This post is assuming that acts of violence, like Charlie Kirk's assassination, are promoted and committed by large groups of people who identify, benefit or agree with parts of a specific framework (wokeism). Which is not true on principle.
You're ascribing agency and belonging to a group based on, basically, vibes. On vague agreements or conclusions, mispoken points, incomplete framings. That is the culture war. You're doing it.
And wokeism was just a corporate strategy to appear more friendly to consumers of alternate identities/perspectives. It wasn't something that came from the masses, it was something that was done to generate more money by corporations.
You're participating in the misunderstanding of large masses of people to gain an in-group identity. Sure there are crazy people who believe its ok to be violent on "both sides". We all understand that these people are crazy, those who don't are themselves crazy.
You're aiding the normalization of extremism and polarization just like some rad-lib is doing right now by calling you a fascist. We're all ignorant, we don't know everything.
Instead of suggesting that DHH stay silent, your online verbal energy would be best directed towards the politicaly supporters of that open letter, wouldn't you say? Who do you think are the actual political agitaters in tech?
And also behold: as the tide turns, red will turn to blue once again, when the people will realize that racism and tariffs won't bring the America great again you all aspire to. No, that's just a 1800's fever dream. Here we are, still firmly believing what we believed 2 years ago. You didn't "defeat" anyone. It's just that people like you are free to be more "cocky" because the government has your own color. But they will come after the Danish and South Africans when they will have no more targets, be aware.
Calling people Nazis is lazy, and way more often then not, wrong.
That being said, acting as if actions and words can exist in a vacuum and immune from any sort of criticism, feedback, or debate is an incredible amount of arrogance.
What DHH said about London is deeply problematic, bigoted, and frankly doesn't make any sense. If he doesn't want any criticism for his views he shouldn't be saying them! Free speech goes both ways. Either take the lumps on the chin and quit complaining about people being mean, or shut the fuck up. Does not make him a Nazi though.
That's precisely the issue. There's a subset of the community that resorts to labeling anyone they deem guilty of wrongthink as a nazi or fascist and is the same crew that preach the "punch a nazi" line.
If it was just a normal exchange of ideas it wouldn't matter and DHH would be just whining, but first response was "he's a nazi" "lets take away his project".
There's crazier stuff in Lunduke's tweets from days ago including death threats and inciting violence against him on public events. I knew he was disliked by a large chunk of the OSS community but to threaten to kill people because someone attends a conference is crazy.
That is not the way to behave in a civilized society and is time people stop bending backwards to appease the lunatics otherwise there's no telling when any of us will be on the wrong end of the mob.
> I knew he was disliked by a large chunk of the OSS community
You sound unfamiliar with him. Lunduke occupies the "Luke Smith" valley of pundits who do not actually contribute to Open Source. Even DHH actually does something, Lunduke's claim to fame is politicizing technology and amplifying an unnecessary culture war. There is no open discussion surrounding how much he contributes, he is a heckler and does nothing else. His bus factor has long since passed a negative quotient.
Now obviously that does not excuse violence against his person. But there is no pretending that he's not controversial; that's the name he's made for himself. It's one that he can feel very comfortable with online, but much less so in a place like America where firearms laws are so relaxed and politically motivated violence never leaves the news cycle.
It's a tragic status-quo for America, but Lunduke is the last person I'll feel sorry for. When the mob comes for him, it's because he was goading them from the sideline. He'd have done well for himself if he put his passion into something productive like Kling or Eich did.
The problem with this essay (besides DHH's hyperbolic prose, e.g., "woke orthodoxies") is that DHH, not having grown up in the US, doesn't realize that the normalization of violence in response to speech actually represents a substantial deviation from historic American norms. The ACLU was once one of the preeminent leftwing political organizations in America, and it distinguished itself through unwavering advocacy on behalf of ALL forms of offensive speech, including flag burning and extreme pornography, but also extremist politics. Progressives who thought the answer to bad speech was more speech and that sunlight was the best disinfectant were once plentiful.
DHH's misstep is that he's resorting to arguing he and others are being falsely labeled as "Nazis," but conceding, even implicitly, the assumption that it's OK to respond to speech (and only rightwing speech; "tankies" and Sharia-pushing Islamists always fit through the Overton window) with violence is already surrendering too much.
I agree with the main concern DHH correctly points out here, that some spaces (mostly inhabited by leftists) are currently calling a lot of people nazis who clearly are not nazis. And they're quite obviously gaslighting the idea that hurting these people is ok.
What people like DHH et al seem to be completely blind about is that the right has been doing this for decades, if not centuries. That is not justification for the left to do the same thing, but at least the other side should acknowledge that and try to move on instead of just perpetuating the cycle.
15 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 37.3 ms ] threadThis post is assuming that acts of violence, like Charlie Kirk's assassination, are promoted and committed by large groups of people who identify, benefit or agree with parts of a specific framework (wokeism). Which is not true on principle.
You're ascribing agency and belonging to a group based on, basically, vibes. On vague agreements or conclusions, mispoken points, incomplete framings. That is the culture war. You're doing it.
And wokeism was just a corporate strategy to appear more friendly to consumers of alternate identities/perspectives. It wasn't something that came from the masses, it was something that was done to generate more money by corporations.
You're participating in the misunderstanding of large masses of people to gain an in-group identity. Sure there are crazy people who believe its ok to be violent on "both sides". We all understand that these people are crazy, those who don't are themselves crazy.
You're aiding the normalization of extremism and polarization just like some rad-lib is doing right now by calling you a fascist. We're all ignorant, we don't know everything.
There is a politically-motivated open letter seeking to cancel him: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45366312 | https://x.com/tobi/status/1970944464303923687
Instead of suggesting that DHH stay silent, your online verbal energy would be best directed towards the politicaly supporters of that open letter, wouldn't you say? Who do you think are the actual political agitaters in tech?
They're just not entitled to their opinions being accepted without consequence just because they're technology leaders.
That being said, acting as if actions and words can exist in a vacuum and immune from any sort of criticism, feedback, or debate is an incredible amount of arrogance.
What DHH said about London is deeply problematic, bigoted, and frankly doesn't make any sense. If he doesn't want any criticism for his views he shouldn't be saying them! Free speech goes both ways. Either take the lumps on the chin and quit complaining about people being mean, or shut the fuck up. Does not make him a Nazi though.
If it was just a normal exchange of ideas it wouldn't matter and DHH would be just whining, but first response was "he's a nazi" "lets take away his project".
There's crazier stuff in Lunduke's tweets from days ago including death threats and inciting violence against him on public events. I knew he was disliked by a large chunk of the OSS community but to threaten to kill people because someone attends a conference is crazy.
That is not the way to behave in a civilized society and is time people stop bending backwards to appease the lunatics otherwise there's no telling when any of us will be on the wrong end of the mob.
You sound unfamiliar with him. Lunduke occupies the "Luke Smith" valley of pundits who do not actually contribute to Open Source. Even DHH actually does something, Lunduke's claim to fame is politicizing technology and amplifying an unnecessary culture war. There is no open discussion surrounding how much he contributes, he is a heckler and does nothing else. His bus factor has long since passed a negative quotient.
Now obviously that does not excuse violence against his person. But there is no pretending that he's not controversial; that's the name he's made for himself. It's one that he can feel very comfortable with online, but much less so in a place like America where firearms laws are so relaxed and politically motivated violence never leaves the news cycle.
It's a tragic status-quo for America, but Lunduke is the last person I'll feel sorry for. When the mob comes for him, it's because he was goading them from the sideline. He'd have done well for himself if he put his passion into something productive like Kling or Eich did.
Then in the 2010s, the "punch/kill Nazis/fascists" messaging took off, and now the consensus position on the left is that it's acceptable to use violence in response to speech: https://www.cato.org/blog/51-strong-liberals-say-its-morally...
DHH's misstep is that he's resorting to arguing he and others are being falsely labeled as "Nazis," but conceding, even implicitly, the assumption that it's OK to respond to speech (and only rightwing speech; "tankies" and Sharia-pushing Islamists always fit through the Overton window) with violence is already surrendering too much.
What people like DHH et al seem to be completely blind about is that the right has been doing this for decades, if not centuries. That is not justification for the left to do the same thing, but at least the other side should acknowledge that and try to move on instead of just perpetuating the cycle.
He's really gone off the deep end ...
¹ https://github.com/Plan-Vert/open-letter