21–30 of 50 posts
> GitHub issues are disabled on this repo to keep it on-topic and reduce argumentative discussions that go nowhere. Feel free to discuss this in all the usual places though. I get that GitHub Issues for controversial repos tends to invite trolls, but "discuss this in all the usual places" guarantees there will be no traction.
You can still open PRs, like this one: https://github.com/Plan-Vert/open-letter/pull/32
From the linked DHH writing: “There's absolutely nothing racist or xenophobic in saying that Denmark is primarily a country for the Danes, Britain primarily a united kingdom for the Brits, and Japan primarily a set of islands for the Japanese.” To clarify, who are the Brits exactly? Do the Irish, Scottish, and Welsh count, and who gets to say that? Also, the Ainu were there before the Japanese.
Most Irish people would not take kindly to be called British, but then there’s Northern Ireland with all its complexities.
From the linked DHH writing: “There's absolutely nothing racist or xenophobic in saying that Denmark is primarily a country for the Danes, Britain primarily a united kingdom for the Brits, and Japan primarily a set of islands for the Japanese.” To clarify, who are the Brits exactly? Do the Irish, Scottish, and Welsh count, and who gets to say that? Also, the Ainu were there before the Japanese.
Great Britain is the big island next to Ireland. So the Scots, Welsh and English are British. Most Irish people would not take kindly to be called British, but then there’s Northern Ireland with all its complexities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I do think there are some interesting questions in this area, but the idea that a country is primarily a country for X is hugely problematic and racist in many parts of the world, and has led to countless civil wars. The most obvious one being “Israel is primarily a country for Israelis.” But one of the legacies of colonialism is the Middle East and Africa being carved up in lines that didn’t match the underlyi…
One of the core tenets of liberalism is that multi cultural societies and nations are just as good as mono cultural ones. what are you trying to imply here with the africa and middle eastern examples
From the linked DHH writing: “There's absolutely nothing racist or xenophobic in saying that Denmark is primarily a country for the Danes, Britain primarily a united kingdom for the Brits, and Japan primarily a set of islands for the Japanese.” To clarify, who are the Brits exactly? Do the Irish, Scottish, and Welsh count, and who gets to say that? Also, the Ainu were there before the Japanese.
Yeah, I do think there are some interesting questions in this area, but the idea that a country is primarily a country for X is hugely problematic and racist in many parts of the world, and has led to countless civil wars. The most obvious one being “Israel is primarily a country for Israelis.” But one of the legacies of colonialism is the Middle East and Africa being carved up in lines that didn’t match the underlyi…
That’s true in some parts of the world. But the opposite idea — that the people who’ve lived somewhere for thousands of years have no moral claim to their inheritance over the people who just arrived — has been equally destructive in other parts.
> one of the legacies of colonialism is the Middle East and Africa being carved up in lines that didn’t match the underlying cultural groups.
That’s a bad thing, is it? Is diversity not their strength?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I do think there are some interesting questions in this area, but the idea that a country is primarily a country for X is hugely problematic and racist in many parts of the world, and has led to countless civil wars. The most obvious one being “Israel is primarily a country for Israelis.” But one of the legacies of colonialism is the Middle East and Africa being carved up in lines that didn’t match the underlyi…
> the idea that a country is primarily a country for X is hugely problematic and racist in many parts of the world That’s true in some parts of the world. But the opposite idea — that the people who’ve lived somewhere for thousands of years have no moral claim to their inheritance over the people who just arrived — has been equally destructive in other parts. > one of the legacies of colonialism is the Middle East an…
They can just fork Rails right now, no need for dramatic open letters. As for trying to unseat the Rails founder and BDFL, no chance.
These people sound like they teleported straight out of a sociology classroom from 2017 or 2020 and didn’t catch what year it is. This whole puritanical bully culture is completely dead. Get out of your echochambers, and read the room already. If you think rails is worth forking, fork it. If you think it shouldn’t be used, don’t use it. If you can’t be around a diversity of viewpoints, especially opinions that offend…
They can just fork Rails right now, no need for dramatic open letters. As for trying to unseat the Rails founder and BDFL, no chance.
Forking is a political action that requires buy-in. Hence the letter.
For a political action, the blowback has been several thousand-fold larger than the support. So far I’ve seen the tailwind creator, shopify ceo, reactjs creator, creator of ladybird browser, writer of pragmatic engineer, many prominent people in the rails community, and so many others speak out against this fork.
The letter (more like a resume blacklist) has shown that the Overton window has shifted enough to where people can comfortably and publicly call out obviously dumb nonsense.