5 ms·

> blabbering unrequested political opinions There is a politically-motivated open letter seeking to cancel him: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45366312 h

by srid 1y ago

> blabbering unrequested political opinions There is a politically-motivated open letter seeking to cancel him: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45366312 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45366312 | https://x.com/tobi/status/1970944464303923687 https://x.com/tobi/status/1970944464303923687 Instead of suggesting that DHH stay silent, your online verbal energy would be best directed towards the politicaly supporters of that open letter, wouldn't you say? Who do you think are the actual political agitaters in tech?

lordkrandel 1y ago
I think they are perfectly right. People have the right to disagree to the bad political opinions of the owner of a free software, and they're free to fork it. Racism is violence, and peaceful reaction to violence is disagreement, "agitation" as you call it.
- ilikehurdles 1y ago
  “Racism” is not violence. Words are not violence. This kind of discourse is disgusting and only encourages people to physically attack others over words.
  - lordkrandel 1y ago
    Racism is violence. Words ARE violence. Sorry if you live in a country where this is not a legal truth, but here in Europe it is. https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/hate-speech-versus-freedom-of-speech https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/... https://hatecrime.osce.org/hate-crime-legislation-italy https://hatecrime.osce.org/hate-crime-legislation-italy
    - ilikehurdles 1y ago
      Ignoring the fact that your second link has nothing to do with words being violence, your first argument is that words are violence if the law says that words are violence! That’s not demonstrating an ability to reason. If the law says Allah (or any other figure) is the one true god, is that then true? Laws can be wrong. They can be passed by motivated actors seeking to protect their own power and policy. Free speech means protecting speech which is offense. You don’t need free speech protection for inoffensive speech. Further, by equating speech to violence you’re allowing them to react with actual violence to defend themselves against views they don’t like. This is catastrophic for liberal society.
    - lordkrandel 1y ago
      > Ignoring the fact that your second link has nothing to do with words being violence You probably cannot read: Art. 604-bis [Propaganda and incitement to commit crime for discrimination on racial, ethnic and religious grounds] Unless the fact constitutes a more serious offence: a) whoever disseminates ideas based on racial superiority or racial/ethnic hatred, or incites to commit/commits discrimination acts on racial, ethnic, national or religious grounds shall be punished with imprisonment up to one year and six months or with a fine up to 6,000 euro;
      - ilikehurdles 1y ago
        Your replies are all over the thread. You’re right I didn’t read the entirety of both the links you outsourced your thinking to, but despite this, my point stands. You’d know this if you read past the first sentence.
    - cocoricamo 1y ago
      +100 social points as you were comrade
  - lordkrandel 1y ago
    If you just understand that reaction to violence is other violence, it's not my fault, it's a limit you have. Reaction to violence can be nonviolent protest. Strikes. Discussion. All the things you probably don't like. DHH can be racist as long as he wants, but he will face nonviolent consequences for what he says. Also legal ones, if what he says is not permitted in the country he lives in. So, if he links his software stuff, to his political views, sorry, but I will try and engage people to either disjoint the two, or boycott his software.
    - lordkrandel 1y ago
      > Laws can be wrong. Sure, but they are the way the people have voted for, and they have not been amended because people thought they were ok. That's democracy, the system you live in. If you're not democratic and you want to sabotage that, you might face the police. I do believe this law is right. And many people do so, and defend it. >Further, by equating speech to violence you’re allowing them to react with actual violence This is a total fallacy. You can react with disagreement, that can be non-violent. This is the mind of a violent person who thinks that the only reaction to violence is more violence. It's not like that. You choose yourself and take accountability for how you react.
      - ilikehurdles 1y ago
        You continue to reply to yourself, double post, etc. I’m not going to follow this mess any longer. The word violence implies your physical safety is under threat. By using this terminology you have escalated the situation from a debate into one where a party could justifiably violently suppress the other until they stop speaking. And your own replies here acknowledge this as a valid response. You think yourself too good to use it, but someone else won’t.
        lordkrandel 1y ago
        > The word violence implies your physical safety is under threat. No, that's a total fallacy. Theft is violence, there is no physical harm. Discrimination is violence, there is no physical harm. Demeaning and bullying is violence even through words and insults. Still no physical harm. And you can respond to violence with non-violent methods.
- hollerith 1y ago
  >Racism is violence In your opinion, is it OK for a private citizen (i.e., not the police) to use violence to stop someone from saying racist things? I ask because usually it is OK for a private citizen to use violence to stop violence.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
    > usually it is OK for a private citizen to use violence to stop violence Usually, it is okay for a private citizen to use physical violence to stop physical violence. It is (presumably) internally consistent for someone to answer your question negatively while still believing that racism is violence.
  - UncleMeat 1y ago
    Why does the police not count? Leveraging the state against people is violence.
    - hollerith 1y ago
      My questions were about when (in what circumstances) violence is OK (morally acceptable) not about the definition of violence.
- dismalaf 1y ago
  > they're free to fork it. They are. They didn't fork it though. They just banned a bunch of people from their Discord server, tried to bully people on social media and wrote a README file.
- tim333 1y ago
  Not using language in the normal dictionary way. If I say there are too many white guys that's not the same as punching someone.

by srid 1y ago

lordkrandel 1y ago

I think they are perfectly right. People have the right to disagree to the bad political opinions of the owner of a free software, and they're free to fork it. Racism is violence, and peaceful reaction to violence is disagreement, "agitation" as you call it.

ilikehurdles 1y ago
“Racism” is not violence. Words are not violence. This kind of discourse is disgusting and only encourages people to physically attack others over words.
- lordkrandel 1y ago
  Racism is violence. Words ARE violence. Sorry if you live in a country where this is not a legal truth, but here in Europe it is. https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/hate-speech-versus-freedom-of-speech https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/... https://hatecrime.osce.org/hate-crime-legislation-italy https://hatecrime.osce.org/hate-crime-legislation-italy
  - ilikehurdles 1y ago
    Ignoring the fact that your second link has nothing to do with words being violence, your first argument is that words are violence if the law says that words are violence! That’s not demonstrating an ability to reason. If the law says Allah (or any other figure) is the one true god, is that then true? Laws can be wrong. They can be passed by motivated actors seeking to protect their own power and policy. Free speech means protecting speech which is offense. You don’t need free speech protection for inoffensive speech. Further, by equating speech to violence you’re allowing them to react with actual violence to defend themselves against views they don’t like. This is catastrophic for liberal society.
  - lordkrandel 1y ago
    > Ignoring the fact that your second link has nothing to do with words being violence You probably cannot read: Art. 604-bis [Propaganda and incitement to commit crime for discrimination on racial, ethnic and religious grounds] Unless the fact constitutes a more serious offence: a) whoever disseminates ideas based on racial superiority or racial/ethnic hatred, or incites to commit/commits discrimination acts on racial, ethnic, national or religious grounds shall be punished with imprisonment up to one year and six months or with a fine up to 6,000 euro;
    - ilikehurdles 1y ago
      Your replies are all over the thread. You’re right I didn’t read the entirety of both the links you outsourced your thinking to, but despite this, my point stands. You’d know this if you read past the first sentence.
  - cocoricamo 1y ago
    +100 social points as you were comrade
- lordkrandel 1y ago
  If you just understand that reaction to violence is other violence, it's not my fault, it's a limit you have. Reaction to violence can be nonviolent protest. Strikes. Discussion. All the things you probably don't like. DHH can be racist as long as he wants, but he will face nonviolent consequences for what he says. Also legal ones, if what he says is not permitted in the country he lives in. So, if he links his software stuff, to his political views, sorry, but I will try and engage people to either disjoint the two, or boycott his software.
  - lordkrandel 1y ago
    > Laws can be wrong. Sure, but they are the way the people have voted for, and they have not been amended because people thought they were ok. That's democracy, the system you live in. If you're not democratic and you want to sabotage that, you might face the police. I do believe this law is right. And many people do so, and defend it. >Further, by equating speech to violence you’re allowing them to react with actual violence This is a total fallacy. You can react with disagreement, that can be non-violent. This is the mind of a violent person who thinks that the only reaction to violence is more violence. It's not like that. You choose yourself and take accountability for how you react.
    - ilikehurdles 1y ago
      You continue to reply to yourself, double post, etc. I’m not going to follow this mess any longer. The word violence implies your physical safety is under threat. By using this terminology you have escalated the situation from a debate into one where a party could justifiably violently suppress the other until they stop speaking. And your own replies here acknowledge this as a valid response. You think yourself too good to use it, but someone else won’t.
      - lordkrandel 1y ago
        > The word violence implies your physical safety is under threat. No, that's a total fallacy. Theft is violence, there is no physical harm. Discrimination is violence, there is no physical harm. Demeaning and bullying is violence even through words and insults. Still no physical harm. And you can respond to violence with non-violent methods.
hollerith 1y ago
>Racism is violence In your opinion, is it OK for a private citizen (i.e., not the police) to use violence to stop someone from saying racist things? I ask because usually it is OK for a private citizen to use violence to stop violence.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
  > usually it is OK for a private citizen to use violence to stop violence Usually, it is okay for a private citizen to use physical violence to stop physical violence. It is (presumably) internally consistent for someone to answer your question negatively while still believing that racism is violence.
- UncleMeat 1y ago
  Why does the police not count? Leveraging the state against people is violence.
  - hollerith 1y ago
    My questions were about when (in what circumstances) violence is OK (morally acceptable) not about the definition of violence.
dismalaf 1y ago
> they're free to fork it. They are. They didn't fork it though. They just banned a bunch of people from their Discord server, tried to bully people on social media and wrote a README file.
tim333 1y ago
Not using language in the normal dictionary way. If I say there are too many white guys that's not the same as punching someone.