3 ms·

> The donations are 100% budy-budy and rich kids rubbing shoulders. Nothing else / more than that. Means that you haven't been looking. Your 100% figure is inc

> The donations are 100% budy-budy and rich kids rubbing shoulders. Nothing else / more than that. Means that you haven't been looking. Your 100% figure is incorrect for the mere fact of Omarchy having hundreds of ordinary people as patrons. https://www.zeffy.com/en-US/donation-form/omarchy-patronage https://www.zeffy.com/en-US/donation-form/omarchy-patronage

soraminazuki 21d ago
The most heavily astroturfed distro on earth right now gathering hundreds of small donations have zero bearing on the bigger picture.
- machomaster 21d ago
  80k of donations in less than 2 weeks is quite a lot, compared to a lot of other open-source projects. Heck, Linux Mint gets 15k a month. And yeah, you are missing the point. The original claim was about 100% of money coming from DHH's friends/buddies/rich kids, and from far-right at that. Hundreds of public donations was merely the sinplest way to debunk the ridiculous claim. The original claim was false. If we go deeper, we can easily deduct that not only is the 100% number in the claim not correct, but that wherever it might (sic!) be arguably (sic!) correct, even then the number is close to 0%.
  - soraminazuki 21d ago
    > And yeah, you are missing the point. I think I'm pretty on point if someone insists on focusing on trivial technicalities while ignoring the bigger picture.
    - machomaster 20d ago
      Almost always, using absolutes is unwarranted and a sign of stupidity. When the minimal effort to showcase this was used, the stupid argumentation suddenly became "trivial technicalities", in an attempt to escape the accountability after the essense was called into question. If the stupidity displayed was so very much trivial, what does it say about the person who said such clearly incorrect and dubious things initially?
      - soraminazuki 20d ago
        Nitpicking on a rhetorical exaggeration is a form of fallacy, not a serious rebuttal. Throwing in words like "accountability" while doing so makes it look even more unserious. But I'm sure a smart person who couldn't resist the urge to say "stupid" 3 times in one reply can figure that out for themselves.
        machomaster 19d ago
        Saying stuff without thinking is stupid. Not taking responsibility when the stupidity gets called out, is cowardly. Trying to use the "it was joke, maaan" is childish.
        soraminazuki 19d ago
        What's your idea of a smart responsible adult then? Is it continuing to push on a red herring after being called out thrice? Putting words into someone's mouth instead of honestly engaging with what's being actually said? Attacking your opponent for someone else's actions out of desperation? Throwing a tantrum and resorting to crude insults when challenged? All of this just to defend a white suprematist? Sheesh. By all means keep doing what you're doing. Just don't act surprised when people don't look up to you and take your words with respect.
        machomaster 18d ago
        > Putting words into someone's mouth instead of honestly engaging with what's being actually said? Very poor coming from you.

soraminazuki 21d ago

The most heavily astroturfed distro on earth right now gathering hundreds of small donations have zero bearing on the bigger picture.

machomaster 21d ago
80k of donations in less than 2 weeks is quite a lot, compared to a lot of other open-source projects. Heck, Linux Mint gets 15k a month. And yeah, you are missing the point. The original claim was about 100% of money coming from DHH's friends/buddies/rich kids, and from far-right at that. Hundreds of public donations was merely the sinplest way to debunk the ridiculous claim. The original claim was false. If we go deeper, we can easily deduct that not only is the 100% number in the claim not correct, but that wherever it might (sic!) be arguably (sic!) correct, even then the number is close to 0%.
- soraminazuki 21d ago
  > And yeah, you are missing the point. I think I'm pretty on point if someone insists on focusing on trivial technicalities while ignoring the bigger picture.
  - machomaster 20d ago
    Almost always, using absolutes is unwarranted and a sign of stupidity. When the minimal effort to showcase this was used, the stupid argumentation suddenly became "trivial technicalities", in an attempt to escape the accountability after the essense was called into question. If the stupidity displayed was so very much trivial, what does it say about the person who said such clearly incorrect and dubious things initially?
    - soraminazuki 20d ago
      Nitpicking on a rhetorical exaggeration is a form of fallacy, not a serious rebuttal. Throwing in words like "accountability" while doing so makes it look even more unserious. But I'm sure a smart person who couldn't resist the urge to say "stupid" 3 times in one reply can figure that out for themselves.
      - machomaster 19d ago
        Saying stuff without thinking is stupid. Not taking responsibility when the stupidity gets called out, is cowardly. Trying to use the "it was joke, maaan" is childish.
        soraminazuki 19d ago
        What's your idea of a smart responsible adult then? Is it continuing to push on a red herring after being called out thrice? Putting words into someone's mouth instead of honestly engaging with what's being actually said? Attacking your opponent for someone else's actions out of desperation? Throwing a tantrum and resorting to crude insults when challenged? All of this just to defend a white suprematist? Sheesh. By all means keep doing what you're doing. Just don't act surprised when people don't look up to you and take your words with respect.
        machomaster 18d ago
        > Putting words into someone's mouth instead of honestly engaging with what's being actually said? Very poor coming from you.