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

Framework supporting far-right racists?

community.frame.work

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 92 posts

Re: Framework supporting far-right racists?

#81

Post by BoredPositron »

aeon_ai wrote: post #80
BoredPositron wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You wrote this: >> Omarchy is literally resulting in the sale of hundreds of framework devices, and (love it or hate it) causing a number of people to finally switch to Linux - myself included. Nice tweet but I have no idea who this influencer (your Lord and Savior LOL) is or what he has to do with framework sales. Despite your implications there is no mention of framework in the x thread either? Looking at his state…

You not knowing who ThePrimeagen is, or the size of his following/influence, is a 'you' problem, not a 'me' problem. Belief perseverance together with confirmation bias (and maybe a dash of ego protection) does indeed make for a powerful combo. Perhaps if I were to see a duck walking in the woods, instead of proclaiming that I see a duck, I should instead assert "I see something that looks like a duck, walks like a d…

You provided nothing not even a smidge besides anecdotes. Your influencer friend is indeed not my problem but YOU linked a thread of him about omarchy which has nothing to do with our discussion. Omarchy is trending yes. But we are talking about your claim that omarchy is driving sales of hundreds of framework devices and for that you are still coming up empty handed.

You talk much but it's consistently without substance and filled with condescending deflections or misdirection. Exactly like whatever this rambling is.

You are absolutely right that at the moment I am more interested to see you wiggle around some more or admitting that you in fact did make an unsubstantiated claim. I bet when I come from my run I will see another deflectory essay with some more attacks against my character and all because you needed to make something up because it sounded good. Can't wait.

Re: Framework supporting far-right racists?

#82

Post by conception »

eeeesh wrote: post #77
conception wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re: Illegal immigration - republicans voted against their own reforms. But also this is insane “both sides…”ing. One side is “Trans people should be able to do xyz” and the other side… deploys troops into American cities? Takes citizens out of their homes and trashes them? Like “We want this transperson to play soccer” vs “We gotta get rid of democrats”. Be real please.

Where " do xyz " means " gain access to opposite-sex spaces without consent of those for whom these spaces are intended ". This is an important issue for women and girls in particular, as female spaces are necessary for privacy, dignity and safety - and in the case of competitive sports (e.g. " play soccer "), fairness. If we're being real, telling males they can use women's and girls' spaces is very unpopular policy…

Sure I see that. But if you think this issue, which was manufactured (https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/no-link-between-tran..., https://www.thepinknews.com/2018/12/07/anti-trans-group-bath...) and not particularly thought out (you want a dude with a beard walking into the women’s bathrooms instead?) but if you are like “I care so much about this minor social issue that affects basically no one that has been going on for decades with zero incidents that I will turn a blind eye to a military force getting more funding than the NIH to roll around in masks, unmarked and take American citizens without due process and deport them illegally just as the one of many easily shown crimes (even before the gross Epstein stuff) then yeah sorry, you are on the wrong side of this. There is nothing to debate there. Like I don’t like a lot of democrat policies but I dislike authoritarian governments more and it boggles the mind that people equate the two. But then you remember how minority groups have been used forever to give governments the ability to control people through fear and prejudice and it all makes sense again. Pick the weakest group and make them the target. The most banal of playbooks.

Re: Framework supporting far-right racists?

#83

Post by eeeesh »

conception wrote: post #82
eeeesh wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where " do xyz " means " gain access to opposite-sex spaces without consent of those for whom these spaces are intended ". This is an important issue for women and girls in particular, as female spaces are necessary for privacy, dignity and safety - and in the case of competitive sports (e.g. " play soccer "), fairness. If we're being real, telling males they can use women's and girls' spaces is very unpopular policy…

Sure I see that. But if you think this issue, which was manufactured ( https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/no-link-between-tran... , https://www.thepinknews.com/2018/12/07/anti-trans-group-bath... ) and not particularly thought out (you want a dude with a beard walking into the women’s bathrooms instead?) but if you are like “I care so much about this minor social issue that affects basically no one that has been…

Women prisoners have been sexually assaulted, raped and impregnated by males who were transferred in to the female prison estate as a direct result of gender identity policies introduced by Democrats. These are some of the most vulnerable women in society and they've been sacrificed on the altar of authoritatian trans absurdity. They are a minority group that Democrat politicians happily discard and abuse and ignore.

This might just feel a minor social issue to you, but many people - including ones who usually vote Democrat - are looking at outcomes like this and wondering why on earth they should trust this party with anything.

That's not to say the Republicans are any better. There are two wrong sides here.

Re: Framework supporting far-right racists?

#84

Post by rakoo »

incomingpain wrote: post #24

When you run a business, you can’t realistically perform background checks on every partner or contributor. Many people will have said or believed evil things. If a company starts politically vetting everyone it interacts with, it risks alienating large parts of society and undermining its mission. The best thing you can do is have dialogue with those people; not cancel them. It also seems like some of the criticism…

> When you run a business, you can’t realistically perform background checks on every partner or contributor

You can, and that depends on whether you want to or not. No one forces you to run a business. You're not absolved of the chore of having a look at your supply chain just because you're disinterested in it

Re: Framework supporting far-right racists?

#85

Post by throw4f563e3 »

legitster wrote: post #25

The answer is no. Framework is not putting money into far right causes. They are paying for open source software. The politics of some of the contributors is questionable. But it's not illegal to have bad opinions and exercise free speech. And it's certainly not Frameworks job to morally vet every person they interact with. I do not need to know about the political opinions of the people who grow my food, or change m…

This is why I find the whole, “avoid Chinese products” doctrine to be silly as well.

Re: Framework supporting far-right racists?

#86

Post by hmry »

eeeesh wrote: post #83
conception wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure I see that. But if you think this issue, which was manufactured ( https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/no-link-between-tran... , https://www.thepinknews.com/2018/12/07/anti-trans-group-bath... ) and not particularly thought out (you want a dude with a beard walking into the women’s bathrooms instead?) but if you are like “I care so much about this minor social issue that affects basically no one that has been…

Women prisoners have been sexually assaulted, raped and impregnated by males who were transferred in to the female prison estate as a direct result of gender identity policies introduced by Democrats. These are some of the most vulnerable women in society and they've been sacrificed on the altar of authoritatian trans absurdity. They are a minority group that Democrat politicians happily discard and abuse and ignore.…

> Women prisoners have been sexually assaulted, raped and impregnated by males who were transferred in to the female prison estate

Those occurrences are terrible, no doubt about it.

When designing policy, we need to look at both directions: How many trans people get raped because they don't get transferred? So far all the data I have seen indicates that trans people are far more likely to be assaulted than to assault.

It seems to me that we should choose the option that results in the fewest assaults.

Re: Framework supporting far-right racists?

#87

Post by eeeesh »

hmry wrote: post #86
eeeesh wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Women prisoners have been sexually assaulted, raped and impregnated by males who were transferred in to the female prison estate as a direct result of gender identity policies introduced by Democrats. These are some of the most vulnerable women in society and they've been sacrificed on the altar of authoritatian trans absurdity. They are a minority group that Democrat politicians happily discard and abuse and ignore.…

> Women prisoners have been sexually assaulted, raped and impregnated by males who were transferred in to the female prison estate Those occurrences are terrible, no doubt about it. When designing policy, we need to look at both directions: How many trans people get raped because they don't get transferred? So far all the data I have seen indicates that trans people are far more likely to be assaulted than to assault…

The option that results in the fewest incidents of violence is segregation within the male prison estate. Which is already done for protection of vulnerable male prisoners incarcerated there. Pedophiles, ex-cops, gang informants, etc.

Democrat policy that enabled males to voluntarily transfer into women's prisons wasn't driven by analyzing data on male-on-male violence, but from the absurd belief that if a man says he's a woman then he is a woman.

That implementing this belief might have horrendous outcomes for female prisoners wasn't even a consideration. Even though this was pointed out to them many times over, by feminist groups and others. They just did it regardless.

Re: Framework supporting far-right racists?

#88

Post by hellcow »

veeti wrote: post #28
xqcgrek2 wrote: post #8

They're free to support Nazis, I'm free to not buy their product. Just make sure your favorite employer's IT department is aware of this before they make a purchase order.

Which ethical laptop would you recommend?

I'm getting an MNT Reform as my next PC, which is built by a small team of queer hackers in Germany prioritizing open hardware and software. It's not for everybody--it's friggin' huge and requires technical know-how. But it would work for a substantial subset of HN and it seems like it would work for me too.

Re: Framework supporting far-right racists?

#89

Post by jauntywundrkind »

legitster wrote: post #25

The answer is no. Framework is not putting money into far right causes. They are paying for open source software. The politics of some of the contributors is questionable. But it's not illegal to have bad opinions and exercise free speech. And it's certainly not Frameworks job to morally vet every person they interact with. I do not need to know about the political opinions of the people who grow my food, or change m…

It's hard for me to not see giving money to a small project run by a very few people as an endorsement of those people & what they support.

I really don't think it's possible to entirely cleanly separate the art from the artist.

Re: Framework supporting far-right racists?

#90

Post by [deleted] »

bbg2401 wrote: post #14
freetonik wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you referring to here? The starters of the linked discussion? Or the subjects of that discussion?

I'm referring to the far right ramblings of DHH supporting political figures who are associated solely with violence and intolerance. I'm referring to the far left activists who have developed a habit of coercing individuals, organizations and communities, sometimes with threats of physical escalation, for perceived connections to other political fringes. I'm referring to those using language along the lines of "they…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN