Complaining that they give money to people you don't like is not a good look when you want them to give money to people you do like.
Complaining that they give money to people you don't like is not a good look when you want them to give money to people you do like.
Because being friendly works doesn't work. Open source maintainers have been screaming about funding for years. One dude comes along, adds some scripts on top of all the work of those maintainers, and gets millions in funding?
You can't expect people to be nice then. It's completely messed up.
"One dude" that has been one of the lead and most well known contributors to open source for decades now.
If Linus Torvalds published it I don't think that would make it worth throwing millions of dollars at. When you stop paying for one thing and start paying for another, you're making a value statement about what you care about.
Framework tried contributing money to GNOME recently. Sadly they also contributed some to Hyprland and Omarchy. As a result, Jordan Petridis / Alatiera of GNOME said they must "contain Hitler particles" to even consider sponsoring... a window manager and a Linux distro.
GNOME declined the money.
Framework also offered money to KDE. KDE accepted the money.
Framework released a computer that ran Fedora KDE: Freedesktop.org Code of Conduct committee member starts crying about the fascism of it.
Later, when DHH got the Omacom foundation's money pledges in, he contacted Arch/AUR people to see about sending some money or resources their way. They declined.
Some reactions on Mastodon to the Omacom announcements:
PostmarketOS dev: "nothing quite as depressing as seeing a fascist get 8 mil and corpo backing to keep building their 'distro' while not even having the funds to hire folks to work full time.
Elementary OS dev to that: "yeah it seems the trick to financial success is to do as much harm as possible"
And they go on to compare Omarchy to servants of the Chaos God Khorne in Warhammer. You know, a god of bloodshed and warfare. Blood for the Blood God, Skulls to the Skull Throne.
Meanwhile, eg. everything I've ever seen of Vaxry has been orders of magnitude more normal than raving about Hitler particles, and somehow he has a multiyear sponsorship to work on Hyprland fulltime, the maker of Quickshell got hired by Omacom, and some other projects they use have received sponsorships. Only Arch declined.
> One dude comes along, adds some scripts on top of all the work of those maintainers, and gets millions in funding?
Said guy moved most of his own company to that distro, and he and his business partner each put down a million dollars of their own money. Just a while ago, when the foundation paperwork wasn't done yet, DHH said the Vaxry and outfoxxed sponsorships came out of his pocket in case there was a snag with setting up the foundation.
> You can't expect people to be nice then. It's completely messed up.
People seem to have been capable of not shouting about Hitler particles, and somehow it's those people who've been sponsored now that one dude managed to scrounge up serious money. Funny, that.
In this case CSS-Tricks got paid $4m first, so probably the wrong entity to be complaining about funding. But maybe the lead editor in question who’s not the creator didn’t see much of that?
CSS-Tricks didn't get paid $4m. They got acquired. The previous owner of CSS-Tricks got $4m.
Got acquired => got paid. CSS-Tricks the entity (up to the point of acquisition) got paid the money. If and how the money was divided between the people involved doesn’t seem be public info.
It wasn't divided.
[flagged]
"people you do like" in this case refers to a website that DigitalOcean owns. "people you don't like" is a singular (racist) guy who slapped a bunch of scripts on top of Arch and somehow receives hundreds of thousands of dollars for it.
[flagged]
That's the verbiage racists use to try to make it sound like it's not racism.
Spoiler: it's racism.
Do you think if the immigrants didn't change the situation for the worse, he'd be making the same arguments? I doubt it.
-- cultural non-fit, rather than racist
Incredible
Imagine there is a latin dance club, most want to dance rumba. But a pair who happens to be of other race wants to dance tango. Would sending them to another dance club be racist?
If some behavior associates with race, it doesn't mean that it is caused by race. There are plenty of African or Muslim origin people who assimilate just fine. It's just that a larger proportion than natives, some "other" groups commit more crime or live off of welfare. Race associates with less merit, yes, but doesn't cause it. Cause is merit, not race, hence not racism.
Imagine you're making a pizza, but you're out of pepperoni. Your mother-in-law is allergic to bacon. Now imagine I'm leaving your house and riding my bike into the sunset.
Like I said, if an attribute is statistically associated with another, then one doesn't cause the other. Proportionally larger part of the immigrants produce less value to society and come to consume away what the natives produced, then basis for reducing immigration or "remigration" is merit, not race.
If you are unable to point errors in this line of thought, then making fun of it will unfortunately make your stance look even weaker.
If you believe and promote racist shit like this you produce negative value to society
You'll need to point out where I'm wrong to make any progress here.
I guess you haven't felt the consequences yourself yet.
-- Proportionally larger part of the immigrants produce less value to society and come to consume away what the natives produced
This is absolute nonsense in every way, in addition to being racist and xenophobic. You aren't special because you won the lottery of what line you were born inside of. Get over yourself.
Do you think migrants from, say, Mexico to the US or Morocco to Spain, are skilled workers?
Also, unfortunately the lottery is real: while there are productive people who become wealthy mostly due to their own effort, there are many more who are just born into a well off country and benefit from the history before. But the question is, should a country that is well off somehow let everyone in to enjoy these benefits because it is "fair"? I guess your answer is yes, mine is no. I'd say, if you drew the less good lottery ticket then it's up to you to climb the ladder, rather than get into a rich country and start using its social services.
They absolutely are skilled workers, more skilled than you for sure. And they contribute a great deal to the country while not getting the benefits of being citizens, they pay way more taxes than the limited services they use.
And there is no ladder to climb, it is nearly impossible to migrate legally and gain citizenship. One of the many big lies of xenophobic, racist, anti-immigration people is "they should do it the right way, come legally" when for the overwhelming majority of people it simply isn't possible, and the current admin is making it even harder, motivated purely by racism.
Another one of the big lies, one that you are doing here, is wildly overstating the extent to which they "enjoy the benefits". Mexican immigrants are not eligible for most of the services provided to citizens.
Every attempt at quantifying the impact of Mexican immigration to the US is overwhelmingly positive to the country. You have nothing to stand on but racism.
You start with a terrible analogy, and then you make a leap into saying false, racist things about crime. Incredible.
Immigrants commit fewer crimes
Also, Muslim is a religion not a race
I don't think DHH speaks for all immigrants, but specific subgroups, including Muslims, but others as well.
Race and racism are terms you have brought in. (And I guess this is another reason where my arguments aren't actually "racist"?)
"He's not talking about all immigrants, just the brown ones"
Dig up man
None of the discussions on sending migrants out or being stricter on immigration is about color or race in principle. The issues are that legal processes aren't followed for immigration, or that the other cultures bring a disproportionate amount of new forms of crime.
Since enforcing laws and fighting crime is what states are doing anyway, then doing them more on immigrants achieves that goal more. (The situation is of course also unfortunate for any decent immigrants, as it will be more difficult for them to enter.)
But it's you who for some reason turns the merit argument into a race one. They do conflate, yes, perhaps that is why you can't tell the difference?
You keep saying things that are blatantly false. Immigrants commit fewer crimes. There is no legal process that will allow the vast majority of immigrants to migrate legally.
There is absolutely no merit based argument against the immigrants who are here or trying to come here. It's completely about race no matter how hard you try to deny it. No one is buying this nonsense.
Based on his own blog post (https://web.archive.org/web/20250925050154/https://world.hey...) I would argue he does come off as racist.
There are a lot of non-white british people (just like there are non-white americans), and he basically ignores that entire population. He assumes that you are only british if you are white and that london is worse now because there are less whites there. That has nothing to do with meritocracy, and arguable little to do with cultural non-fit.
There's a lot more to unpack in that article aside from just that, but that is the most blatantly obvious one.. And for what it's worth, I don't disagree with DHH on mass immigration. But he seems to have a lot more severe beliefs than just "mass immigration is bad".
> There are a lot of non-white british people (just like there are non-white americans), and he basically ignores that entire population.
There are many people who are mostly or wholly culturally British. I am not white and I live in the north of England and the biggest cultural non-fit is that my speech is obviously southern.
London does not, on the whole, feel very different culturally, from when I grew up there in the 80s. The biggest change in terms of the cultural impact of immigrants has been that of Eastern Europeans: things such as the availability if Polish food.
The issue is likely that readers for whom DHH sounds racist have (1) read the accusative fluff about him, and (2) then read some sentences in the blog post(s). If you read more, watched interviews or asked him directly, you'd get that it's less about race and more about merit. It's just that these attributes correlate (which is not racism).
I strongly disagree. I listened to a few of his interviews (one was the 5 hour long lex interview), and read the entirety of his more inflammatory blog posts. In one of them he specifically says he doesn't like modern London because it's not full of native british people, but what he really means is he doesn't like it because it's not full of white british people. Of course he doesn't say this outright but if you look up the statistics he sites you can see for yourself that he excludes asian, black and mixed british people from the statistic he lists. This is just one specific example.
I do think he also supports merit based immigration, but that doesn't mean he's not racist. He also very openly supports very extreme right wing political figures that promote things like ethnic cleansing. If you look into it more, he is pretty blatantly racist.
[flagged]
I think it’s a very good look when the people you complain about are racists.
The racist accusation has been overused so much it's not just having diminishing returns, it's having no effect. If you can't argue someone's point but just throw labels at them, you are going to lose because the labels lose value the more broadly you apply them.
And that will allow the real racists to walk right through your gates because you can no longer identify them when everyone you don't like is a racist.
This is the real racist, walking through the gate.
The label pretty obviously fits in this case though? No one is calling DHH racist as some sort of slur; they're just describing his system of beliefs.
[flagged]
There's a difference between when people have a platform. Made a mistake 10 years ago? Fine.
But that's very different than using your huge platform today to spread your hate.
Pretending those two are the same is dangerous. One of them does actual harm today.
[flagged]
> Someone will dig through some old forums/news group/twitter posts that someone made and use that as a stick to beat them with.
This is not about digging up some old careless post. It’s about his current views which he posts proudly online.
I’ll note your post pulls a classic trick:
- these views are not that important to who he is
- anyway even if he did hold those views it’s not that big of a deal
- but also I agree with those views (even tho I am but a humble, reasonable centrist)
[flagged]
> Secondly, constantly berating him for having the wrong opinions and not explaining why those opinions are wrong are more likely to entrench his positions and anyone that is sympathetic to those opinions.
People have tried that.
DHH is at best a pseudo-intellectual troll.
[flagged]
I do indeed accuse him of being a pseudo-intellectual troll, and that is the kindest interpretation of things he has actually written, including “As I Remember London”, which is creepy, deliberately misleading, has clear white-nationalist subtext and openly supports a crooked bigoted thug.
[flagged]
Nope, sorry. There are things in that article that are really a long way beyond having been deceived. They cannot and must not be minimised in that way. And nobody who criticises them should feel any blame if he doubles down; he is a wealthy privileged white man who is solely responsible for the things he says.
> There are things in that article that are really a long way beyond having been deceived
I don't believe so. Can you explain exactly how it is impossible he is deceived?
> They cannot and must not be minimised in that way.
Why not? To me what I described is what fits 100%. You just asserting that is the case hasn't explained why I might be incorrect.
You clearly haven't taken what I've explained to you on board at all. I suggest you bother checking out any of how this occurs in any other conspiracy circles, e.g., UFOs or just watching something that promotes conspiracy theories, such as Hunting Hitler (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5248878/). It's the same mechanism, just a different form.
> And nobody who criticises them should feel any blame if he doubles down; he is a wealthy privileged white man who is solely responsible for the things he says.
I am not saying people should feel blame for criticising him. I am saying that should be blamed for brow-beating him.
Are you telling me he cannot be deceived because he is wealthy? Plenty of wealthy and privileged people are/have been deceived.
I am not going to waste my time watching videos about UFO nuts to try to gain insight into why what DHH said about London is somehow a result of him being deceived and not his own fully formed opinions that he affirmed by deliberately writing them in his blog.
He is a grown man. Be serious.
All you are telling me is that you are going to be wilfully ignorant. That is intellectually dishonest.
Constantly reiterating that he can't have been deceived when I've told you how it happens to people and there are similar examples elsewhere is being an ignoramus.
Is he, or is he not, fully responsible for the words in his blog that he wrote a year ago and has not amended or corrected despite very clear corrections of his misstatements of fact? (This is not even the only article where he has done that)
I don’t really give a crap if he was deceived, or how much pushback he gets, or whether he feels trapped by his own actions. He’s a big boy, he wrote what he wrote.
What he wrote is xenophobic pseudo intellectual nonsense tinged with white nationalist tropes, in support of a crook and a thug, and he is a fully grown man who is responsible for his own words on a commercial blogging platform he runs. He has access to all the same sources of information anyone else has.
You can call me names all you like but I think it’s kind of weird that you would go to bat for him like this.
What I find strange is that you said specifically that he couldn't have been deceived and then described Tommy Robinson as a crook. Your internal logic isn't consistent.
What I am trying to explain to you is that this may not be because he is some sort of unrepentant racist. It happens because it is partly a reaction to people like you who are preachy and moralistic and due to him listening to the wrong people after his worldview is rocked.
DHH probably sees the information you are referring to as being manipulated because he has been deceived. He literally doesn't believe that, so arguing from that starting point is completely pointless.
I've fallen down the political/conspiracy rabbit hole myself. I've seen it happen to other people. So I can empathise with someone else doing the same. Just because he has money doesn't mean he is immune to this.
The fact that you are unwilling to even bother entertaining any explanations is a moral failing on your part.
> You can call me names all you like but I think it’s kind of weird that you would go to bat for him like this.
You were unwilling to bother doing some basic investigation. This is quite frankly unacceptable tbh, especially after you expressed such strong views. That is being wilfully ignorant.
Also, there is nothing weird about what I am saying at all. I suspect, like others have done to me, you just want to call me a secret fascist simply because I don't want to condemn someone because they have expressed an unpopular viewpoint.
I am also fed up of this being brought up every time the project is mentioned. I am not the only one that is fed up of this sort of stuff. Recently I had two friends fall out recently over the Russo-Ukraine war. One of them simply said, "Look, dude, I don't care, I am bored of hearing it." The other lost the plot. I've also said this to some people I know someone on the right when they start going on about woke shite and leave our convo group after we said "I don't care about this stuff".
Why are you comparing someone that said a mild anti-abort thing to DHH tho? can you describe with your words what is DHH main talking points? mild racism? mild eugenics?
[flagged]
You don't see anything wrong with his posts because you hold similar beliefs, you are just putting yourself in the center, which is typical.
[flagged]
totally the same thing guys! comparison is my passion!
No idea who Jeff Geerling is, but about Rossman: He has his opinion about trans people. Some people have the opinion that he is a bigot as a consequence of that. I don't see the issue with that? Also, it's not like he'll lose his platform or his company over that, so I doubly don't see the issue here?
[flagged]
they arent being called racist, they are racist. not a small difference there.
[flagged]
DHH is pretty evidently racist in a lazily-disguised form, and he sounds a lot like a wealthy 1930s pro-Nazi pseudointellectual when he spouts off.
He's also spoken in favour of an agitator who appears intent on sparking a race-and-religion-driven civil inflagration in the UK.
Pretty solidly applicable terms, I am sorry to say.
Maybe no worse than JD Vance, Pete Hegseth or Trump, but then none of those people are figuratively one of our own.
[flagged]
"People you don't like" is a great euphemism for racists
[flagged]
No it isn't
not in this context, though?
In this case you can judge for yourself if it's an overreaction. https://world.hey.com/dhh/wolves-sheep-and-gypsies-ba44af6a
Wow. You can make your own conclusions, but my money is not exactly going to flow into DigitalOcean's pocket in the near future.
Holy shit, that blog post was insane. He's clearly a racist twat.
[dead]
[flagged]
> Is gypsy even a race?
Proudly ignorant and supportive of racism. Typical.
I don't support vagrancy and shitting in bushes. I would think most people can agree with that. That's a pretty low bar. You're the only one seeing races here.