422
Framework supporting far-right racists? (community.frame.work)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
399 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Title of the (concerning) thread on their community forum, not voluntary clickbait. Came across the thread thanks to a toot by @Khrys@mamot.fr (French speaking)

The gist of the issue raised by OP is that framework sponsors and promotes projects lead by known toxic and racists people (DHH among them).

I agree with the point made by the OP :

The “big tent” argument works fine if everyone plays by some basic civil rules of understanding. Stuff like code of conducts, moderation, anti-racism, surely those things we agree on? A big tent won’t work if you let in people that want to exterminate the others.

I'm disappointed in framework's answer so far

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

Were the views associated with the company? Or was it purely a personal blog?

The distinction matters. Many people are able to separate business from politics, but some are not. The former aren't a concern, the latter definitely are.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    Your right. I can't seperate people/business and politics.

    Because people take the money from business and advocate for the death of me and my trans community.

    I don't see a reason to spereate those two.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    The furthest I've seen is advocating for conservative politicians, which is generally for more favorable tax treatment and maybe some more flexibility in what services they need to provide to their employees.

    I don't think business owners care about the trans community for good or ill. The only reason it seems that conservatives care at all is because liberals are so vocal about it. And liberals aren't even really pushing for anything to help the trans community, it's mostly lip service.

    The real enemy isn't you average conservative voter, but specific politicians pushing a populist agenda, which paints trans people as the enemy. If it wasn't trans people, it would be gay people, some variety of immigrant, etc, the target is less important to the movement, they just need to be weak and unpopular enough for them to get away with it. Again, it's not your average voter, but whoever is pushing that agenda.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Wow. Okay. Thats a really bad response.

    The furthest I've seen is advocating for conservative politicians, which is generally for more favorable tax treatment and maybe some more flexibility in what services they need to provide to their employees.

    First off, that's still indefensible? Like advocating for less worker safety isn't a good thing right? Or lower pay? Like those are all agreeable bad things for companies to be doing right?

    We'll come back to the second "where the money comes from".

    I don't think business owners care about the trans community for good or ill.

    That's a pretty broad brush there.

    Chick-fil-A does a pretty good job of showing you that's not a rule by any means.

    The only reason it seems that conservatives care at all is because liberals are so vocal about it. And liberals aren't even really pushing for anything to help the trans community, it's mostly lip service.

    This makes no sense, If neither side cares, then why is it a problem?

    Also, why are conservatives in your view just reactionary to what every 'liberals' are saying?

    The real enemy isn't you average conservative voter, but specific politicians pushing a populist agenda, which paints trans people as the enemy. If it wasn't trans people, it would be gay people, some variety of immigrant, etc, the target is less important to the movement, they just need to be weak and unpopular enough for them to get away with it. Again, it's not your average voter, but whoever is pushing that agenda.

    This is so submissive to hate. Heaven forbid we don't tolerate intolerance? This is such dismissive "it's the way it is" talk.

    I never said my problem is with the average voter (although the average Republican voter absolutely hate my guts). My problem is with the money that flows. It's the money fueling this hate. So yes, where I spend money has ALWAYS been political. So yes, it matters who my money is funding, and if that fund is funding my danger.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    First off, that’s still indefensible? Like advocating for less worker safety isn’t a good thing right?

    I think it makes logical sense. They own a business, so they see everything as a cost, and that includes employee benefits. They're merely voting for their self interests.

    And while I likely disagree with them, I think that's how the system should work.

    The counter to that should be regular people voting for their self-interests. Average people want better benefits and whatnot, so theoretically politicians should take that into account when crafting policy.

    The issue here isn't business owners voting for their self-interest, but a mix of politicians not actually providing good representation and yet still getting reelected (gerrymandering), not having good options (only two candidates are viable), and media spin (again, with only two parties, they need to pick one to get favorable treatment).

    why are conservatives in your view just reactionary to what every ‘liberals’ are saying?

    That's their purpose. Conservatives are pretty universally against change/in favor of reverting change, while liberals want more change. Sometimes you want one more than the other, depending on what's going on.

    The problem is that our political system only has two viable options, so both parties jump all over the place to pick up votes and it's actually unclear why they have the positions they do. For example, Republicans used to be super anti-union (they love representative democracy, but not in the private sphere?), yet they courted labor unions last year. Why? To get swing state voters. They're less about pushing ideas and more about maintaining power.

    The real issue isn't conservative voters, but our entire voting system. If we had 5 viable parties, people could effectively vote for the direction they want the country to go. If you don't like the way the GOP is, you should demand more viable options so people can express themselves better.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I think it makes logical sense. They own a business, so they see everything as a cost, and that includes employee benefits. They're merely voting for their self interests.

    Can you see how dehumanizing that is? Viewing people as cost?

    This is how Nazis start by the way, not viewing people as people

    Employees are still people. Business should take care of people, not the other way arround.

    That's their purpose. Conservatives are pretty universally against change/in favor of reverting change, while liberals want more change. Sometimes you want one more than the other, depending on what's going on.

    Your assumption is that every side serves a purpose. But when we say "hey we shouldn't kill people" and the answer is "shut up libtard" can you see how they don't have a "purpose" other than to spread hate?

    And I'm not gonna copy and paste the rest of them comment.

    I know who my problem with is, is it's just hate. Not exclusively politicians, anyone who wants to seee dead.

    Can I just say, get fucked? Must be nice when your existence isnt political.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Can you see how dehumanizing that is? Viewing people as cost?

    This is how Nazis start by the way, not viewing people as people

    The Nazis are a completely different story. It wasn't that they saw Jews as a cost or as objects, it's that they saw them as less than objects, they viewed them as actively threatening the country. As in, this was active hate, not apathy.

    A business owner is primarily concerned with the health of the business, and costs threaten that health. If mandatory benefits are too high, that may threaten the viability of the business, and limits options for competition.

    The counter to this is everyone else voting in favor of mandatory benefits and whatnot. If the system is working properly, both sets of voices will be heard and representatives will push for something for both groups.

    Your assumption is that every side serves a purpose. But when we say “hey we shouldn’t kill people” and the answer is “shut up libtard” can you see how they don’t have a “purpose” other than to spread hate?

    I assume you're talking about gun rights? You're using favorable rhetoric for one side and unfavorable rhetoric for the other. Let's look at their actual policy proposals:

    • Dems - ban "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines
    • GOP - enforce current laws

    "Assault weapons" have consistently been defined as "scary looking guns," and each has an equivalent that is less scary looking and just as effective. High capacity mags are easy to jerry-rig from legal mags, and DIY mags are easy to make with a 3D printer and a spring or two. These types of laws are mostly to grab headlines and get someone reelected, not to actually solve any problem.

    Likewise, saying "enforce current laws" requires citizens to actually cooperate with police, and for police to actually deserve that level of trust. They don't lffer any kind of change to police accountability, so this is merely a way to get gun enthusiasts to support them for reelection and not piss off other voters so they can get reelected.

    Neither party is actually solving any problems on this issue, they merely speak to their base to get elected. So the rhetoric here should be dismissed, and voters should focus on the issues where the parties are actually interested in doing work (for GOP, it's mostly taxes and regulations, and for Dems it's mostly entitlements and regulations; neither party seems to focus on social issues beyond rhetoric).

    If you're talking about something else, then please, elucidate so we can discuss it.

    I know who my problem with is, is it’s just hate. Not exclusively politicians, anyone who wants to seee dead.

    My point is that the GOP isn't your enemy, nor are they your friend. In a twin party system, you're going to have a party that covers each extreme up to the middle.

    If you strongly dislike a given party, don't push against that party (that won't get anywhere), but instead push against the two party system, because that's what allows that party to have the power it does. If third parties were viable, neither the Dems or GOP would exist in their current forms. You'd actually know who your enemies are because they'd out themselves by the party they support.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    The Nazis are a completely different story. It wasn't that they saw Jews as a cost or as objects, it's that they saw them as less than objects, they viewed them as actively threatening the country.

    I didn't say that's where it ended, it starts with stripping people's humanity away by thinking of them as a number in your record books. Just like your suggesting.

    As in, this was active hate, not apathy.

    Your going to straight face tell me that this isn't what tump is doing? Rounding up immigrants and trans people as antifa?

    It's not apathy right now. It's active hate. Go to any protest and see the right wingers with their attitude. See the Israelites in the US loose their mind on people standing up for Palestinians.

    I assume you're talking about gun rights?

    No. Human Rights.

    When the 'left' calls for and protests for not killing of black (see what Kyle Rittenhouse did), Muslims, immigrants, trans people, ect.. It's always shut up no one cares.

    And the GOP only has power, so long as the people that vote for them support them. And they elected a Nazi crew, so yes, my problem is with the people who voted for this hate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent