I think the most salient point for me is
"Is there any chance for these people, who are shielded by their well-paying jobs, their exclusively occupational media diet, and stimuli all happen to reinforce the default world view?"
So many people (mostly American men) are insulated from reality. To use their pejorative language - when it finally intrudes on their safe spaces, they turn into little snowflakes.
How is it possible to look at the infinite diversity in the tech world, with a million opinions on matters trivial and profound, and then declare that only you have all the right answers?
This is just a tired one at this point, The people who care have picked sides, the people who don't (are probably smarter for not caring) and no one who's picked a side is likely to change their mind.
I don't like what DHH has become or what he says (nor do I have any interest in Omarchy, I prefer Fedora (for many years)/KDE (recently but loving it) anyway) since "As I remember London[1]" was the final straw for me (of lots of straws) but on the flip side but if you only ever use software written by people you ideologically align with you are going to have a bad time.
It is ok to not use software by people you don't like. That's probably a large part of what drew people away from Microsoft, Oracle, etc.
Just like boycotting your favourite chocolate company because they try to undermine breastfeeding in developing countries. Yes, it hurts a little; that's the point of sacrifice.
The issue is that open aource is a community-based development model. If you let nazi's into your community, they will eventually drive away everyone else.
Not unique to Nazi's (though I wouldn't call DHH that either, I'd call him many other things but not that one) open communities (including societies as a whole) have that problem - the paradox of tolerance was written about in "The Open Society and its Enemies" 80 years ago - it isn't a new thing.
The issue is how wide the tolerance is before you decide as a group people need excluding, if you set that too narrow you end up with an immediate conflict, if you set it too wide you risk your open community becoming dominated by one group.
I'm centre left (by European standards) and would definitely be considered "woke" by the people who use it as a negative epithet but I think many open source communities set it too narrow still.
People have a right to their opinions even if I don't agree with them just as I do, there is a line where active opposition is required for me but a lot of the time I disagree with where that line is.
I'm also European and would identify as centre-left. DHH's opinions align with nazi opinions. He wants a return to tradition, is against equality, and speaks in favor of racially pure ethnostates. If it quacks like a nazi...
One reason to actively oppose DHH is that he actively opposes anyone who calls him out, going as far as squashing valid criticism at his own company and ousting them from positions in open source projects (the whole ruby central case).
Even if you don't think he's a nazi, he's shown himself to be a bad actor who doesn't play by the rules.
That's also a kind of behaviour that leads to community vibes going down the drain and other bad actors (nazi or not) taking over.
Where do you draw the line though?, from a centre left perspective someone who is center right is going to align more closely with a fascist than you are, it's applying a slippery slope argument to centrist politics, you can't just lump them together and write them off because they are a little right of you.
You can legitmately call out those people for the views they hold, you don't need call them something they aren't.
It would be as stupid as calling me a Stalinist because I'm slightly left of centre, it ends the debate because why would you debate someone you called a Stalinist.
I don't have to like DHH or his views but he's not a fascist.
You draw the line at people supporting violent criminals who want an ethnostate. That seems like a pretty straightforward one - and one which DHH has crossed.
If DHH wanted to argue about, say, different taxation strategies or deregulation or supporting our monarchy - those are all things which we can have a reasonable debate about. I don't have to agree on your stance on free school meals and student debt, but we can get along just fine.
https://gizmodo.com/godwin-of-godwins-law-by-all-means-compa...
exactly... people happily use software from Nazis (not that DHH is one) without knowing. The only difference is that DHH openly writes about his opinions (its called free speech).
Good luck to anyone wanting only ideologically compatible software. They'll end up with pretty much nothing left to use.
Same applies to companies that produce goods. It's a never ending hole.
What a nasty little diatribe.
Honestly can't understand why DHH is still getting support from corporate sponsors like Cloudflar and Framework. Hvae we really come to the point where we can fund the useless pet projects of nazis without even considering how it looks?
You have to believe people when they tell you who they are.
Cloudflare have always been like this. They previously defended hate speech because it made them money.
Some people are just nasty. They like to bully other people and now believe they have a social licence to do so.
That is a lie and you know it. It’s really exhausting seeing the pile on and the mob mentality. It truly brings out the ugliest people and the ugliest in people.
Whilst DHH is a lot of things (many unpleasant), I find it difficult to get behind someone's argument when they provide links to blog posts, but retitle them to suit their own agenda - it's disingenuous, bordering on deceit. Such subtle lies detract from the actual facts in that article and make me view the author with an air of skepticism.
Pity, because DHH is a weapons-grade plum, to borrow words from Sue Perkins, though she never used them against DHH - it's just an apt title.
I think the author has done an excellent job at saying what the articles are actually about.
If I write an essay called "I love cabbage" and then fill it with all the ways I hate cabbage, how would you link to it?
It's OK to call out people for being disingenuous.
I think the author has "done a job" saying what _he_ thinks the articles are about.
But he already primes the reader to take his viewpoint by shoving it in there, instead of treating the reader like a person able to make up their own mind, probably because he doesn't trust the reader to reach the exact same conclusion as he does.
I think you may have misunderstood the purpose of communication.
Do you friends say things like "You should watch this film, it is very funny" and "Don't watch that film, it is boring"? Or are they more likely to say "This is a film which exists" without context?
The purpose of communication is to express our ideas and convince people. It is entirely appropriate to say "Here is an article and some context you need to know before reading it."
That's especially true when the article hides its true intent. When DHH writes about supporting a violent and racist criminal (as he has) he doesn't say "I like this thug" - instead he attempts to hide that.
So, yes. Retitling the articles is an excellent way to cut through the double-speak presented in them.