Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A board member's perspective of the RubyGems controversy

apiguy.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 175 posts

Re: A board member's perspective of the RubyGems controversy

#141

Post by kgwgk »

____mr____ wrote: post #134
rramon wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tekin, what makes a Turk less white than a Greek or Spaniard? If it's cultural (religion, music/sports related subcultures and codes) then it's chosen. Nobody can force you into a subculture in the West. As soon as you turn 18 you can essentially do what you want, most likely even way before that. You can chose your subculture, how you dress, style your hair, talk and are read by the mainstream society. Actual racist…

Not really, racists often include ethnic features such as hair texture or even nose shape within their criteria for racial exclusion. While in certain cultural contexts Turks may be read as white, within Europe there is a history of excluding them from whiteness and presenting them as a threat to European culture, mostly due to Islamophobia

The last paragraph is funny because Turks themselves use the expression White Turks to refer to the modern/secular/Western (as opposed to the Black Turks, conservative/Islamist).

Re: A board member's perspective of the RubyGems controversy

#142

Post by em-bee »

simianparrot wrote: post #122
watwut wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word racism is not diluted. It is that just some full on racists feel like it says something negative and thus don't want the label put on racists stuff they like.

So do you consider what the Danish PM said racist? > There are really a lot of us Danes who believed that when people came to this ‘world’s best country’ and were given such good opportunities, they would integrate. They would become Danish, and they would never, ever harm our society. All of us who thought that way have been wrong. That's objectively observed reality in Denmark. And in Scandinavia in general. It's n…

They would become Danish

you have to retain a majority of that heritage, and integrate newcomers. Otherwise it's no longer Denmark.

what you are asking is not possible without rejecting immigration.

that is the delusion. it is the same all over europe. people expect 100% integration. yet at the same time, prejudices will reject them if they are not completely invisible. that is not possible, and it is not the integration i would want. i have written about this before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44746099

Re: A board member's perspective of the RubyGems controversy

#143

Post by simianparrot »

em-bee wrote: post #139
simianparrot wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DHH didn’t say he is against immigration. Neither did I. Why are you straw manning?

how is this not against immigration? https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64 London is no longer the city I was infatuated with in the late '90s and early 2000s. Chiefly because it's no longer full of native Brits. In 2000, more than sixty percent of the city were native Brits. By 2024, that had dropped to about a third. A statistic as evident as day when you walk the streets of London now. Copenhagen…

It’s being against unlimited, uncontrolled immigration. Is the difference not obvious?

Re: A board member's perspective of the RubyGems controversy

#144

Post by fredrikholm »

simianparrot wrote: post #121
fredrikholm wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm happy to say that ~80% of Sweden and Norway don't vote for right wing populist parties like SD and Fremskrittspartiet, so "vast majority of us" might be a bit of a stretch.

That's a misrepresentation of statistics though. FRP is the second largest party this election, with 23,8% of votes, only second to AP who got 28%. But many people won't vote based on the immigration issues, because so far, other issues are more pressing. But my point was that I am absolutely sure the majority of Norwegians _want Norway to remain a country that retains its cultural history_ while not being exclusive…

> That's a misrepresentation of statistics though.

I can't speak for Norway, but in Sweden the only party worth keeping an eye on that adheres to the usual combination of pro-Russia, anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, anti-EU rhetoric etc is Sverigedemokraterna (formerly Bevara Sverige Svenskt, a party based solely on the idea of an ethnostate). They're hovering around 20%.

> But my point was that I am absolutely sure the majority of Norwegians _want Norway to remain a country that retains its cultural history_ while not being exclusive to one ethnic group. It's about retaining a majority.

Is the existence of history dependent on the ethnicity of the person reading it? I'm sure you've met non-native people who are in all other respects very much Norwegian.

Unless you mean to imply that culture is constrained to genetics. I deeply hope that that is not what you meant.

> I don't understand why that sentiment is so problematic here on HN, because simultaneously people are clamoring for a Palestinian state for the Palestinian people.

How many Norwegian cities were leveled by bombs this year? How many were murdered by foreign military?

> Why can't Norway have a Norwegian state for the Norwegian people? Or Denmark? Or the UK?

They do. Here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK

All fully functioning sovereign states, all internationally recognized by their peers and enemies alike.

Re: A board member's perspective of the RubyGems controversy

#145

Post by em-bee »

simianparrot wrote: post #143
em-bee wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how is this not against immigration? https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64 London is no longer the city I was infatuated with in the late '90s and early 2000s. Chiefly because it's no longer full of native Brits. In 2000, more than sixty percent of the city were native Brits. By 2024, that had dropped to about a third. A statistic as evident as day when you walk the streets of London now. Copenhagen…

It’s being against unlimited, uncontrolled immigration. Is the difference not obvious?

no it isn't because everyone has a different idea what limited, controlled immigration means. for some 20% is ok, for some 10% is to much. and for some only those who can integrate to 100% and become invisible is ok. practically speaking, for most people controlled immigration means: only allow the people that we like, and don't allow any of the people that we don't like.

Re: A board member's perspective of the RubyGems controversy

#146

Post by simianparrot »

em-bee wrote: post #138
simianparrot wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a fellow Scandinavian, DHH is just writing what the vast majority of us think. And it isn’t racist. That word is being misused until it soon has no value left; you sure you want that?

it is xenophobia. rather widespread in europe unfortunately. xenopobia is not necessarily racism, but it is closely linked.

No it's not. Stop diluting terms. You're making this problem worse for everyone, even the people you think you're on the side of, whoever they might be.

Re: A board member's perspective of the RubyGems controversy

#147

Post by simianparrot »

em-bee wrote: post #145
simianparrot wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s being against unlimited, uncontrolled immigration. Is the difference not obvious?

no it isn't because everyone has a different idea what limited, controlled immigration means. for some 20% is ok, for some 10% is to much. and for some only those who can integrate to 100% and become invisible is ok. practically speaking, for most people controlled immigration means: only allow the people that we like, and don't allow any of the people that we don't like.

We will never solve the scale of what's acceptable or not. That will always require dialogue and will change over time with the economic state of a country and many other factors, including culture.

However this argument is usually used to imply "there should be no limits", and that's obviously not practical nor ethical for anyone involved.

Re: A board member's perspective of the RubyGems controversy

#149

Post by generalk »

runjake wrote: post #94
generalk wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, what? A maintainer of RubyGems was forcibly removed from the RubyGems GitHub org — which was renamed to Ruby Central — along with every other maintainer. Then access was restored, then revoked again. There was no explanation, no communication, and no understandable reasoning for this. And still! If there is an "official" statement, I can't find one on https://rubycentral.org/ . This wildly transcends "issues wi…

1. Visit https://rubycentral.org 2. Click News. 3. It’s the top item. Direct link: https://rubycentral.org/news/strengthening-the-stewardship-o...

I saw that. The title did not make me think it was related. But fair enough.

Re: A board member's perspective of the RubyGems controversy

#150

Post by scuff3d »

simianparrot wrote: post #117
scuff3d wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The venn diagram of actual racists and crazy racists is a circle.

So if I understand correctly, people want a state for the Palestinian people. But they do not accept that people want a state for the Danish people. Is that it?

This comment is so off the rails I'm not going to bother responding to it, but it does make me think about why political discourse is so deeply broken today.

When someone lives this far into an alternate relatity it leaves basically no room for discussion. The amount of work that has to be done just to get everyone back to some relative place of sanity is damn near insurmountable. It leaves no time or energy left to have an actual discussion.

Post reply on HN