gritten

You're so close to getting it...

So? Look, I'm aware that there has been a recent drive to erase British history with this overt (and often comically historically inaccurate) diversity agenda (see: Netflix slop and BBC docudramas), but I'm genuinely not aware of any person who would consider West Africans to be "native Brits" (in the ethnic sense of the term, of course). To a reasonable common man, it's absurd.

Even if this is your view, it's clearly not the view of the original author so by introducing this fringe opinion you're only serving to confuse the discussion.

Framework isn't funding any crusade. They made a small contribution to support open source software development.

If you don't agree with that, quietly take your business elsewhere. I cannot fathom the entitlement on display here, for this group to believe they have the moral high ground in demanding a cessation of this funding and a public apology, while trying to organise a boycott.

Nothing you buy doesn't have a fascist and a communist somewhere in the supply chain. Whatever your politics, you are always indirectly funding your political opponents. It bears no relation to the product or service they provide. You need to learn to operate in a society full of diverse opinions rather than having a meltdown when anyone differs in perspective.

Isn't that repairability, upgradeability and customisation, though? I didn't see anything political while completing my preorder.

It seems to me like certain groups are trying to project their political agenda on to this repairable laptop maker, and then being outraged when the company is more concerned with making repairable laptops than championing their particular views.

Why should they though?

What's wrong with "We didn't realise how controversial DHH was, and frankly it's none of our business. We are sponsoring his development efforts, not his political crusade."?

It's clear to me in this context that they mean "native" in the ethnic sense, not by citizenship or birthplace, similar to the usage of "Indigenous" elsewhere.

Do you mean democratic regimes?

Fascism tends to reward work rate, contribution, cooperation, etc., and is typically nationalistic - there is no (Western) nation right now without an enormous proportion of ethnic foreigners whereby a UBI would effectively constitute a massive wealth transfer from the domestic population to immigrants (which is, needless to say, contrary to fascist objectives).

This is basically what we are seeing already, democratically, however. I know here in Australia it seems like there are neverending announcements of unfunded public programs to give out money and other resources to whichever group tugs at the voters' heartstrings most effectively. The coffers are dry, national debt is soaring, fraud is rampant, and yet I'm still positive I'll see a feel-good headline next week about the latest government initiative to "pay off" their electorate.

I know. It's outrageous that they are so emboldened to publicly declare this to be their policy and that the practice has survived without condemnation for this long. As a White man, their reasoning in that link is insulting - and very clearly intended to be so.

Just because they are brazen, shameless, and (so far) unchallenged in their racism doesn't make it ok.

It's so jarring getting a peek into the mind of someone who sees the world this way. Take this, for example:

>Globally, there are perhaps 20 (mostly male) specialized surgeons capable of face transplants

What an extraordinarily petty way to announce your bitter, cynical world view.

Or announcing your racial allegiance with the capitalisation of "Black" vs lower case "whiteness", or indeed the assertion that made it necessary to bring race into this at all: that White people are to blame (as per usual) for low organ donorship among African Americans.

It must be exhausting.

The least realistic thing is how many Aussies are employed in that government department.

No wonder One Nation (and, soon, White Australia) are surging recently. People are sick to death of this, looking to the extremes for any alternative.

The goyim know btw

What...?

No it doesn't. Voluntarily choosing to marry someone, choosing to deceive them in such a cruel and selfish way, choosing to betray a solemn vow is not being "placed in a messed up, lose-lose situation". It is deliberate, conscious, malicious action over many years upon an innocent victim. The circumstances are entirely of his own creation. He is 100% culpable.

>Having gay affairs while you're married: It puts your wife at risk of disease, but OK

In what world is this ever "OK"?

No you didn't.

The article is in English.