[1]: https://community.frame.work/t/framework-supporting-far-righ... [2]: https://drewdevault.com/2023/09/17/Hyprland-toxicity.html
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46167711 and marked it off topic.
Character assassination has always been against the guidelines here, and also very much against the tastes of all the moderators I know. That applies regardless of who it’s about or what they’ve done, because it’s nothing to do with the them, it’s all about what HN is and the kind of people we want to be.
I think it amounts to providing free premium CDN service, the stuff you'd usually have to pay for. They didn't say anything about cash money changing hands.
How have your scripts done in comparison?
oh no anyways. Discord user and there mods are probably the last people anybody in the FOSS or real world should care about or associate with.
gems not sorted or indexed at all gated behind a account requiring personal information to just view them.
A permalink is a permalink, whether I found it in 5 minutes to an hour,
or the robot found it in 5 seconds.
they are the HR of IT ofc they do a ideological sniff test on anybody they even so much as talk to. Can't have anybody disagreeing in this tolerant space.
I also hate the framing of "disagreeing" in these discussions. It's perfectly valid to distance yourself from people because you disagree, and this is something you yourself practice on a daily basis. That is just being human.
>I believe that they have the right to work in the same place as me.
this is how things have gotten this bad. we let people terrorize us because they hold "tolerance" hostage with no one willing to speak against it.
No they won't. Who do you know, in your real life, that this has happened to?
Because I actually know a few different people who were fired for racist or sexist reasons. I've never met anyone who was fired because they won't use "made up pronouns"
I've seen actors and rich people claim this, but the thing is they don't just disagree with a pronoun. No, they're loud and obnoxious on Twitter and then their movie does bad and they get fired. That's different.
> Jordan Peterson lost his application to the Supreme Court of Canada this week for leave to appeal against the decision of the College of Psychologists of Ontario requiring him to undergo compulsory reeducation for various views expressed on social media, all of which were unrelated to the practice of psychology.
>The complaints which resulted in the college’s order were made by people who had never been his patients, and indeed, who had never met him. They were also mostly American and clearly politically motivated.
Compulsory, as in he can't refuse, otherwise they will take his license.
He raised to awareness when complaining about the compelled speech. People were saying that he misunderstood, that he is exaggerating, that there is not a totalitarian attempt to censor speech, that no such thing is going to happen, that freedom of speech is not under threat.
And what do you know, the exact thing he predicted would happen did indeed happen.
But even if there was - would you want to be friends with people you legitimately believe support genocide? If you say yes, you sound kind of pathetic. You don't have to do that, nobody is making you do that.
Fortunately, I do not have to, because I am able to separate the two. The question you asked made sense only in your mind, because you cannot separate and compartmentalize two different things, and instead mix unmixable things together and create a complete unnecessary mess. This leads to a total mess in proposed solutions. Again, in your mind it makes sense, because a collegue's personal blogging FEELS like a betrayal of a best friend. Not good.
I'm not saying they should be fired. What I AM saying is that of course people's opinion matter in your relationships. And that includes every relationship, even work ones.
In my experience, the enjoyment of working with people and their professionalism does not depend on the awefulness of their political opinions.
Not being able to separate, to only work at work instead of pulling your personal life into it, is a sign of a bad worker.
I do speak from European (healthy work-life balance), but still pragmatic/efficient and free-speech point of view.
Because people that do that type of thing usually cannot shut up about it.
Also, your solution doesn't solve your problem: your colleague won't stop to hold ideas that you don't like, nor his blog will disappear. If it's just a blog, he didn't harmed anybody, whereas you got him fired.
For example, if I told you that you are forced to associate yourself publicly with someone you don't like and don't want to associate with, then you might say I'm hindering your freedom of expression.
And this is missing the elephant in the room: white supremacy is fundamentally anti-free-expression. That's one of it's core tenants. So we have a little bit of tolerance paradox here.
If we allow those who oppose free expression to freely express that, then they express it by limiting free expression, then by allowing free expression we've actually suppressed free expression. So, it's tricky.
It's normal to hinder freedom of speech, up to a certain level in the context of the company: I would not like to be teached about Marxism-Leninism by the barista making my coffee.
It also allows people to separate professional and private life, just line sexuality: if you like latex parties, you can enjoy them without having to tell everyone or coming at work wearing latex. It allows collaborators of different sensibilities to work together. Your supremacist colleague may even then work with non-white people and find them nice and competent!
Last, you are projecting ideas: I'm sure that many white supremacists are pro-free speech, having experienced censorship. You clearly aren't.
I mean, it might be, but a lot of bloggers don't do this.
> Your supremacist colleague may even then work with non-white people and find them nice and competent!
I feel like maybe you're not understanding what, exactly, white supremacy is.
> I'm sure that many white supremacists are pro-free speech, having experienced censorship.
Right, no, the ideology is fundamentally anti-free-speech and anti freedom in general. Believing some humans are inferior and deserve less rights just works like that.
You don't have to defend white supremacists, they're doing just fine politically and socially. Better than the people they believe inferior, I'd say.
> You clearly aren't.
Yeah yeah whatever, go explain to someone else how oppressed white supremacists are.
Is it white-supremecist code because of distasteful comments in the community, in the code, something specifically written in the codebase?
Or because the author is who they are?
So let’s work off of that - expecting the entire internet to read the personal blogs of open source contributors before deciding which packages or modules to run is…not really a solution to the problem you’re putting forward.
Is it?
I think it's worth reading what the CEO has to say about it: https://community.frame.work/t/framework-supporting-far-righ...
Personally I don't get the impression that Framework is endorsing a particular view, nor are they directly sponsoring a specific individual or their views.
It becomes even more difficult when most of these open source projects aren't a one-person endeavor, even if they happen to have a single individual at the helm.
I agree. However, I do think that Framework is taking a particularly cowardly stance by refusing to acknowledge community concerns, and I think that kind of behavior is exactly how far-right groups gain power in tech spaces. When one group just wants to live in peace, and another group wants to make the first group disappear, organizations that don't distinguish between the two ultimately drive out the peaceful group.
At the same time, I think there's a somewhat valid space for the psychology of this response.
If I use Harry Potter as an example, I think Harry Potter fans fall in a handful of camps:
1. Agrees with JK Rowling on her anti-trans rhetoric
2. Grew up loving Harry Potter and detests JK Rowling's views, possibly to the point of a boycott
3. Has never heard of any of the controversy and is blissfully ignorant
4. Is aware of the controversy but never signed up for that discussion in the first place and is just here for wizard fiction, wishes the controversy never existed.
I think the CEO of Framework is essentially going for #4 here, and I am quite mixed on whether that standpoint is enabling of problematic people or not. I can understand arguments both ways. For the role of a CEO, in this day and age, taking a polarized position does have the possibility of alienating half of your customer base, essentially a no-win scenario.
#4 is also mixed with a sprinkle of "Sometimes saying too much and engaging too much in the argument is your own undoing and digging your own grave." Often CEOs that say nothing end up with better outcomes than those who take an active stance on issues.
I can totally recognize that #4 is objectively more cowardly and less principled than #2, but I also don't know that we can expect 100% of generally good people to be freedom fighters.
In any case, I think it's important for consumers to confront companies when they pull stunts like this. Also, I'm not certain that #4-type CEOs actually have better outcomes - maybe in the short term, but when the creeping technofascism becomes more obvious, that causes real problems (see e.g. NixOS, Tesla)
So it’s really not that far of a stretch to make this association in her case.
In her books the wizards fight against wizard Hitler and his eugenic holocaust. In real life, she engages in her own form of eugenic crusade where she believes the sex organs you are born with define your personality, identity, and your criminal tendencies.
What on earth compelled you to equate the most evil mass-murderer of the 20th century with a children's author and feminist who says sex is real and matters for women's rights and safety?
JKR doesn’t believe trans women deserve rights that normal people have, and believes that they are inherently threatening to women just by existing.
She wrote a book series about how your bloodline doesn’t define who you are as a person, and then turned around and decided that the sex organs you’re born with determine your propensity for criminality.
For some reason she scapegoats a group of people representing less than 1% of the population for crime against women and it doesn’t make any statistical or logical sense to those of us who haven’t been living in a moldy flat sleeping on a bed of cash.
She's simply arguing that women shouldn't have to surrender the few hard-fought protections that were carved out to help level this unequal scenario in the first place.
Most people see this as basic fairness, not hate.
https://www.them.us/story/barbra-banda-jk-rowling-gender-att...
She's made a pattern of this behavior, and I think it clearly reveals her transphobia. (I also am not sure what the right solution is for trans people in competitive sports! I think that's a very tricky subject. But attacking cis women for looking too masculine is certainly not part of the answer.)
Also, her twitter rants about trans people are pretty shocking.
One would have thought the BBC could have picked a better candidate for Women's Footballer of the Year than a player who had been withdrawn from competition for not being female. You think JKR shouldn't comment on this?
But sure, I guess we can consider that hormone requirement as just an extremely crude approximation. JKR's comments are still repugnant.
Banda hasn't been excluded for doping and is apparently fit and healthy. Therefore the most reasonable conclusion to draw is that Banda is male.
This is almost certainly another Caster Semenya type of situation.
> women and girls need single-sex spaces
It follows that you should designate a person with female-typical testosterone and estrogen levels as female, whether or not they have XY or similar chromosomes, a penis, etc. Those people should then use female bathrooms, right? Including trans women taking hormonal treatment? And those trans women should be able to compete in women's sports, since they pass your hormone test?
Or maybe, just maybe, sex is more complicated than that.
I also wonder how women with minor hormone irregularities feel when people like you dismiss them as men in denial.
Banda was withdrawn by FAZ from WAFCON because CAF had started testing athletes in the female category for male-typical levels of testosterone. Barring serious illness or doping, a failed test implies presence of testes which implies male.
Some male athletes who want to compete in the female category have suppressed their testosterone, either through pharmaceutical means or surgical excision of their testes. This doesn't mean they aren't male, nor does it remove the physical advantages conferred during male sex development. Which is, fundamentally, what the female category in sport exists to exclude.
So there is no contradiction as it all leads back to this principle.
Women with minor hormone irregularities, like PCOS for example, aren't affected by the above.
And yes, women can have high testosterone without testes. Again, it's bizarre that you're clinging to a testosterone standard that would declare a decent percentage of healthy, normal women to actually be men. I'm sorry, but sex is more complicated than that. You're not doing anyone any favors by trying to impose neat definitions on a messy reality.
Women with PCOS or similar are highly unlikely to exceed the testosterone limits that some sporting bodies implement as proxy for detecting male advantage, and indeed are explicitly exempted in such policies and have never been barred under any DSD regulation.
The true edge cases aren't athletes like Semenya and Banda, but the very rare individuals with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS), who don't respond to testosterone at any point in their development. Most sporting bodies carve out an exemption to exclusion for them.
What I do care about is your insistence that a single hormone test lets you exclude someone from being a woman, and JKR's dismissal of Banda. That's just so messed up, and ironically feels very misogynistic.
JKR was commenting on the BBC giving their Women's Footballer of the Year award to a player who had been withdrawn from competition for not being female, and how disrespectful this is to the many female footballers who would be deserving of this accolade. This is the opposite of misogynistic.
But if you insist on this standard, I suggest you get your all your friends and family tested. You can't tell by appearance alone! And then, if your loved ones have that hormone imbalance, you should call them men, use he/him pronouns, interfere when they try to use women's spaces, etc. See how misogynistic it feels then. Otherwise, you're clearly only targeting Banda because she looks masculine.
And lastly, for the record, you were swapping between three different definitions of male. Having elevated testosterone, having testes, and having gone through male puberty are three very different things. You say you've settled on "having gone through male puberty" as your final definition. Great! So men that haven't gone through male puberty should be permitted in women's sports and women's bathrooms? Or will you introduce a fourth definition?
We can agree to disagree on whether Banda is in the same category as Semenya, Khelif, etc. But consider that when news articles report a purportedly female athlete embroiled in controversy over competition eligibility as having "naturally high levels of testosterone" or similar, what this actually means is the athlete is male with a DSD. There has been a considerable amount of obfuscation on this topic and those who lose out are actual female athletes.
Unfairly elevating males like Semenya to the heights of female competition excludes women who would otherwise have had the opportunity to showcase their athletic excellence. This is the real misogyny.
I skimmed over your hypothetical about sex testing of family and friends because it didn't really add anything to the discussion. If any were found to have testes and male levels of testosterone (which in this scenario would not be a "hormone imbalace", as you put it) then yes, they would be male.
You did not. Once and for all, what is your definition for "male"? It seems like you don't want to stick with a single definition so that you can continue transvestigating any woman who looks too masculine to you.
Again, if you stick with the definition of "someone who has gone through male puberty", that excludes many people with penises you would probably identify as male, making your argument incoherent. And that's ignoring the ambiguity of what going through male puberty actually means.
> If any were found to have testes and male levels of testosterone
Again, you can't reliably predict the results of these tests from visual appearance alone. So, does this include your daughter or wife or mother or sister or friend? You would force them to use male bathrooms, even if they've been presenting as feminine, identifying as feminine, with feminine external sex characteristics, for their entire life? Congrats, that's misogyny. Your argument is incoherent.
She literally wants it to be an impossible paradox.
Trans women can’t use the ladies room because they’re a “danger” to women. Trans women can’t use the men’s room because they look like women.
For people like JKR who hate trans women, trans men don’t exist, intersex people don’t exist, and non-binary people don’t exist. Trans women are just easy to hate for various psychological and political reasons.
She just wants them to be punished. That’s it. All of these other excuses that have to do with violence and crime are no different than when my MAGA relatives justify the ICE Gestapo’s illegal kidnappings by the supposed criminality of immigrants. We don’t need due process when they’re “illegals” who are “more likely to be criminals and are in gangs.” They “don’t have rights” for various stupid-ass reasons.
Again, it is a statistical and logical fallacy to consider a population so small to be a threat to women.
JKR has not proposed taking away any rights from men, only trans women.
Women aren’t surrendering anything. The list of things they’re surrendering has a length of 0.
It was certainly a better excuse for creative writing than Cho Chang or Seamus Finnigan but she did a very poor job of convincing me that her main focus isn’t dehumanizing trans women.
DHH has said things beyond the pale, that go as far to say that people like me are not welcome in spaces he tours, not because of my actions but instead my skin color. Framework can flirt with his projects if they want to. I just won't buy their products going forward, and it sounds like they're fine with that. Idrc if it's seen as contributing to cancel culture.
Such as? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
>that go as far to say that people like me are not welcome in spaces he tours, not because of my actions but instead my skin color.
Citation needed. Direct links to quotes where he says specific races/skin colors are not welcome.
https://jakelazaroff.com/words/dhh-is-way-worse-than-i-thoug...
DHH is clearly talking about people of color in London, and he's clearly expressing approval for Tommy Robinson. If you won't acknowledge that, you're either oblivious or racist. I hope it's the former.
Ironic. Your linked article wouldn't exist if the author had out their reading comprehension hat on.
>If you need help, try this article:
If you need help, try this article:
https://felipec.wordpress.com/2025/09/23/the-ruby-community-...
>DHH is clearly talking about people of color in London
"People of color" are not native to London. If you won't acknowledge that, you're either oblivious or racist (Anglophobic/anti-White). I hope it's the former.
Physical differences that no test can detect?