7 ms·

> Personally I don't get the impression that Framework is endorsing a particular view, nor are they directly sponsoring a specific individual or their views. I

by konmok 10mo ago

> Personally I don't get the impression that Framework is endorsing a particular view, nor are they directly sponsoring a specific individual or their views. I agree. However, I do think that Framework is taking a particularly cowardly stance by refusing to acknowledge community concerns, and I think that kind of behavior is exactly how far-right groups gain power in tech spaces. When one group just wants to live in peace, and another group wants to make the first group disappear, organizations that don't distinguish between the two ultimately drive out the peaceful group.

dangus 10mo ago
I agree that your take is a very real thing. At the same time, I think there's a somewhat valid space for the psychology of this response. If I use Harry Potter as an example, I think Harry Potter fans fall in a handful of camps: 1. Agrees with JK Rowling on her anti-trans rhetoric 2. Grew up loving Harry Potter and detests JK Rowling's views, possibly to the point of a boycott 3. Has never heard of any of the controversy and is blissfully ignorant 4. Is aware of the controversy but never signed up for that discussion in the first place and is just here for wizard fiction, wishes the controversy never existed. I think the CEO of Framework is essentially going for #4 here, and I am quite mixed on whether that standpoint is enabling of problematic people or not. I can understand arguments both ways. For the role of a CEO, in this day and age, taking a polarized position does have the possibility of alienating half of your customer base, essentially a no-win scenario. #4 is also mixed with a sprinkle of "Sometimes saying too much and engaging too much in the argument is your own undoing and digging your own grave." Often CEOs that say nothing end up with better outcomes than those who take an active stance on issues. I can totally recognize that #4 is objectively more cowardly and less principled than #2, but I also don't know that we can expect 100% of generally good people to be freedom fighters.
- konmok 10mo ago
  Yeah, that's a good breakdown. I mean, he definitely brought this on himself by leaning so hard into Omarchy in the first place, but maybe he was just ignorant of DHH's views and thought that was a "neutral" thing to do. In any case, I think it's important for consumers to confront companies when they pull stunts like this. Also, I'm not certain that #4-type CEOs actually have better outcomes - maybe in the short term, but when the creeping technofascism becomes more obvious, that causes real problems (see e.g. NixOS, Tesla)
- zozzle 10mo ago
  JKR's views are pro-women, not anti-trans. The negative impact on women and girls is the reason why she's talking about this at all.
  - dangus 10mo ago
    “AH’s views are pro-Germany, not anti-Jew. The negative impact on Germany is the reason why she's talking about this at all.”
    - DANmode 10mo ago
      I don’t have a strong position in this chat, but you should know what you did there is such a fallacy there’s a name for it.
      - dangus 10mo ago
        It’s a fun one, though, because JKR’s whole life and works involve strong themes surrounding eugenics. So it’s really not that far of a stretch to make this association in her case. In her books the wizards fight against wizard Hitler and his eugenic holocaust. In real life, she engages in her own form of eugenic crusade where she believes the sex organs you are born with define your personality, identity, and your criminal tendencies.
    - zozzle 10mo ago
      JKR has never advocated violence, never denied anyone's humanity, and never called for any group to be eradicated. Hitler did all of those things on an industrial scale. What on earth compelled you to equate the most evil mass-murderer of the 20th century with a children's author and feminist who says sex is real and matters for women's rights and safety?
      - dangus 10mo ago
        Being less explicit about hate doesn’t make it not hate. JKR doesn’t believe trans women deserve rights that normal people have, and believes that they are inherently threatening to women just by existing. She wrote a book series about how your bloodline doesn’t define who you are as a person, and then turned around and decided that the sex organs you’re born with determine your propensity for criminality. For some reason she scapegoats a group of people representing less than 1% of the population for crime against women and it doesn’t make any statistical or logical sense to those of us who haven’t been living in a moldy flat sleeping on a bed of cash.

by konmok 10mo ago

dangus 10mo ago

I agree that your take is a very real thing. At the same time, I think there's a somewhat valid space for the psychology of this response. If I use Harry Potter as an example, I think Harry Potter fans fall in a handful of camps: 1. Agrees with JK Rowling on her anti-trans rhetoric 2. Grew up loving Harry Potter and detests JK Rowling's views, possibly to the point of a boycott 3. Has never heard of any of the controversy and is blissfully ignorant 4. Is aware of the controversy but never signed up for that discussion in the first place and is just here for wizard fiction, wishes the controversy never existed. I think the CEO of Framework is essentially going for #4 here, and I am quite mixed on whether that standpoint is enabling of problematic people or not. I can understand arguments both ways. For the role of a CEO, in this day and age, taking a polarized position does have the possibility of alienating half of your customer base, essentially a no-win scenario. #4 is also mixed with a sprinkle of "Sometimes saying too much and engaging too much in the argument is your own undoing and digging your own grave." Often CEOs that say nothing end up with better outcomes than those who take an active stance on issues. I can totally recognize that #4 is objectively more cowardly and less principled than #2, but I also don't know that we can expect 100% of generally good people to be freedom fighters.

konmok 10mo ago
Yeah, that's a good breakdown. I mean, he definitely brought this on himself by leaning so hard into Omarchy in the first place, but maybe he was just ignorant of DHH's views and thought that was a "neutral" thing to do. In any case, I think it's important for consumers to confront companies when they pull stunts like this. Also, I'm not certain that #4-type CEOs actually have better outcomes - maybe in the short term, but when the creeping technofascism becomes more obvious, that causes real problems (see e.g. NixOS, Tesla)
zozzle 10mo ago
JKR's views are pro-women, not anti-trans. The negative impact on women and girls is the reason why she's talking about this at all.
- dangus 10mo ago
  “AH’s views are pro-Germany, not anti-Jew. The negative impact on Germany is the reason why she's talking about this at all.”
  - DANmode 10mo ago
    I don’t have a strong position in this chat, but you should know what you did there is such a fallacy there’s a name for it.
    - dangus 10mo ago
      It’s a fun one, though, because JKR’s whole life and works involve strong themes surrounding eugenics. So it’s really not that far of a stretch to make this association in her case. In her books the wizards fight against wizard Hitler and his eugenic holocaust. In real life, she engages in her own form of eugenic crusade where she believes the sex organs you are born with define your personality, identity, and your criminal tendencies.
  - zozzle 10mo ago
    JKR has never advocated violence, never denied anyone's humanity, and never called for any group to be eradicated. Hitler did all of those things on an industrial scale. What on earth compelled you to equate the most evil mass-murderer of the 20th century with a children's author and feminist who says sex is real and matters for women's rights and safety?
    - dangus 10mo ago
      Being less explicit about hate doesn’t make it not hate. JKR doesn’t believe trans women deserve rights that normal people have, and believes that they are inherently threatening to women just by existing. She wrote a book series about how your bloodline doesn’t define who you are as a person, and then turned around and decided that the sex organs you’re born with determine your propensity for criminality. For some reason she scapegoats a group of people representing less than 1% of the population for crime against women and it doesn’t make any statistical or logical sense to those of us who haven’t been living in a moldy flat sleeping on a bed of cash.