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?
I think they are perfectly right. People have the right to disagree to the bad political opinions of the owner of a free software, and they're free to fork it.
Racism is violence, and peaceful reaction to violence is disagreement, "agitation" as you call it.
They are. They didn't fork it though. They just banned a bunch of people from their Discord server, tried to bully people on social media and wrote a README file.
> usually it is OK for a private citizen to use violence to stop violence
Usually, it is okay for a private citizen to use physical violence to stop physical violence. It is (presumably) internally consistent for someone to answer your question negatively while still believing that racism is violence.
“Racism” is not violence. Words are not violence. This kind of discourse is disgusting and only encourages people to physically attack others over words.
Ignoring the fact that your second link has nothing to do with words being violence, your first argument is that words are violence if the law says that words are violence!
That’s not demonstrating an ability to reason. If the law says Allah (or any other figure) is the one true god, is that then true?
Laws can be wrong. They can be passed by motivated actors seeking to protect their own power and policy. Free speech means protecting speech which is offense. You don’t need free speech protection for inoffensive speech.
Further, by equating speech to violence you’re allowing them to react with actual violence to defend themselves against views they don’t like. This is catastrophic for liberal society.
> Ignoring the fact that your second link has nothing to do with words being violence
You probably cannot read:
Art. 604-bis [Propaganda and incitement to commit crime for discrimination on racial, ethnic and religious grounds]
Unless the fact constitutes a more serious offence:
a) whoever disseminates ideas based on racial superiority or racial/ethnic hatred, or incites to commit/commits discrimination acts on racial, ethnic, national or religious grounds shall be punished with imprisonment up to one year and six months or with a fine up to 6,000 euro;
Your replies are all over the thread. You’re right I didn’t read the entirety of both the links you outsourced your thinking to, but despite this, my point stands. You’d know this if you read past the first sentence.
If you just understand that reaction to violence is other violence, it's not my fault, it's a limit you have. Reaction to violence can be nonviolent protest. Strikes. Discussion. All the things you probably don't like.
DHH can be racist as long as he wants, but he will face nonviolent consequences for what he says. Also legal ones, if what he says is not permitted in the country he lives in.
So, if he links his software stuff, to his political views, sorry, but I will try and engage people to either disjoint the two, or boycott his software.
Sure, but they are the way the people have voted for, and they have not been amended because people thought they were ok. That's democracy, the system you live in. If you're not democratic and you want to sabotage that, you might face the police. I do believe this law is right. And many people do so, and defend it.
>Further, by equating speech to violence you’re allowing them to react with actual violence
This is a total fallacy. You can react with disagreement, that can be non-violent.
This is the mind of a violent person who thinks that the only reaction to violence is more violence. It's not like that. You choose yourself and take accountability for how you react.
You continue to reply to yourself, double post, etc. I’m not going to follow this mess any longer.
The word violence implies your physical safety is under threat. By using this terminology you have escalated the situation from a debate into one where a party could justifiably violently suppress the other until they stop speaking.
And your own replies here acknowledge this as a valid response. You think yourself too good to use it, but someone else won’t.
> The word violence implies your physical safety is under threat.
No, that's a total fallacy. Theft is violence, there is no physical harm. Discrimination is violence, there is no physical harm. Demeaning and bullying is violence even through words and insults. Still no physical harm.
And you can respond to violence with non-violent methods.
You should look up the definitions of the word «violence».
You seem to be using violence figuratively (synonymously with ‘injustice’), but ignoring it’s essential and accurate definition.
Both Britannica, Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Merriam-Webster dictionaries, as well as the etymology of the word agree that «violence» means the use of «physical force».
> Britannica, Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Merriam-Webster dictionaries, as well as the etymology of the word agree that «violence» means the use of «physical force».
Interestingly, some of those also agree that it does not require the use of force. That some descriptions say physical force does not mean other descriptions are wrong. Here are some cherry-picked descriptions of what the word violence is used to mean:
> Extreme or powerful emotion or expression.
> Highly excited feeling or action; impetuosity; vehemence; eagerness.
> Injury done to that which is entitled to respect, reverence, or observance; profanation; infringement; unjust force; outrage; assault.
> Action intended to cause destruction, pain, or suffering.
> an act of aggression (as one against a person who resists)
Each of these can pertain to speech. If one says that speech can't be violence, then they must be ignoring these definitions.
From each except the first:
- «force, assault»
- «action»
- «an act of aggression»
Which stands in contrast to «speech».
Though any expression can be used in a broader sense than what it essentially/accurately signifies. Some such examples are of course included in dictionaries, without taking away from the point (what they list first and their general primary agreement: that violence is physical force).
I hope we can agree how dangerous it is to wash out the meaning of the word «violence», and conflate it with «speech». Especially all the while people are being killed (subject to violence) for their speech by other people who justify it by saying that they were responding in kind (eye for an eye) because they deemed their mere words to be actual violence (physical harm) too.
> From each except the first: - «force, assault» - «action» - «an act of aggression»
Speech can be forceful, it can constitute assault, it's obviously an action, and it can be aggressive as well as defensive. (I suppose I was a little wrong with my initial use of the word "force". Words can be funny like that. My point is that it is not strictly physical force.) This argument would be as if to say that "abuse" cannot be verbal because most people think of it as being physical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_abuse (Also, I wasn't aware until I was linking it for this comment, that page uses terms like "verbal violence", "verbal assault", "verbal attack", "verbal aggression". For what it's worth.)
> what they list first and their general primary agreement: that violence is physical force
Right. I've not refuted this. I've said that violence is not strictly physical. your position is that violence can only refer to something which could cause physical harm or pain and I say that is too narrow a definition even for common use; violence can be verbal.
There are other words from those definitions which you did not include in your comment like "feeling", "vehemence", "infringement", "outrage", "pain", "suffering". These things are not strictly physical.
> I hope we can agree how dangerous it is to wash out the meaning of the word «violence», and conflate it with «speech».
On the contrary, I would hope that we can agree how dangerous it is to minimize and dismiss when violence is perpetrated with speech by claiming that speech cannot be violence.
I am not arguing that terms cannot be used in broader or more expansive or even metaphorical meaning. But I am arguing that the accuracy/essence of the term «violence» ought to be respected. Especially because diluting it (i.e. washing out the border of it) can have such disastrous consequences.
There should be a very clear line between saying something and using physical force. So if you think the term «violence» isn’t a part of defining that line (or even the terms «attack», «aggression», «force», «assault» etc. which you seem willing to use to describe speech), then I am eager to hear what term(s) you propose to uphold that distinction?
> There should be a very clear line between saying something and using physical force.
Sure, I agree, and can see that this is possible. You made this exact distinction between "saying something" and "physical force" without even using the word violence. This is clearly not a problem.
The fact that the Wikipedia page on «verbal abuse» has to use «verbal» as a prefix term to the terms «abuse», «violence», «assault» etc. actually underscores the point: If those terms were obviously verbal in nature, then «verbal» wouldn’t have been needed as a prefix to them.
Nope, just regular singlespeak. Violence can plainly be non-physical.
> Redefining words in service of authoritarian political ideology.
This isn't a description of doublespeak. An example of doublespeak could be someone using their speech to call for violence against others and then saying speech can't be violence.
Why would you even need to say «call for violence» if speech were violence in itself?
No one is opposing the fact that speech can be used to call for violence, but that doesn’t make the speech itself violence. The speech part of it is the «call for» or «incitement to» or even «lead to». But we must not mix up cause and effect.
> Why would you even need to say «call for violence» if speech were violence in itself?
Because violence can take forms other than speech.
> that doesn’t make the speech itself violence
This is not something I agree with. If I say something and hearing what I say makes you reasonably feel afraid or hurt, I have said something violent. If I say something about physically harming another person, I have said something violent. The speech itself is violence.
Using speech to call for violence against someone is intermediated by the minds and bodies of listeners, who have their own free will, their own intelligence, and their own responsibility.
In U.S. law we have the "imminent lawless action" test from Brandenburg v. Ohio as one of the main tests for whether speech can be regulated because of its likelihood of successfully encouraging others to break the law.
Even when speech fails the Brandenburg test, it is still not literally considered a form of violence, but something else like incitement (or sometimes part of a conspiracy or criminal enterprise or something).
All of those legal discussions are pretty much expressly about not conflating speech with violence, even if speech sometimes has a role in encouraging people to commit violence.
Law uses language in a way that is different from how laypeople use it. I am not concerned that I would be unable to convince a judge that it's violence because I know it's the judge's job to think of violence as having a specific, narrow, unchanging (except under certain circumstances) meaning. Outside that context, violence can take the form of speech.
I see it as a great sign of maturity and civilization that we can make a firm distinction between words and violence. To me, the judge's "job" you mention is part of that.
This distinction could be something that has to be actively learned (like, maybe most people in human history would have instinctively resorted to physical violence over an insult). But if so, actively learning it is a great thing.
This is an example of how the violence of speech is often minimized and dismissed. Causing hurt feelings is violence, particularly doing so intentionally.
I did not dismiss speech’s potential to cause hurt feelings, I acknowledged and affirmed it. It is not to be taken lightly. Yet, we need an effective demarcation between speech and physical action, where resorting to physical action is deemed even more severe than words. So which one do you propose?
"Speech" does not oppose "action".
I hope we all can agree what "hate speech" brings to the world.
Especially with all the innocent brown people getting killed in the world today.
Yeah, there also are innocent brown people getting killed, in thousands, and mostly because of retaliation, justified through hate speech.
Looks like there's a limit in the level of the replies, so I was going flat. And I addressed your point. It's not like you deserve this, but at least people will see that someone counteracts nonsense arguments like yours.
I doubt being silence makes bullies shut up.
Generally, they show up in favorable environments, where the voice of reason is absent, and no adult is caring about what's going on in the room.
But being just silence? Just makes them worse.
I'm not talking about the people who you think are "adults" (I assume you mean people whose opinions mostly matches yours), I mean everyone. They wouldn't talk about this if nobody was listening.
And people wouldn't listen to them if they talked about things that are not problems.
No, I don't really think so, people with power are listened to because they have power.
Not because they say anything good or meaningful. Sometimes they speak hate.
And even if you just don't listen, others may be listening, and will take you over.
So, you really have to be aware of what people say.
Pushing your hands against your ears won't save you.
One kind of pushing your hands against your ears is ignoring problems that other people are talking about when you're not comfortable with hearing about them.
Another form is being so insecure about your identity and politics that you can't talk about real-world problems anymore. DHH will never see the forest through the trees if he lives in fear of being called a Nazi by someone who can substantiate the claim.
Making immigration illegal, makes immigration a problem.
Making immigration legal and pursuing integration makes immigration not a problem.
That's why so many countries have problems with immigration: they don't integrate.
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.
If you are not awake, you are asleep. American Cinema has been all for defeating nazis since before the war ended. Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inglourious_Basterds
All we have seen so far is white kids shooting people in red states.
Is DHH trying to legitimize a stance that fascists are some how good?
He was literally promoting their ideas for years and even tried to "punish" those he perceived too much on the left. Like, what you mean here by "shit like this".
"Shit like this" is demanding us all to pretend we are naive and extend infinite irrational benefit of doubt to people ... who are extremely clear in their politics.
The culture warriors are those who enable the culture war through framing discussions in incompatible ways.
Charlie Kirk, while pretending to be neutral, was funded by the rich to promote certain narratives and make clips owning the libs. You dont own the libs by being fair in discussions.
Same as any other "breadtube" liberal owning the conservatives.
These media figures make money and gain followers from being disingenous and unfair.
If you pretend they are unbiased researchers you have fallen. If you pretend they represent large swathes of people you have fallen.
They get normal people on their side by carefully framing certain ideas, not by being clear. They jump on your biases and take them hostage while accusing "the other side" of taking them hostage. This is done by both conservatives and liberals.
Media is not organic, it is incentivized, manipulated and controlled. You are mistaking an image of trees for the forest.
Working class politics isnt something you read about online its what YOU need and what the other workers around you need and how to realize that together. Socialism or bust, homies.
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.
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.
> doesn't realize that the normalizing of violence in response to speech actually represents a substantial deviation from historic American norms.
What alternative history you are talking about here?
Also, right wing actors including Kirk himself were promoting violence for years already. As far as American right wing goes, violence is a cool thing that makes you manly man. It is just that it should go one way only - from them to others.
> Also, right wing actors including Kirk himself were promoting violence for years already
I'm specifically referring to the left's acceptance of violence in response to political speech, for which there is no equivalent consensus on the right, for example, that they can and should go around assaulting Marxists, Islamists, or others with whom they fundamentally disagree.
And Kirk, for whatever faults he had, and however performative were his events, sought to debate his opponents--not encourage his followers to assault them. I couldn't find anything about him "promoting violence for years."
Kirk supported deporting naturalized citizens for their support of palestine.
Professors on TPUSA's watchlist regularly received death threats. I know at least one who left the country. Kirk clearly knew of this effect of the watchlist.
> I'm specifically referring to the left's acceptance of violence in response to political speech, for which there is no equivalent consensus on the right, for example, that they can and should go around assaulting Marxists, Islamists, or others with whom they fundamentally disagree.
You are lying here. Literally across the board, left leaders denounced the attack.
Unlike right wing leaders and politicians who praise violence and literally call for violence. Right wing politicians engaged in violent rhetoric for years already and it always makes them more popular. It is manly man to be violent, as long as you are also conservative or on the right.
> And Kirk, for whatever faults he had, and however performative were his events, sought to debate his opponents
His literal entry into politics was organized harassment campaign against his list of suspect leftists. After attack on Pelosi husband, he said that he hopes an 'amazing patriot' will bail out Paul Pelosi's attacker.
Bullshit, it was not debate by any reasonable definition. His legacy was toxic environment he consciously created. He should not be murdered, but that does not mean I am going to pretend he was somehow interested in something positive.
I'll make this simple for you: do most leftists currently agree with "punch/kill Nazis/fascists" (and other variations)? Yes (even back in 2017, per the poll I cited, that was the case). Do most conservatives agree with "punch/kill Marxists/Islamists/Anarchists" (and similar variations)? No. That's the issue. Pointing to the mere existence, or even the magnitude, of rightwing political violence, doesn't negate this fact, viz., that orthodox leftwing thought now condones, if not encourages, violence in response to speech.
EDIT: even in this very thread, there are examples:
> . Do most conservatives agree with "punch/kill Marxists/Islamists/Anarchists" (and similar variations)?
Yes they do. Most conservatives support harm and violence to those who are not them. You see that on who they vote for, on what they say and what kind of influencers they promote.
> do most leftists currently agree with "punch/kill Nazis/fascists" (and other variations)
No they dont. They leaders openly dont. And they do not vote for those who promote violence.
Being "a winner" means nothing. It's just another cringe self-appointed crappy nonsense writer that thinks he's better than you, better than immigrants (after being one in the US), better than everyone else.
It's just the attitude of someone who wants to control you just because he has money and power.
Have the courage to dissent from the racist propaganda he's putting around.
I'm saying you need to bring your A-game to actually win against him in the online and particularly the Rails sphere - a formulaic petition isn't it. Even Apple found him hard to handle re the HEY iOS app.
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.
Always saw him as a commentator or blogger that wrote about Linux back in the day and not an actual developer, each have their place and OSS.
There are plenty of more politically motivated people that have no contributions on anything, haven't built a thing and all they do is preach OSS. Some lean left, others more to the right. Although I would say I've seem more leftists like this because there's this believe among many that OSS is socialist, but to each their own as long as they're not trampling on other people's rights.
The problem I see is with some of the crazy people becoming more and more emboldened and the moderate majority just there bending backwards to appease them as if in hopes that it will calm them down, but they just increase the threat level.
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.
