes.
- charlezharper 1y ago
  He literally just uses his actions as an example if you read the article properly.
  - jmcgough 1y ago
    Fascinating that all of his examples of free speech seem to involve white nationalists.
mbac32768 1y ago
Speaking of incorrect opinions, it's pretty hard not to read this and conclude his "no politics at work" initiative was just him seeing his company was full of liberals he found annoying and this was his scheme to kick them all out.
- blasphemers 1y ago
  This makes no sense. He never said employees couldn't discuss politics outside of work through personal channels.
  - mbac32768 1y ago
    If DHH had genuinely progressive instincts, he would likely have been more even-handed. He could have credibly said: “look, I’m personally left-leaning, but I want work to stay apolitical for everyone’s sanity” Instead, the intensity of his crackdown, coupled with later statements aligning him with reactionary causes, strongly suggests his “neutrality” was in practice a shield against progressive causes inside Basecamp. Is it unfair that you can only impose a “no politics” rule without backlash if you’re progressive? Maybe a little. But the asymmetry is baked in: progressives are the ones challenging the status quo, so banning politics almost always protects the status quo and silences the challengers. And in this case, his later positions confirmed that he wasn’t neutral at all, he wasn’t on the side of the people he’d told to leave.
    - zahlman 1y ago
      > Is it unfair that you can only impose a “no politics” rule without backlash if you’re progressive? Maybe a little. But the asymmetry is baked in: progressives are the ones challenging the status quo, so banning politics almost always protects the status quo and silences the challengers "Progressives" (I don't think the label is accurate for the group it describes) are also the ones who believe that "protecting the status quo" entails doing "politics".

by X0nic 1y ago

lowsong 1y ago

[flagged]

gedy 1y ago
I think that term gets tossed around too much flippantly - if you've ever ran into real white supremacists they are a magnitude more scary and dangerous than DHH's dopey opinion.
- JohnBooty 1y ago
  Regardless of whether or not that's the correct term for DHH.... real white supremacists they are a magnitude more scary and dangerous than DHH's dopey opinion I would like to caution you against the use of the term "real" white supremacists. Are you imagining a "real" white supremacist as guy who burns crosses, is covered with racist tattoos, and openly spouts slurs? Because the effective and dangerous ones are a hell of a lot more stealthy than that. Racism in general, including white supremacy, is more accurately viewed as a spectrum and not a binary racist/non-racist divide.
  - gedy 1y ago
    > viewed as a spectrum and not a binary racist/non-racist divide That's exactly my point why I suggest not watering down the term white supremacy with "I hate this annoying opinion when I interpret it maximally". Calling DHH a white supremacist is silly.
    - queenkjuul 1y ago
      He went on the Internet and said London is worse because it's less white than before. That's at least mild white supremacism
- habinero 1y ago
  No, the dopey ones are just as bad. They legitimize having bigoted opinions, and having bigoted opinions towards immigrants in an industry founded on immigrants is both short-sighted and not something anyone should support. Nobody ever gets cancelled for actual conservative values like lower taxes and limited government. They get kicked out for being hateful.
- BizarroLand 1y ago
  Racism isn't boogeymen in white robes hanging people. It's kindly old ladies whose smile disappears the instant they lock onto a brown kid in the grocery store. It's bosses who somehow find a good reason to not give a non-white person a pay raise or time off. It's ordinary people who feel uncomfortable when they encounter people who look different and then they act different towards them. The grand majority of racism is invisible. It's a constant pressure on people who do not perfectly fit into the culture that reminds them that if they do not meet the mark of what that group of people expect from them then the consequences will be extreme. When you are not white and live in a town of generically racist white people, there are countless small things that happen that continuously remind you that your presence is under surveillance and that your permission to exist peacefully in "their" space is an act of grace that you must forever be grateful for. This is something that can be explained to anyone ad nauseum, but until they experience it for themselves it sounds like bs. It's so easy to ignore that most people forget this as soon as their eyes are not looking at these words.
  - gedy 1y ago
    I don't disagree with anything you've said. Just that calling DHH a white supremacist is an exaggeration. It waters down the meaning, and not sure what's left to describe violent street thugs in discourse, I guess "LiTerAL nAZis"?
    - BizarroLand 1y ago
      I mean, his words are the words of a white supremacist. His ideals are the ideals of a white supremacist. Just because he isn't calling for war, murder, famine, pestilence, plague, death, and the fourth Reich all to fall on people of other colors does not mean that he isn't a white supremacist. Like I said. It's easy to overlook. No one should long for a "pure" society. There are no pure humans on this planet outside of a select group of african people who never interbred with neanderthal or denisovians, and as the last bastion of "pure" humans they seem fairly well content to not enforce their superiority on other people. https://www.universityherald.com/articles/70130/20170321/harvard-researcher-says-africans-are-100-pure-human-than-the-rest.htm https://www.universityherald.com/articles/70130/20170321/har... So, let's all just be mutts and get along. Love who you love. Live where you want to live. And let other people do whatever the hell they want to do as long as it does not hurt anyone.
mrkstu 1y ago
My goodness, people need to leave their ‘supremacist’ scarlet letters in their bags for when they’re actually earned. The Brits are just as much ‘native’ people to their lands as any aboriginal group. To want to keep their characteristic culture from being wiped out is no more supremacist than any other ethnic group doing the same. The hypocrisy is beyond the pale.
- habinero 1y ago
  Oh, is this the new talking point? The Brits conquered the world and imposed their "characteristic culture" on everyone else. They don't really get to complain lol
  - mrkstu 1y ago
    Collective guilt is problematic regardless of which direction you point the gun.
    - habinero 1y ago
      It's really telling you jumped right to "guilt". Nobody said the Brits had to feel guilty for their ancestors doing that. Just that they don't get to complain lol
      - jadamson 1y ago
        Are Brits not guilty of conquering the world? That would seem to be an honest reading of what you wrote.
        habinero 1y ago
        [flagged]
        jadamson 1y ago
        The user you replied to said "collective guilt", which implies the former, and you seem to be confirming they were correct and that this side track about "feelings" is just you trying to diminish their point. There's no need to lash out, you certainly won't gain anything by doing so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_responsibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_responsibility
schnebbau 1y ago
The linked article doesn't mention anything about skin color. Please don't stir hatred like that here.
- berkanunal 1y ago
  reading a love letter to hitler. What? It doesn't say anything about the skin color? > Tommy Robinson, is a British anti-Islam campaigner and one of the UK's most prominent far-right activists with a history of criminal convictions. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson
- tzs 1y ago
  In this part of the article: > That was then. Now, I wouldn't dream of it. London is no longer the city I was infatuated with in the late '90s and early 2000s. Chiefly because it's no longer full of native Brits. In 2000, more than sixty percent of the city were native Brits. By 2024, that had dropped to about a third. A statistic as evident as day when you walk the streets of London now. the "no longer full of native Brits" is a link to an article on the ethnic makeup of London. The cite only makes sense as support for his argument if he means white native Brits.
- mplewis 1y ago
  Yeah! Nothing about skin color. It just boosts Tommy Robinson. I'm sure there's nothing about skin color involved in what Tommy Robinson believes.

JohnBooty 1y ago

As far as I can tell, the direct chain of events preceding this coup-like event was: Ruby Central hosts DHH at RailsConf in July --> Sidekiq withdraws funding from Ruby Central --> Ruby Central is essentially entirely dependent on Shopify. The "what" seems to be purely a reaction to this article DHH posted: Strictly speaking, DHH's September blog post could not have driven this unless there was a time machine involved. However, DHH has made some contentious political statements in the past so perhaps what you're saying is true in a larger sense. It's certainly possible that Shopify's actions had nothing to do with either side's politics in particular, and they decided it was simply safer for them to control Ruby Cental and RubyGems rather than rely on an independent organization with unstable funding (that they were basically solely funding anyway according to the article) I don't love that outcome. As a Ruby fan, I don't want Ruby or bits of its infrastructure controlled by a particular organization.

JBiserkov 1y ago
Ruby Central [announces that it will] hosts DHH at RailsConf [6 weeks before the event is due to happen, when it's too late for people to refund their conference tickets and plane tickets too] in July 2025. A dick move.
- zahlman 1y ago
  Announcing guests late for a convention (when the arrangements might not have been finalized until that point) is "a dick move", because some attendees might not like the idea of the guest being there (despite no compulsion to interact with said guest) and find it too late to cancel (on things they voluntarily committed to based on the existing expected content, fully accepting the risk of future change)? No, I think the dick move (in the https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0la5DBtOVNI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0la5DBtOVNI sense) is raising hue and cry because the opportunity to see another influential person at a convention somehow ruins the rest of the convention for you. And are we seriously arguing that the creator of the thing should be barred from a convention about the thing?

testdelacc1 1y ago

It’s pretty galling to see someone who’s never lived in London talk mad shit about it. London is my home, not DHH’s. He knows fuck all, which is why he repeats tired, overcooked falsehoods. What he’s saying is that he only considers white British to be legitimately British. He would look at former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and current Mayor Sadiq Khan and dismiss them as insufficiently British. Too much melanin I guess. He’s even excluded white people from elsewhere who were born in Britain if they have a non-British ancestor. So according to DHH and his ilk Nigel Farage’s children wouldn’t be counted as white British despite having white mothers (Irish and German), being born to a British father in Britain and living all their lives in Britain. What the fuck is the point of dividing people like this? “Just an opinion” my ass. DHH and people like him are dehumanising my fellow Londoners.

typpilol 1y ago
[flagged]
- testdelacc1 1y ago
  I did respond to one of his falsehoods, you must have missed it in your hurry to post this pithy putdown. DHH and his gang of “White Replacement” reptiles overstate the facts by saying 40% of London is white British. Nigel Farage is a leader of a British far right party who exclusively has children with foreign women. His children are as white as he is, British citizens who’ve lived all their lives in Britain. To any reasonable person, even someone who struggles to mingle with non-white people like DHH, Farage’s children would be white British. But the stats would count them as “white - Other”, which is another 20% of London. They twist the stats to suit their narrative.
  - typpilol 1y ago
    So how many percent are white British?
    - testdelacc1 1y ago

rockyj 1y ago

This article is just so politically charged and opinionated that it is hard to believe that it is coming on a "tech blog". Not to mention, a while back the very same company wanted its employees to have no political discussions at workplace in a widely published article.

petralithic 1y ago
It's not a tech blog, it's his personal blog, and it's quite in line with that company post previously; advocate for whatever policies you want on your own time and platform but not on the company's, and since this is his personal blog, he is doing exactly that.
- muglug 1y ago
  It’s published on hey.com, which is a 37Signals product. Also it’s sort of hard to separate the guy who offers his opinions on his blog and the same guy who offers his opinions at a tech conference.
  - mostlysimilar 1y ago
    There's plenty to criticize DHH for but to be fair world.hey.com is a feature of the email platform that lets you easily post a blog. He's using his own software/platform and I realize the optics, but you could post your own thoughts at world.hey.com/muglug too.
    - zeckalpha 1y ago
      Not if you are a Basecamp employee who needs their job and disagrees with DHH.
      - zchrykng 1y ago
        Benefit of being one of the owners/cofounders. If you don’t like your bosses’s opinions, you are free to work somewhere else.

cardanome 1y ago

The victim mindset of these people is on another level. DHH presents the openly transphobic Graham Linehan as some kind of free speech victim. Oh, I should read the actual tweet? Funny the actual tweet is so much worse than I imagined. If a trans-women is in a space that she is legally entitled to be in, according to him one should: > Make, a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him[he means the trans-women] in the balls He is literally telling people to be violent against trans people. And then cries when actions have consequences. These people are like the school yard bully who will start a fight with you then cry "timeout, timeout" when you punch back. And go to the teacher to convince you they are the real victim.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
xmonkee 1y ago
I was actually shocked he included those tweets as if they were incredibly benign. I now believe this is an intentional move on his part. He knows the tweets are crazy incendiary, he just wants to filter out the audience early. This trend of catering to far right fan boys while maintaining plausible deniability is happening everywhere.
- cyanydeez 1y ago
  Its tge intent of the far right to always double down on the banality of hate. Its essentially a psychological martingale problem.
tbrownaw 1y ago
> DHH presents the openly transphobic Graham Linehan as some kind of free speech victim. The thing about free speech is that it's only relevant if someone with power hates what you say. See also: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/52416-the-trouble-with-fighting-for-human-freedom-is-that-one https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/52416-the-trouble-with-figh...
- 1oooqooq 1y ago

array_key_first 1y ago

I don't know why everyone pretends that having an incorrect opinion is some untouchable thing and we just have to respect it. Everyone, you included, has opinions that they find unpalatable. Pretty much all of human history has been "cancelling" people for "incorrect opinions". I mean, what were the crusades? Or world war II? There's no, like, gun to your head saying you have to respect things you don't respect. Some things are just not respectable. You're allowed to be like "no" and then decide to get as far away from the person as possible. And, relatedly - you don't have to run away. You can push them away. Its not really fair that crazy people are allowed to say crazy things then we, normal people, have to take the high ground and walk away. What if I don't want to walk away? Why do I have to leave a project like it's the plague because you said something insane? Anyway, just my two cents. Also, just to be clear: I don't think DHH is crazy or evil. I'm addressed the broader concept, not this specific case.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
tbrownaw 1y ago
> Its not really fair that crazy people are allowed to say crazy things then we, normal people, have to take the high ground and walk away. What if I don't want to walk away? Why do I have to leave a project like it's the plague because you said something insane? This takes as axiomatic that people with incompatible beliefs in one area cannot work together in a different area.
- array_key_first 1y ago
  They can, but it really depends on the belief. Even for you or the most principled person, there is a limit. And, even if you can, it doesn't mean it's pleasant. Its one thing if someone is horrible in silent. From experience, horrible people seem to be the most confident and outspoken. Maybe there's a common character flaw that underpins both behaviors.
- mplewis 1y ago
  Yeah, so let's look at what's going on here. DHH is working to promote the work of notorious white supremacists including Tommy Robinson.

JeremyNT 1y ago

He's been posting controversial stuff for quite a while, you certainly can't distill this to one blog post. DHH stopped trying to cultivate an inclusive community some time ago. The ruby community can ill afford to drive away more prominent maintainers, yet that is what is happening here, as the corporate interests are aligned with DHH even if the rest of the community is not.

jmcgough 1y ago
The ruby community has been putting up with DHH's behavior for 20 years [1]. He's just become worse and more of an outspoken bigot lately. [1] https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/dhh-says-f-you/57797 https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/dhh-says-f-you/57797

g8oz 1y ago

So he is a Tommy Robinson fan? Yikes.

charlezharper 1y ago
He literally just uses his actions as an example if you read the article properly.
- jmcgough 1y ago
  Fascinating that all of his examples of free speech seem to involve white nationalists.

mbac32768 1y ago

Speaking of incorrect opinions, it's pretty hard not to read this and conclude his "no politics at work" initiative was just him seeing his company was full of liberals he found annoying and this was his scheme to kick them all out.

blasphemers 1y ago
This makes no sense. He never said employees couldn't discuss politics outside of work through personal channels.
- mbac32768 1y ago
  If DHH had genuinely progressive instincts, he would likely have been more even-handed. He could have credibly said: “look, I’m personally left-leaning, but I want work to stay apolitical for everyone’s sanity” Instead, the intensity of his crackdown, coupled with later statements aligning him with reactionary causes, strongly suggests his “neutrality” was in practice a shield against progressive causes inside Basecamp. Is it unfair that you can only impose a “no politics” rule without backlash if you’re progressive? Maybe a little. But the asymmetry is baked in: progressives are the ones challenging the status quo, so banning politics almost always protects the status quo and silences the challengers. And in this case, his later positions confirmed that he wasn’t neutral at all, he wasn’t on the side of the people he’d told to leave.
  - zahlman 1y ago
    > Is it unfair that you can only impose a “no politics” rule without backlash if you’re progressive? Maybe a little. But the asymmetry is baked in: progressives are the ones challenging the status quo, so banning politics almost always protects the status quo and silences the challengers "Progressives" (I don't think the label is accurate for the group it describes) are also the ones who believe that "protecting the status quo" entails doing "politics".