7 ms·

DHH: Calling someone a "Nazi" is a permission slip for violence

47 points by jaredcwhite 1y ago

bigyabai 1y ago
[flagged]
Atlas667 1y ago
This is just kinda more culture war. This post is assuming that acts of violence, like Charlie Kirk's assassination, are promoted and committed by large groups of people who identify, benefit or agree with parts of a specific framework (wokeism). Which is not true on principle. You're ascribing agency and belonging to a group based on, basically, vibes. On vague agreements or conclusions, mispoken points, incomplete framings. That is the culture war. You're doing it. And wokeism was just a corporate strategy to appear more friendly to consumers of alternate identities/perspectives. It wasn't something that came from the masses, it was something that was done to generate more money by corporations. You're participating in the misunderstanding of large masses of people to gain an in-group identity. Sure there are crazy people who believe its ok to be violent on "both sides". We all understand that these people are crazy, those who don't are themselves crazy. You're aiding the normalization of extremism and polarization just like some rad-lib is doing right now by calling you a fascist. We're all ignorant, we don't know everything.
- downrightmike 1y ago
  If you are not awake, you are asleep. American Cinema has been all for defeating nazis since before the war ended. Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inglourious_Basterds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inglourious_Basterds All we have seen so far is white kids shooting people in red states. Is DHH trying to legitimize a stance that fascists are some how good?
  - watwut 1y ago
    > Is DHH trying to legitimize a stance that fascists are some how good? Yes.
    - adamrezich 1y ago
      See guys, it's shit like this.
      - watwut 1y ago
        He was literally promoting their ideas for years and even tried to "punish" those he perceived too much on the left. Like, what you mean here by "shit like this". "Shit like this" is demanding us all to pretend we are naive and extend infinite irrational benefit of doubt to people ... who are extremely clear in their politics.
        Atlas667 1y ago
        The culture warriors are those who enable the culture war through framing discussions in incompatible ways. Charlie Kirk, while pretending to be neutral, was funded by the rich to promote certain narratives and make clips owning the libs. You dont own the libs by being fair in discussions. Same as any other "breadtube" liberal owning the conservatives. These media figures make money and gain followers from being disingenous and unfair. If you pretend they are unbiased researchers you have fallen. If you pretend they represent large swathes of people you have fallen. They get normal people on their side by carefully framing certain ideas, not by being clear. They jump on your biases and take them hostage while accusing "the other side" of taking them hostage. This is done by both conservatives and liberals. Media is not organic, it is incentivized, manipulated and controlled. You are mistaking an image of trees for the forest. Working class politics isnt something you read about online its what YOU need and what the other workers around you need and how to realize that together. Socialism or bust, homies.
lordkrandel 1y ago
When will technology leaders step back and be just technology leaders instead of blabbering unrequested political opinions?
- darthrupert 1y ago
  When people stop reacting to them.
  - lordkrandel 1y ago
    I doubt being silence makes bullies shut up. Generally, they show up in favorable environments, where the voice of reason is absent, and no adult is caring about what's going on in the room. But being just silence? Just makes them worse.
    - darthrupert 1y ago
      I'm not talking about the people who you think are "adults" (I assume you mean people whose opinions mostly matches yours), I mean everyone. They wouldn't talk about this if nobody was listening. And people wouldn't listen to them if they talked about things that are not problems.
      - lordkrandel 1y ago
        No, I don't really think so, people with power are listened to because they have power. Not because they say anything good or meaningful. Sometimes they speak hate. And even if you just don't listen, others may be listening, and will take you over. So, you really have to be aware of what people say. Pushing your hands against your ears won't save you.
        darthrupert 1y ago
        One kind of pushing your hands against your ears is ignoring problems that other people are talking about when you're not comfortable with hearing about them.
lordkrandel 1y ago
And also behold: as the tide turns, red will turn to blue once again, when the people will realize that racism and tariffs won't bring the America great again you all aspire to. No, that's just a 1800's fever dream. Here we are, still firmly believing what we believed 2 years ago. You didn't "defeat" anyone. It's just that people like you are free to be more "cocky" because the government has your own color. But they will come after the Danish and South Africans when they will have no more targets, be aware.
u10 1y ago
Calling people Nazis is lazy, and way more often then not, wrong. That being said, acting as if actions and words can exist in a vacuum and immune from any sort of criticism, feedback, or debate is an incredible amount of arrogance. What DHH said about London is deeply problematic, bigoted, and frankly doesn't make any sense. If he doesn't want any criticism for his views he shouldn't be saying them! Free speech goes both ways. Either take the lumps on the chin and quit complaining about people being mean, or shut the fuck up. Does not make him a Nazi though.
- cocoricamo 1y ago
  That's precisely the issue. There's a subset of the community that resorts to labeling anyone they deem guilty of wrongthink as a nazi or fascist and is the same crew that preach the "punch a nazi" line. If it was just a normal exchange of ideas it wouldn't matter and DHH would be just whining, but first response was "he's a nazi" "lets take away his project". There's crazier stuff in Lunduke's tweets from days ago including death threats and inciting violence against him on public events. I knew he was disliked by a large chunk of the OSS community but to threaten to kill people because someone attends a conference is crazy. That is not the way to behave in a civilized society and is time people stop bending backwards to appease the lunatics otherwise there's no telling when any of us will be on the wrong end of the mob.
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    > I knew he was disliked by a large chunk of the OSS community You sound unfamiliar with him. Lunduke occupies the "Luke Smith" valley of pundits who do not actually contribute to Open Source. Even DHH actually does something, Lunduke's claim to fame is politicizing technology and amplifying an unnecessary culture war. There is no open discussion surrounding how much he contributes, he is a heckler and does nothing else. His bus factor has long since passed a negative quotient. Now obviously that does not excuse violence against his person. But there is no pretending that he's not controversial; that's the name he's made for himself. It's one that he can feel very comfortable with online, but much less so in a place like America where firearms laws are so relaxed and politically motivated violence never leaves the news cycle. It's a tragic status-quo for America, but Lunduke is the last person I'll feel sorry for. When the mob comes for him, it's because he was goading them from the sideline. He'd have done well for himself if he put his passion into something productive like Kling or Eich did.
mkfs 1y ago
The problem with this essay (besides DHH's hyperbolic prose, e.g., "woke orthodoxies") is that DHH, not having grown up in the US, doesn't realize that the normalization of violence in response to speech actually represents a substantial deviation from historic American norms. The ACLU was once one of the preeminent leftwing political organizations in America, and it distinguished itself through unwavering advocacy on behalf of ALL forms of offensive speech, including flag burning and extreme pornography, but also extremist politics. Progressives who thought the answer to bad speech was more speech and that sunlight was the best disinfectant were once plentiful. Then in the 2010s, the "punch/kill Nazis/fascists" messaging took off, and now the consensus position on the left is that it's acceptable to use violence in response to speech: https://www.cato.org/blog/51-strong-liberals-say-its-morally-acceptable-punch-nazis https://www.cato.org/blog/51-strong-liberals-say-its-morally... DHH's misstep is that he's resorting to arguing he and others are being falsely labeled as "Nazis," but conceding, even implicitly, the assumption that it's OK to respond to speech (and only rightwing speech; "tankies" and Sharia-pushing Islamists always fit through the Overton window) with violence is already surrendering too much.
- watwut 1y ago
  > doesn't realize that the normalizing of violence in response to speech actually represents a substantial deviation from historic American norms. What alternative history you are talking about here? Also, right wing actors including Kirk himself were promoting violence for years already. As far as American right wing goes, violence is a cool thing that makes you manly man. It is just that it should go one way only - from them to others.
  - mkfs 1y ago
    > Also, right wing actors including Kirk himself were promoting violence for years already I'm specifically referring to the left's acceptance of violence in response to political speech, for which there is no equivalent consensus on the right, for example, that they can and should go around assaulting Marxists, Islamists, or others with whom they fundamentally disagree. And Kirk, for whatever faults he had, and however performative were his events, sought to debate his opponents--not encourage his followers to assault them. I couldn't find anything about him "promoting violence for years."
darthrupert 1y ago
I agree with the main concern DHH correctly points out here, that some spaces (mostly inhabited by leftists) are currently calling a lot of people nazis who clearly are not nazis. And they're quite obviously gaslighting the idea that hurting these people is ok. What people like DHH et al seem to be completely blind about is that the right has been doing this for decades, if not centuries. That is not justification for the left to do the same thing, but at least the other side should acknowledge that and try to move on instead of just perpetuating the cycle.
- dismalaf 1y ago
  > right has been doing this for decades Ironically whatabouttism is literally a Soviet/Russian propaganda technique...
  - leosanchez 1y ago
    Didn't the person agree with DHH in the first paragraph ?
LightBug1 1y ago
JFC ... what the hell happened to this guy? He's really gone off the deep end ...
frou_dh 1y ago
Like him or loathe him, DHH is a serial winner. So today's petition¹ is tomorrow's fish and chips wrapper. ¹ https://github.com/Plan-Vert/open-letter https://github.com/Plan-Vert/open-letter
- lordkrandel 1y ago
  Being "a winner" means nothing. It's just another cringe self-appointed crappy nonsense writer that thinks he's better than you, better than immigrants (after being one in the US), better than everyone else. It's just the attitude of someone who wants to control you just because he has money and power. Have the courage to dissent from the racist propaganda he's putting around.
  - frou_dh 1y ago
    I'm saying you need to bring your A-game to actually win against him in the online and particularly the Rails sphere - a formulaic petition isn't it. Even Apple found him hard to handle re the HEY iOS app.
    - lordkrandel 1y ago
      You don't fight bullies by just being better, I'm sorry.
- bigyabai 1y ago
  "Like him or loathe him, Photomatt is a serial winner. So today's lawsuit is tomorrow's yacht money."
akimbostrawman 1y ago
Yes that is ofc the plan. It's just part of today's double speak by the most "tolerant and empathetic" group.

47 points by jaredcwhite 1y ago

[flagged]

This is just kinda more culture war. This post is assuming that acts of violence, like Charlie Kirk's assassination, are promoted and committed by large groups of people who identify, benefit or agree with parts of a specific framework (wokeism). Which is not true on principle. You're ascribing agency and belonging to a group based on, basically, vibes. On vague agreements or conclusions, mispoken points, incomplete framings. That is the culture war. You're doing it. And wokeism was just a corporate strategy to appear more friendly to consumers of alternate identities/perspectives. It wasn't something that came from the masses, it was something that was done to generate more money by corporations. You're participating in the misunderstanding of large masses of people to gain an in-group identity. Sure there are crazy people who believe its ok to be violent on "both sides". We all understand that these people are crazy, those who don't are themselves crazy. You're aiding the normalization of extremism and polarization just like some rad-lib is doing right now by calling you a fascist. We're all ignorant, we don't know everything.

downrightmike 1y ago
If you are not awake, you are asleep. American Cinema has been all for defeating nazis since before the war ended. Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inglourious_Basterds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inglourious_Basterds All we have seen so far is white kids shooting people in red states. Is DHH trying to legitimize a stance that fascists are some how good?
- watwut 1y ago
  > Is DHH trying to legitimize a stance that fascists are some how good? Yes.
  - adamrezich 1y ago
    See guys, it's shit like this.
    - watwut 1y ago
      He was literally promoting their ideas for years and even tried to "punish" those he perceived too much on the left. Like, what you mean here by "shit like this". "Shit like this" is demanding us all to pretend we are naive and extend infinite irrational benefit of doubt to people ... who are extremely clear in their politics.
      - Atlas667 1y ago
        The culture warriors are those who enable the culture war through framing discussions in incompatible ways. Charlie Kirk, while pretending to be neutral, was funded by the rich to promote certain narratives and make clips owning the libs. You dont own the libs by being fair in discussions. Same as any other "breadtube" liberal owning the conservatives. These media figures make money and gain followers from being disingenous and unfair. If you pretend they are unbiased researchers you have fallen. If you pretend they represent large swathes of people you have fallen. They get normal people on their side by carefully framing certain ideas, not by being clear. They jump on your biases and take them hostage while accusing "the other side" of taking them hostage. This is done by both conservatives and liberals. Media is not organic, it is incentivized, manipulated and controlled. You are mistaking an image of trees for the forest. Working class politics isnt something you read about online its what YOU need and what the other workers around you need and how to realize that together. Socialism or bust, homies.

lordkrandel 1y ago

When will technology leaders step back and be just technology leaders instead of blabbering unrequested political opinions?

darthrupert 1y ago
When people stop reacting to them.
- lordkrandel 1y ago
  I doubt being silence makes bullies shut up. Generally, they show up in favorable environments, where the voice of reason is absent, and no adult is caring about what's going on in the room. But being just silence? Just makes them worse.
  - darthrupert 1y ago
    I'm not talking about the people who you think are "adults" (I assume you mean people whose opinions mostly matches yours), I mean everyone. They wouldn't talk about this if nobody was listening. And people wouldn't listen to them if they talked about things that are not problems.
    - lordkrandel 1y ago
      No, I don't really think so, people with power are listened to because they have power. Not because they say anything good or meaningful. Sometimes they speak hate. And even if you just don't listen, others may be listening, and will take you over. So, you really have to be aware of what people say. Pushing your hands against your ears won't save you.
      - darthrupert 1y ago
        One kind of pushing your hands against your ears is ignoring problems that other people are talking about when you're not comfortable with hearing about them.

lordkrandel 1y ago

And also behold: as the tide turns, red will turn to blue once again, when the people will realize that racism and tariffs won't bring the America great again you all aspire to. No, that's just a 1800's fever dream. Here we are, still firmly believing what we believed 2 years ago. You didn't "defeat" anyone. It's just that people like you are free to be more "cocky" because the government has your own color. But they will come after the Danish and South Africans when they will have no more targets, be aware.

u10 1y ago

Calling people Nazis is lazy, and way more often then not, wrong. That being said, acting as if actions and words can exist in a vacuum and immune from any sort of criticism, feedback, or debate is an incredible amount of arrogance. What DHH said about London is deeply problematic, bigoted, and frankly doesn't make any sense. If he doesn't want any criticism for his views he shouldn't be saying them! Free speech goes both ways. Either take the lumps on the chin and quit complaining about people being mean, or shut the fuck up. Does not make him a Nazi though.

cocoricamo 1y ago
That's precisely the issue. There's a subset of the community that resorts to labeling anyone they deem guilty of wrongthink as a nazi or fascist and is the same crew that preach the "punch a nazi" line. If it was just a normal exchange of ideas it wouldn't matter and DHH would be just whining, but first response was "he's a nazi" "lets take away his project". There's crazier stuff in Lunduke's tweets from days ago including death threats and inciting violence against him on public events. I knew he was disliked by a large chunk of the OSS community but to threaten to kill people because someone attends a conference is crazy. That is not the way to behave in a civilized society and is time people stop bending backwards to appease the lunatics otherwise there's no telling when any of us will be on the wrong end of the mob.
- bigyabai 1y ago
  > I knew he was disliked by a large chunk of the OSS community You sound unfamiliar with him. Lunduke occupies the "Luke Smith" valley of pundits who do not actually contribute to Open Source. Even DHH actually does something, Lunduke's claim to fame is politicizing technology and amplifying an unnecessary culture war. There is no open discussion surrounding how much he contributes, he is a heckler and does nothing else. His bus factor has long since passed a negative quotient. Now obviously that does not excuse violence against his person. But there is no pretending that he's not controversial; that's the name he's made for himself. It's one that he can feel very comfortable with online, but much less so in a place like America where firearms laws are so relaxed and politically motivated violence never leaves the news cycle. It's a tragic status-quo for America, but Lunduke is the last person I'll feel sorry for. When the mob comes for him, it's because he was goading them from the sideline. He'd have done well for himself if he put his passion into something productive like Kling or Eich did.

mkfs 1y ago

The problem with this essay (besides DHH's hyperbolic prose, e.g., "woke orthodoxies") is that DHH, not having grown up in the US, doesn't realize that the normalization of violence in response to speech actually represents a substantial deviation from historic American norms. The ACLU was once one of the preeminent leftwing political organizations in America, and it distinguished itself through unwavering advocacy on behalf of ALL forms of offensive speech, including flag burning and extreme pornography, but also extremist politics. Progressives who thought the answer to bad speech was more speech and that sunlight was the best disinfectant were once plentiful. Then in the 2010s, the "punch/kill Nazis/fascists" messaging took off, and now the consensus position on the left is that it's acceptable to use violence in response to speech: https://www.cato.org/blog/51-strong-liberals-say-its-morally-acceptable-punch-nazis https://www.cato.org/blog/51-strong-liberals-say-its-morally... DHH's misstep is that he's resorting to arguing he and others are being falsely labeled as "Nazis," but conceding, even implicitly, the assumption that it's OK to respond to speech (and only rightwing speech; "tankies" and Sharia-pushing Islamists always fit through the Overton window) with violence is already surrendering too much.

watwut 1y ago
> doesn't realize that the normalizing of violence in response to speech actually represents a substantial deviation from historic American norms. What alternative history you are talking about here? Also, right wing actors including Kirk himself were promoting violence for years already. As far as American right wing goes, violence is a cool thing that makes you manly man. It is just that it should go one way only - from them to others.
- mkfs 1y ago
  > Also, right wing actors including Kirk himself were promoting violence for years already I'm specifically referring to the left's acceptance of violence in response to political speech, for which there is no equivalent consensus on the right, for example, that they can and should go around assaulting Marxists, Islamists, or others with whom they fundamentally disagree. And Kirk, for whatever faults he had, and however performative were his events, sought to debate his opponents--not encourage his followers to assault them. I couldn't find anything about him "promoting violence for years."

darthrupert 1y ago

I agree with the main concern DHH correctly points out here, that some spaces (mostly inhabited by leftists) are currently calling a lot of people nazis who clearly are not nazis. And they're quite obviously gaslighting the idea that hurting these people is ok. What people like DHH et al seem to be completely blind about is that the right has been doing this for decades, if not centuries. That is not justification for the left to do the same thing, but at least the other side should acknowledge that and try to move on instead of just perpetuating the cycle.

dismalaf 1y ago
> right has been doing this for decades Ironically whatabouttism is literally a Soviet/Russian propaganda technique...
- leosanchez 1y ago
  Didn't the person agree with DHH in the first paragraph ?

LightBug1 1y ago

JFC ... what the hell happened to this guy? He's really gone off the deep end ...

frou_dh 1y ago

Like him or loathe him, DHH is a serial winner. So today's petition¹ is tomorrow's fish and chips wrapper. ¹ https://github.com/Plan-Vert/open-letter https://github.com/Plan-Vert/open-letter

lordkrandel 1y ago
Being "a winner" means nothing. It's just another cringe self-appointed crappy nonsense writer that thinks he's better than you, better than immigrants (after being one in the US), better than everyone else. It's just the attitude of someone who wants to control you just because he has money and power. Have the courage to dissent from the racist propaganda he's putting around.
- frou_dh 1y ago
  I'm saying you need to bring your A-game to actually win against him in the online and particularly the Rails sphere - a formulaic petition isn't it. Even Apple found him hard to handle re the HEY iOS app.
  - lordkrandel 1y ago
    You don't fight bullies by just being better, I'm sorry.
bigyabai 1y ago
"Like him or loathe him, Photomatt is a serial winner. So today's lawsuit is tomorrow's yacht money."

akimbostrawman 1y ago

Yes that is ofc the plan. It's just part of today's double speak by the most "tolerant and empathetic" group.