Honestly, probably intentional. I mean, you can't write an article about a Twitter thread where above each tweet you see the name Danielle and still call her Daniel accidentally.
And this isn't the first time that Lunduke is behaving... reactionary, to put it mildly.
It is intentional. Lunduke spends most of his time doling out hate towards trans people now. There's a (now deleted) twitter exchange between him and someone he calls "a man in a dress".
That sounds like quite a narrow-sighted view of the man.
The way I see him, he is cheerful, enthusiastic and tries to find joy and fun in technology and computing.
Color me prejudist, but that's probably the polar opposite of trying to find politics in technology and computing.
Besides, not everyone is 100% caught up in this trans-bubble, where being trans is the single most important thing in the universe. I realize it is for some people, a small minority, and that's perfectly OK.
But at the same time, it is not for the vast majority, and most people just don't care that much, and don't pay much attention to the subject, at all. And that's not wrong. It's OK too. And the minority will just have to deal with different people being different. That's sort of their schtick too, isn't it?
Would it be completely out of this world to assume that Lunduke is simply being careless here, because it's not on his radar? I certainly wouldn't go checking if people I've interviewed before have changed gender since last time around, before referring to them in an article.
>The way I see him, he is cheerful, enthusiastic and tries to find joy and fun in technology and computing.
I've been following Lunduke since the Linux Action Show days, read his blog regularly, used Illumination Software Creator and also bought a copy of the comic he wrote. I also dabbled in his own programming language (titled after his last name) back when he worked on it. I agree that Lunduke is cheerful and enthusiastic about technology and computing. I'm prefacing this to make sure it's clear that I've been following him for a long time and am not just jumping on some bandwagon to bash some individual for no reason.
>Color me prejudist, but that's probably the polar opposite of trying to find politics in technology and computing.
Lunduke would be the first to tell you that technology is not apolitical. His public persona is tied to open source activism. He discussed political aspects of technology such as net neutrality, DRMs, big vendor influence in protocols and more at length. Back when I followed his Twitter account he commented on political news very frequently. Further, he has a blog called "Conservative Nerds" where he writes solely about politics. It is evident that Lunduke doesn't communicate about technology in apolitical fashion only.
When you follow Lunduke's political statements it is clear that part of his schtick is to belittle so-called "woke" culture. He framed Torvalds' temporary departure as forced therapy because "he was mean to people". He called a trans woman a man in a dress. There are many more examples I can cite here. He also has shared and promoted various conspiracy theories over the past few years and I am excluding milder and "harmless" ones like his musings about UFOs here.
This is all to say that Lunduke's political views aren't hidden or just presumed but very much out in the open.
>Would it be completely out of this world to assume that Lunduke is simply being careless here, because it's not on his radar?
Yes, absolutely. But is it completely out of this world to assume that someone who has a track record of being contrarian on these topics might do this deliberately?
> Would it be completely out of this world to assume that Lunduke is simply being careless here, because it's not on his radar? I certainly wouldn't go checking if people I've interviewed before have changed gender since last time around, before referring to them in an article.
I'd love it if that were the case, but his comments directly aimed at trans people suggest otherwise.
He is anti-vax & anti-trans and you just have to scroll down his twitter feed to see just how hateful he is. Finding "fun" in technology is not telling women that they are men in dresses, using their deadnames, or vocally pulling your kids out of school because of "medical tyranny".
I have no love for the wacky Linux Sucks guy anymore. His radicalism and hate has coloured his views too much for me.
Yes, it is narrow minded of me to shut him out of my headspace forever. But y'know what? That's okay. It's just Bryan Lunduke. Just some guy. He's as relevant to me as I am to you.
> Finding "fun" in technology is not telling women that they are men in dresses,
But they are biological men. Unless they had them surgically removed, they have penises and can reproduce by having sex with biological women. This part is literally un-debatable.
But having constructed a psyche different from your own biology (or how you are perceived by others) is entirely normal. I may picture myself as a tough guy. While others would probably point and laugh if I said that out loud.
That some people happen to have constructed a psyche with a different sex than what their biology dictates, does in no way change their biology. It's just another case of the utterly normal psyche <-> reality mismatch.
By all means. Feel like a woman. Do things you typically portray that women do. Feel free! Do whatever you want. Go grazy! I won't care, and I certainly don't hate. And the same is probably the case with Mr. Lunduke.
But we do in no way recognize a biological man as a women. That's not "hate", and you should stop framing it as that. It's just basic biology for you: Men are biologically programmed to find a mate, a woman. A real women. And we can tell these guys aren't. Sorry :)
Habit is a strong force, and not everyone is reading display-names all the time. Especially on twitter I usually naviagate by the profile-picture, not the names, because people change their display-names all the time, making them unreliable.
We're talking about a guy who has another substack called Conservative Nerds and "Pronouns: Dude / Duder" in his Twitter bio dead naming a trans person.
Bad intent is a safe assumption. I'd obviously love to be proven wrong and see an edited version of the post, but I'm 99.999% sure that will not happen.
He probably has not had her on post transition. It's possible she appeared on the channel before transition, eg. as "Daniel Fore" in the past which might be the reason for the confusion.
I know we're supposed to assume good faith here, but I find that really hard to believe.
As far as I'm aware, Danielle didn't "announce" her transition in any EOS channels. But if you look at her profile for more than five seconds, it's pretty freaking obvious. Her name is updated on her Twitter, from which Lunduke based his article:
I would be willing to overlook that kind of flagrant oversight if not for the fact that Lunduke calls himself A JOURNALIST. That he would continue to use her dead-name despite all of the research he's supposed to do as part of his job makes him either malicious or incompetent. Take your pick.
And this isn't the first time that Lunduke is behaving... reactionary, to put it mildly.