I’m not in the habit of assuming companies that knowingly supported bigots, the benefit of the doubt. If there isn’t a clear, loud and non ambiguous walking back of their clear, loud and unambiguous support, then why would you, I or anyone else assume they have done so?
Because… of the paper trail? Rails World 2026 sponsorships are up and they are not in; they haven’t retweeted Omarchy rices since October; and… I admit, I can’t be sure they haven’t sent him another computer. Which — as you know — concludes the exhaustive trifecta of clear, loud and unambiguous support for bigots.
But you, I, and everyone else knows it’s not about what they do materially. As someone in a related thread actually put in writing, they ought to “denounce, when questioned”.
I’m not “meh” about denouncing bigots. If you’ve supported a bigot and you don’t actively and vocally walk it back, that’s not “meh”. That’s a refusal to acknowledge the issue and the harm done in normalising the voices and visibility of bigots
If we agree the issue is about denouncing alone, and not any material activity, maybe the intellectually honest thing would be to update
tech company funding racists and transphobes
They support and fund DHH
to say what you actually mean — a tech company that refused to take a stance outside of their purview. (As a company). Which, I agree, is not exactly a badge of honour.
(Not to mention they never, once, funded DHH directly. But sure, retweets win at the exchange rate.)
That’s not how it works, right? You make the accusation; so you provide the evidence.
The claim implied in the present tense is that their relationship with DHH (insofar as there was one) is still ongoing.
I’m not in the habit of assuming companies that knowingly supported bigots, the benefit of the doubt. If there isn’t a clear, loud and non ambiguous walking back of their clear, loud and unambiguous support, then why would you, I or anyone else assume they have done so?
Because… of the paper trail? Rails World 2026 sponsorships are up and they are not in; they haven’t retweeted Omarchy rices since October; and… I admit, I can’t be sure they haven’t sent him another computer. Which — as you know — concludes the exhaustive trifecta of clear, loud and unambiguous support for bigots.
But you, I, and everyone else knows it’s not about what they do materially. As someone in a related thread actually put in writing, they ought to “denounce, when questioned”.
Meh.
I’m not “meh” about denouncing bigots. If you’ve supported a bigot and you don’t actively and vocally walk it back, that’s not “meh”. That’s a refusal to acknowledge the issue and the harm done in normalising the voices and visibility of bigots
If we agree the issue is about denouncing alone, and not any material activity, maybe the intellectually honest thing would be to update
to say what you actually mean — a tech company that refused to take a stance outside of their purview. (As a company). Which, I agree, is not exactly a badge of honour.
(Not to mention they never, once, funded DHH directly. But sure, retweets win at the exchange rate.)
(Oh and please look up Mette Frederiksen at some point.)
I’m not going to dance around words because you want to protect the sensibilities of a bigot.
I want you to stop lying about what Framework did or does, that’s all.
They positioned themselves as the ethical choice, financially supported a bigot, and advertised his distro, then made excuses for it when called out.
Kinda like you’re doing
Frankly, I can live with that framing.
On both counts, even.
@ada
🤔 Is talking shit about a bigot for their bigoty ways not bigotry itself?
@pseudo