Title of the (concerning) thread on their community forum, not voluntary clickbait. Came across the thread thanks to a toot by @Khrys@mamot.fr (French speaking)
The gist of the issue raised by OP is that framework sponsors and promotes projects lead by known toxic and racists people (DHH among them).
I agree with the point made by the OP :
The “big tent” argument works fine if everyone plays by some basic civil rules of understanding. Stuff like code of conducts, moderation, anti-racism, surely those things we agree on? A big tent won’t work if you let in people that want to exterminate the others.
I’m disappointed in framework’s answer so far
i do want to point out how hard it is to even find out about the views of these people, if you just look up the names of the projects and aren’t specifically looking for this information there’s no way you’ll find anything about it
even looking up the name of David Heinemeier Hansson, the more vocally bad of these, i had to go to the 5th link to find anything even vaguely mentioning his views
It’s pretty plain on DHH’s blog:
I wonder what characteristic he uses to define « native brits » that can be seen when walking.
Or just take a look at his twitter. Which Framework obviously did since they retweet a lot of his posts…
A breakdown of DHHs racist post, in case people don’t want to look up the original
https://jakelazaroff.com/words/dhh-is-way-worse-than-i-thought/
The fuck is he on about even, he’s Danish, not a native Brit. He should gtfo too if it’s such an issue to him.
Isn’t that a good thing?
I don’t know about you, but I don’t really care what the views of the owners of a business are. It only becomes a problem if they make those views plain.
I very much care about the view of business owners are; it’s how I decide to where my “vote” goes when I “vote with my wallet” as I’ve frequently told to do by Capitalism supporters.
Voting with your wallet has nothing to do with politics, but price, quality, and service.
Then why did people freak out over serving gay people?
Idk, but choosing to not serve people is a good reason to not buy from them, even if you’re not impacted, because they could choose to not serve you or your friends. That said, of the owner doesn’t support gay maffkagy but serves and hires gay people, that’s a different thing entirely.
That’s a lot of bending over the point of money has always been political.
In am abstract sense, sure. But boycotting businesses over something their owner or executive said doesn’t send a very clear message.
It’s not about sending a message. It’s about cutting off funds to hate.
Voting is wielding political power, whether it is with your wallet or anything else.
It doesn’t have to be, and that’s my point.
Using your wallet doesn’t have to be political.
Voting is, by definition, political. It is a common part of several different methods of resolving coordination problems (i.e. politics).
No, voting is only political if it’s part of a political process. Everyone in a group voting what kind of pizza to order isn’t political, and it can merely be informative (e.g. the person ordering the pizza could pick something else). Voting is only political when it involves government.
“Voting with your wallet” a metaphor. It just means changing your shopping habits so a company loses revenue, usually due to a recent change. Maybe it’s a policy you don’t like, or maybe it’s a drop in quality or something. It’s usually not a political act, though it can occasionally impact political policy (e.g. if the boycott is in response to a political change that involves the target company).
Yes, it literally is. That’s what politics is: how we control group behavior.
Well, I guess he has tried to make his views fairly plain on his blog. it’s just a bit hard to find unless you’re looking for it
Were the views associated with the company? Or was it purely a personal blog?
The distinction matters. Many people are able to separate business from politics, but some are not. The former aren’t a concern, the latter definitely are.
Your right. I can’t seperate people/business and politics.
Because people take the money from business and advocate for the death of me and my trans community.
I don’t see a reason to spereate those two.
The furthest I’ve seen is advocating for conservative politicians, which is generally for more favorable tax treatment and maybe some more flexibility in what services they need to provide to their employees.
I don’t think business owners care about the trans community for good or ill. The only reason it seems that conservatives care at all is because liberals are so vocal about it. And liberals aren’t even really pushing for anything to help the trans community, it’s mostly lip service.
The real enemy isn’t you average conservative voter, but specific politicians pushing a populist agenda, which paints trans people as the enemy. If it wasn’t trans people, it would be gay people, some variety of immigrant, etc, the target is less important to the movement, they just need to be weak and unpopular enough for them to get away with it. Again, it’s not your average voter, but whoever is pushing that agenda.
Wow. Okay. Thats a really bad response.
First off, that’s still indefensible? Like advocating for less worker safety isn’t a good thing right? Or lower pay? Like those are all agreeable bad things for companies to be doing right?
We’ll come back to the second “where the money comes from”.
That’s a pretty broad brush there.
Chick-fil-A does a pretty good job of showing you that’s not a rule by any means.
This makes no sense, If neither side cares, then why is it a problem?
Also, why are conservatives in your view just reactionary to what every ‘liberals’ are saying?
This is so submissive to hate. Heaven forbid we don’t tolerate intolerance? This is such dismissive “it’s the way it is” talk.
I never said my problem is with the average voter (although the average Republican voter absolutely hate my guts). My problem is with the money that flows. It’s the money fueling this hate. So yes, where I spend money has ALWAYS been political. So yes, it matters who my money is funding, and if that fund is funding my danger.
I think it makes logical sense. They own a business, so they see everything as a cost, and that includes employee benefits. They’re merely voting for their self interests.
And while I likely disagree with them, I think that’s how the system should work.
The counter to that should be regular people voting for their self-interests. Average people want better benefits and whatnot, so theoretically politicians should take that into account when crafting policy.
The issue here isn’t business owners voting for their self-interest, but a mix of politicians not actually providing good representation and yet still getting reelected (gerrymandering), not having good options (only two candidates are viable), and media spin (again, with only two parties, they need to pick one to get favorable treatment).
That’s their purpose. Conservatives are pretty universally against change/in favor of reverting change, while liberals want more change. Sometimes you want one more than the other, depending on what’s going on.
The problem is that our political system only has two viable options, so both parties jump all over the place to pick up votes and it’s actually unclear why they have the positions they do. For example, Republicans used to be super anti-union (they love representative democracy, but not in the private sphere?), yet they courted labor unions last year. Why? To get swing state voters. They’re less about pushing ideas and more about maintaining power.
The real issue isn’t conservative voters, but our entire voting system. If we had 5 viable parties, people could effectively vote for the direction they want the country to go. If you don’t like the way the GOP is, you should demand more viable options so people can express themselves better.
Can you see how dehumanizing that is? Viewing people as cost?
This is how Nazis start by the way, not viewing people as people
Employees are still people. Business should take care of people, not the other way arround.
Your assumption is that every side serves a purpose. But when we say “hey we shouldn’t kill people” and the answer is “shut up libtard” can you see how they don’t have a “purpose” other than to spread hate?
And I’m not gonna copy and paste the rest of them comment.
I know who my problem with is, is it’s just hate. Not exclusively politicians, anyone who wants to seee dead.
Can I just say, get fucked? Must be nice when your existence isnt political.
Wow I guess if you have to scroll all the way to the fifth whole link it can’t possibly be plain, can it?
Sure the business owner thinks anyone who isn’t white doesn’t count as a person, but he only uses the resources you give him to promote that point of view as a hobby, so why worry?
I don’t know, was it a personal blog, some social media post, or a page on the company’s website? You didn’t specify, and I honestly don’t care enough to try to replicate your search.
If they’re able to separate personal views from how they run their company, it shouldn’t really matter what those views are.
It’s literally in the post you’re responding to. I didn’t do any external research other than read the thread.
This is the part I’m talking about:
You are not the person I originally responded to, how would you know they were referencing the OP? There aren’t even 5 links in the article, and if we count the embedded X posts, the fifth link is about Hyprland. I’m pretty sure that’s not what the OP is referring to.
The OP’s point is that it’s hard to find info on these people’s views, and the links in the OP are from other people doing that digging. As in, we likely wouldn’t know their views if these bloggers didn’t dig through posts looking for it.
Tbh I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Person said they had to scroll down 5 results to get to the asshole being an asshole and seemed to think that was proof it’s hard to research (hence my “five whole links”) and then you seemed to be saying that since it’s “hard to find” and the business isn’t slapping a nazi flag front and center on their website means it’s fine to use their stuff. If that’s not what you meant, great. But you said the same thing again, so I’m pretty sure you meant it.
I’m saying that there’s a good chance Framework didn’t know the views of those projects when they donated, so ascribing those views to framework doesn’t make logical sense. That’s all.
Ok but then they reaffirmed their commitment to a big tent.
Even then, who cares tbh.
People who don’t want to give resources to white nationalists. Why do you support funding white nationalists?
You’re not funding white nationalists (if that’s what these people are, I have zero idea who they are), you’re funding the product they’re making.
If I send you a dollar and you send 50c to white nationalists and then you tell me that and I give you another dollar, now I am funding white nationalists. This isn’t complex. Knowledge+action = result.