Even putting the "ethics" of it aside, I think Omarchy is destined to go the way of LARBS. Many Linux distros are r/unixporn on the outside and a complete trainwreck on the inside. Regolith, Archlabs, Manjaro, dozens of distros have tried the "i3 but it's not like having teeth pulled" gimmick and it never works.
Much like LARBS, if I ever see you using Omarchy I just have to assume you don't know what you're doing. You can install Arch and rice i3wm in literally 10 minutes if your SSD and WiFi is fast enough.
For me, it's not about ricing. I find Omarchy to be an incredibly productive setup, from the launchers for webapps to the focus on TUIs.
I'm conflicted about the drama and still learning more about it, so not ready to draw a conclusion yet. But Omarchy is definitely a very, very fun experience for me.
Granted, I've heavily customized it and am using hy3 for i3-like capabilities, so whatever path out of this for me is likely to i3wm or sway.
And, fwiw, I've been running linux since the late 90s, and most of that as my primary OS (with a decade-ish period of macOS I'd rather forget). I know what I'm doing.
Same here, I have multiple decades of experience running Linux on desktops and servers alike, and Omarchy just saves me time and manages to be productive and fun at the same time.
Personally, I don't feel any moral obligation to investigate the personal views of people who write the software I use. Using software, especially free software, doesn't constitute an endorsement of the authors' views. Before this thread, I was blissfully unaware of this entire silly controversy, since Omarchy doesn't mention any politics anywhere as far as I can tell. If that ever changes, I'll delete it in a heartbeat (regardless of the kind of politics it happens to be), but so far the only people politicizing the issue seem to be its detractors.
The elapsed time from burning the ISO to productive development environment is impressive. Also, folks worry so much about customizing it, but you don't have to. And hyprland and Omarchy almost entire driven by text files, so Claude Code and its ilk are super effective at customizations.
I guess I should defend my point! I actually really like Hyprland (despite it's controversy) and really have no interest in re-hashing DHH's ragebait. My larger point is that we've seen this happen before, hundreds of times, and these distros always end up breaking and making people blame Linux instead of their maintainer. I don't think DHH is addressing this concern, and he's basically teeing-up a catastrophic system update with zero rollbacks by choosing Arch as the base systen.
If you search the web for "Manjaro broken update" or "LARBS error" you're just flooded with myriad tech issues that don't exist on normal systems. It's a genuine handicap to rely on someone else's opinionated dotfiles when you don't understand why they made each decision. I think people using Omarchy long-term will end up fighting the distro more than they fight Linux.
Omarchy uses limine plus snapper to give you (by default, but configurable) five system rollbacks. Each time an update happens, or a package is installed, a bootable btrfs snapshot is created. I've leveraged this myself to after an update caused an issue with nvidia drivers.
I don't mean this to come across as snarky, but before you spread misinformation, you might want to inform yourself.
It's performative to it's core. In the next release they will probably add a matrix screensaver, burning windows and hack a gibson in the release video.
Nerds use whatever distro they like, and then bend it to their will.
Geeks are the type of people to install Omarchy or LARBS or disable their Mac's SIP for i3wm eye candy. The biggest change a geek makes to their system is changing the wallpaper to Tony Stark.
So using a distribution, which bundles different components into a cohesive package is somehow different then an install script which bundles different components into another cohesive package? A distribution provides the base layer that you can customize to your liking. Omarchy is another base layer to customize to your liking.
So using a distribution is for nerds but using something like Omarchy is for lower class geeks? What was the difference again? Can you elaborate on that? It feels like rage baiting but that wouldn't be constructive so I assume that you're acting in good faith and that you explain this line of thinking in more detail.
So someone who uses someone's zsh config and adapts it to their liking is a geek as well because someone else (a nerd) did the heavy lifting already?
Who even says that everyone installing Omarchy doesn't bend it to their will afterwards? Is everyone using the same tools and web apps as DHH? Then why should something like Omarchy even provide writable configs to customize it?
It’s almost the same with neovim and shell/terminal setup. A lot of people wants blings and are touting the most complicated setup. They balk at reading docs, and when their brittle config fails, blame the software (gnome subreddit).
Saying people who use Omarchy don't know what they're doing feels elitist. If you agree with DHH's opinions it's just fine, some people don't want to fuck with shit, they just want to get to work.
A lot of people don't agree with DHH's opinionated setup, though - most of them don't even know what they're installing, and that's the problem. Like I said, we've seen hundreds of OSes that completely break on system updates because the user doesn't understand that the AUR package conflicts with the opinionated defaults.
They really don't know what they're doing, which isn't going to help you get things done on Linux. I empathize completely with people who want a one-and-done gorgeous r/unixporn desktop, but they should also know that those distros are a deal with the devil.
I’m curious if anyone has heard an explanation for why Omarchy is pronounced “omar chee” instead of “omar key”. To me the word looks like monarchy, hierarchy, anarchy, etc. I’m not sure if words ending in -archy are always pronounced with a hard c but it seems like it.
> I’m not sure if words ending in -archy are always pronounced with a hard c but it seems like it.
When it is etymologically derived from the greek arkhein (“to rule”) like all of your examples (but unlike, say, “starchy”, which also ends with -archy but has an unrelated etymology), yes, the “ch” sounds like “k”.
But the “-archy” in “omarchy” doesn't come from arkhein, in comes from Arch Linux, so...
I have a PC running Omarchy and it's really nice. The little touches are really pleasant. I'm more a half assed Unix Admin though then a developer and there are some pain points that are making me give it up.
* I don't really like Hyprland. I want to use Niri and hacking at Omarchy to make that happen doesn't seem worth it.
* getting flatpaks working with it is painful
* it's too dependent on the aur which I try to avoid
A lot of the nicer features - some of the shell and nvim setup configs are things that I don't really care about.
I think this is really good setup for someone smarter then I am. I think at the end of the day I want something simpler then this - though it does say "opinionated" right on the tin and I had a blast playing around with it.
Yeah, I use a mobile broadband provider for my home internet connection (albeit through a 5g router rather than tethering - but that shouldn't make a difference).
Normal web browsing etc is more or less indistinguishable from fibre or cable. Streaming - including high participant count Zoom meetings for work, as well as 4k Netflix etc - works perfectly well too.
But bittorrent? Nah. The sheer number of connections quickly overload the link, the speed drops to a max of only 1 or 2 Mbps, and it kills off anything else I'm trying to do at the same time.
Pushing / pulling containers has a similar issue - I have to set image_parallel_copies = 3 in /etc/containers/containers.conf as the default of 6 can cause problems, especially if two or containers are being pulled at the same time. I reckon that the comfortable limit for the number of parallel connections on 5g is probably somewhere around 10.
Plus, y'know, range requests have been supported since HTTP/1.1 way back in the mid 90s, so resuming downloads should work just fine with the likes of wget or any normal web browser.
Saying that, the author also mentions that he was WiFi - so why doesn't he just use that rather than tethering? Doesn't matter if it's slow, he could always do something else on the tethered connection while he waits...
So as someone that doesn't want to support DHH after what I've learned in this thread, but was interested in checking out omarchy based on some neat videos I've seen... What should I check out instead?
Omarchy is basically an opinionated set of libraries, largely centered around Hyprland tiling window manager, with minor celebrity marketing. I don't see why it's a distro, it may as well be a set of dotfiles.
Try out Hyprland yourself, it's fun and simpler to customize than its i3 ancestor.
CachyOS is also an Arch based distro with a GUI installer including multiple desktop options, such as Gnome, KDE Plasma, but also preconfigured Hyprland or Niri with a Waybar, Alacritty and a spotlight-esque application launcher.
I'm currently dual booting Windows & CachyOS with Niri and installation was incredibly smooth, including setting up secure boot or playing Windows games.
> Well, dhh considers torrents outdated (I’m not kidding, check the tweet), so it’s only officially being offered as a single download from a Cloudflare server. Which sounds cool until you’re on a weak-ass connection in constant danger of dropping halfway through the download.
That has nothing to do with bittorrent vs http; use a download manager instead of a browser.
> But Omarchy is a reminder that we live in a world where software isn’t just software, but the people who make it.
I get people are totally within their rights to ban movies/software/sports, etc. for creators whose beliefs they disagree with. However, software is the people who make it? I rarely, if ever, know the authors who create software or what they believe in.
DHH wrote a blog post complaining about how there are fewer "native Brits" in London, and then linked to Wikipedia's article about the number of white people in London. He also brought up a march by Tommy Robinson, but framed it as just a couple of exceeding normal guys out for a walk, and not a bunch of nationalists.
It came off as xenophobic and racist, so sponsors pulled funding while others (some quite high profile) refuse to work with DHH. There's a non-zero amount of reading between the lines, so here's the blog post so everyone can decide for themselves:
There is no ethics complication. That is an imaginary problem imagined by those who wish to force their politics on others. Open source should have no politics left or right.
> do you not think open source/free software is about the ethics?
It's not about trying to interfere with projects because you don't like the author's beliefs.
> 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
> The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
This includes persons and fields that the author considers harmful or distasteful. And forking and redistributing are core rights granted by the license.
Same thing with XLibre.
There are, apparently, people out there who think that their decision to use something that was provided et gratis et libre should depend on the beliefs of the thing's creator, as if doing so should somehow endorse those beliefs or cause them to rub off on the user. I can't understand this line of thought, however. Quite frankly I don't think that even applies to paid proprietary software. My moral intuition doesn't allow for that kind of transfer of guilt, which seems to be what people mean nowadays when they talk about "complicity".
Shouldn't the "no discrimination" part also apply to the community?
How would you feel about a project with an official policy that pull requests from people with a certain skin color will not be accepted - is that still in the spirit of F/LOSS? If a specific maintainer in an otherwise friendly community refuses to merge pull requests from developers with a certain skin color, how should the community handle that?
If the other maintainers fork the project and continue without that one toxic maintainer, are they following the spirit of F/LOSS, or are they suddenly "needlessly introducing politics" and "distracting from development"? If the latter, why would the actions of that one toxic maintainer not fall under the same?
If you notice that your community is rapidly losing core members because they keep getting insulted by that one toxic maintainer, what do you propose one should do? Do you take action, or do you let the project die?
> How would you feel about a project with an official policy that pull requests from people with a certain skin color will not be accepted - is that still in the spirit of F/LOSS?
No, but this is irrelevant to any of the currently discussed situations.
> If the other maintainers fork the project and continue without that one toxic maintainer, are they following the spirit of F/LOSS
To have this argument requires accepting your framing around "toxic maintainers" which is probably not very productive. But of course forking projects to do your own thing is entirely in the spirit.
Regardless, though, that is not what people are objecting to. For example, an XLibre project wiki was defaced with disparaging comments, including by Jordan Petridis (deeply involved with both GNOME and Xorg) (https://github.com/X11Libre/xserver/issues/346#issuecomment-...). This was highly unprofessional and XLibre should not have to deal with it regardless of what you think about the politics of anyone involved.
> No, but this is irrelevant to any of the currently discussed situations.
It's somehow always relevant, because they all pretend to be speaking for black people, or that their situation is exactly as if they were black people. It's unbelievably grating to actual black people. And when black people say it to them, how they feel about actual black people comes out instantly. You see, we're symbols. We represent unfair suffering.
Just like their parents who were trying to be rappers, their grandparents were trying to be "white n-----s" (because having to go to Vietnam made them black, you see), and their great-grandparents were talking in jazz talk (like Biden.) It did nothing for black people.
> It's somehow always relevant, because they all pretend to be speaking for black people, or that their situation is exactly as if they were black people.
What does that have to do with the fancifully hypothetical "project with an official policy that pull requests from people with a certain skin color will not be accepted"?
I legitimately can't understand what you're railing against. Who are "they" in this sentence? Why should I consider that "they" are doing what you describe? Give concrete examples, please.
Every proverb can be justified: in this case "looking a gift horse in the mouth."
The guy's giving away tons of work freely, and people are whining about his views. Instead of complaining about the free download, maybe they should stop paying for his real products? (But that won't happen because they haven't bought anything off him.)
Absolutely not. DHH is someone I will never support, and I like knowing what projects he works on so that I can avoid them. Everything is political, whether we like it or not. Especially OSS.
His views are not just differences in tax policy, I find them grotesque, and I am glad people are aware of who is behind Omarchy and Hyprland so they can make informed decisions about whether to use them or not.
why is Hyprland being thrown in next to Omarchy? They're completely different levels of bad. The lead dev of Hyprland is in trouble for something minor his unpaid discord mod did and he has apologized years ago.
They're automatically a piece of shit too. Their software projects are also banned. Any forges hosting their software: be prepared to be @'d in unkind tweets. Any CPU executing such software is by extension also a bigot.
You might want to pick up a history book because it's kind of just a matter of fact at this point. The only remaining question is whether you think it's a good thing or not.
“My opinions are not opinions — these are facts, and those who disagree are either stupid, or evil, or both. In your case, I’m going to, in good faith, assume ignorance.”
I actually read a lot of history books, but I’m not limiting myself to WW2 material. I can see how someone who only reads about that could assume that WW2 is the only thing that happened — but also the only thing that is happening, and the only thing that could ever happen. For these, it’s always 1939 somewhere, and the only question that remains is where.
Would you mind explaining why you think it is subjectively wrong to call the MAGA movement fascist? There's a definition of fascism in this thread which is my working definition. Could you read it and provide your perspective on why you think it does not apply in this case? Or perhaps you'd be willing to explain why you think it is a false definition?
The reason I ask is that, by that definition, it seems rather obvious that it is a matter of fact, not opinion, that "US politics has been pretty fascist lately" but you seem to believe it's the other way around.
You are taking issue with the claim that US politics are "fascist" right now. I am asserting that the similarities exist as a plain matter of fact. Fascism didn't exist at other times in history, so I don't see the point in bringing up other time periods, nor do I see how it refutes my assertion.
> You are taking issue with the claim that US politics are "fascist" right now.
I never said I take issue with that claim, nor that I agree with it, nor that I disagree with it. I just pointed out that there are two groups of people: those who agree with it and those who don't; for the latter group, reading the article that starts by stating that claim is going to be a waste of their time, as the article is built upon that foundation.
> I don't see the point in bringing up other time periods
You must be then using history the way a drunkard uses a lamppost: for support rather than illumination.
> You must be then using history the way a drunkard uses a lamppost: for support rather than illumination.
Why would I be interested in other time periods when talking about the similarities between our time, and a phenomenon that did not exist in those other time periods?
If I state that someone on the street looks like Bill Murray, would you pull up pictures of John Cleese on your phone to refute my claim?
That's what I've addressed already: you're not interested in history as a journey of discovery which is taken in order to broaden your horizons -- you're only interested in it as a way to support your pre-existing opinions. Anything that can't support your pre-existing opinions is of no use to you.
It's as if the people in the antebellum South were only reading history books that proved to them how Blacks are inferior, while skipping over books on topics like Roman Empire or early Muslim empires (that could actually prove to them that some of very capable emperors/caliphs were actually Black.) They had no use for that information as it couldn't support their chattel slavery system.
This is an undeniable fact about American politics. I was never happy with the 14-layer bean dip definitions floating around (they seem to also try to include the definition of "authoritarian") but this one is reasonably concise and accurate to the ideologies of historically fascist movements.
The bar of "populist palingenetic ultranationalism" is fairly objective, and seems to make it clear that this is the ideology behind the "Make America Great Again" movement. By this definition, American politics has been fascist since a President was elected on a fascist-by-definition campaign.
It is when it's entirely redundant, i.e. when you've heard the same arguments countless times before and know that you're about to reject them again.
You may notice that your sibling replies treat the "alternative viewpoint" in question as if it were objective fact, and show the same unwillingness. It's prudent to understand whose minds can actually be changed on issues like this.
The "unwillingness" in question is the decision not to read and engage with another's perspective. The replies calling this a fact are actually engaging with the points being made. Whether or not American politics is becoming more fascist isn't really a matter of debate unless one simply doesn't know what the word "fascist" is referring to.
You seem, er, "unwilling" to engage with an objective definition of fascism. It's in another comment in this thread if you want to discuss it in good faith. What do you think? (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45575415) Personally, it seems kinda obvious that the phrase "Make America Great Again" was chosen specifically for how it evokes palingenetic ultranationalism.
> It's prudent to understand whose minds can actually be changed on issues like this.
It's prudent to say what you believe. Whether or not someone is willing to engage with your beliefs in good faith is on them.
That is a good advice. Do you follow it yourself? Did you, for instance, read Mein Kampf to “consider an alternative viewpoint”? Or is it only good when the “alternative viewpoint” is yours?
It's deeply ironic that you write this whole rant about "they" are trying to speak for everyone. People are allowed to voice their discontent/concern about a dev having notably weird politics. If you're tired of people writing about it don't click links about it.
You linked a blog post and cannot explain why it’s racist. You only think it’s racist because you disagree with it. It could be 100% factual and true but because you disagree it’s racist.
As to whether this DHH person has said any 'vile far-right stuff' I do not know since I don't know the character, am not interested in this distribution - plain Debian + Xmonad does just fine for me - and do not want my operating system to dictate my politics in any way. But... there is always that but, isn't there?
For years, nay decades by now it has been practice to label those who do not toe the Party line and follow whatever diktat handed down from on high on any number of subjects as 'Nazi', 'Fascist', "${identity_group}phobe" (this needs double quotes for expansion to work), to throw bucketfuls of epithets at those who refuse to obey the order to put black squares on their web things, who dare to insist that war X was in fact started by party Y, that a hulking man with a bulge in his pants is in fact just that and not a woman, etcetera.
...and hardly anybody, here or elsewhere in 'polite society' dared to say anything about it for fear of being labelled themselves, here on this site for fear of being greyed out or shadow-banned. So DHH says nasty things? That is quite possible. If it is so he is just like all the others who say nasty things like I described above. He may even aim his remarks at some of the same people, quite possibly so because those who think for themselves are often disliked by those who want to do their thinking for them.
> London is no longer the city I was infatuated with in the late '90s and early 2000s. Chiefly because it's no longer full of native Brits.
with a link to the Wikipedia page on ethnic groups in London showing that there aren't as many white people in London as there used to be. His usage of "native Brits" dog whistle might be silent, but choosing to link to that particular Wikipedia page is a bit telling.
Further into DHH's blog post, he describes Tommy Robinson's organized marches as being "normal everyday Brits." Freedom of association and all that, but White supremacist, xenophobic marches aren't exactly my idea of "normal everyday Brits" activity. He also attempts to equate these marches with legitimate free speech cases like Graham Linehan, trying to make it all seem like reasonable pushback, as if this is just another historical moment of the isles being "invaded".
Naturally, DHH can't help himself, so 701 words into the article we get a lovely link to articles about Pakistani rape gangs. We're not dealing with subtle implications anymore.
> London is no longer the city I was infatuated with in the late '90s and early 2000s. Chiefly because it's no longer full of native Brits.
As someone who isn't white and was born in the outskirts of London, I took particular offense at that passage, but that's might be more of a personal problem for me.
DHH could have elided what he was really saying by using different words, not linking to that particular Wikipedia page, not mentioning Tommy's march, not trying to frame that march as just this nice lovely fellow out for a little walk. And so on and so forth.
He didn't though. The "demographic change" as you so nicely put it is that the people's skin colors have changed. A surface level of reading might justify putting "presumably compared to recent immigrants" in parentheses, and if you don't care to read it more deeply that than, I can see why one might walk away concluding that people being offended by DHH's statement are just looking for reasons to be offended.
A deeper reading of the words DHH chose to use in the order he used them, one might instead walk away reading that his objection is truly just skin deep. There's nothing to complain about this "demographic change" other than people's skin color isn't white in that one paragraph. Sure, it's entirely his perogative not to want to live somewhere simply based on people's skin color there, but, well, that's racist.
If you don't see that or think it's not offensive, that's entirely your own perogative. That's why linking to DHH's own words is important in the discussion. Everyone's free to draw their own conclusions based on the words he used and how they want to interpret them.
DHH is entirely free to believe whatever he wants and want to live wherever he wants, for whatever reason. Just that if it boils down to I don't like the skin color of people who live there, you shouldn't be surprised when other people don't want to work with you, even if you did create Ruby.
I've been reading the latest few pages of his blog (especially the touchy stuff) and it's opinions largely in line with mainstream conservatism in most of the developed world: not everyone is a Nazi, take pride in your flag and nation, have kids, "woke" / DEI / affirmative action is bad, migration in Europe is a crisis.
These are not taboo or even uncommon topics and many have majority support depending on where you're from (the national flag is less controversial in Canada than the UK; woke is dying faster in the UK than Canada.)
I don't agree with all of it, but I've not seen anything "beyond the pale" - simply someone voicing political opinions in a civilized way. And I'm not sure what else I would expect. My own wife doesn't share all of my political beliefs, yet this is the expectation for people who contribute to FLOSS, and other parts of our lives?
I quite enjoy living in a pluralistic liberal democracy where I can interact with, befriend, and live side by side with people whom see the world differently than I do. And I especially appreciate that this extends even to the strongest topics and religion. People shouldn't avoid code for its creator's beliefs any more than they should boycott a coffee shop because the barista is of a different religion.
> I love when people label politics they disagree with as “ethical” problems.
This is a disingenious portrayal of what people you disagree with are saying. It is not like someone is calling pro-capitalist or socialist views unethical.
"Politics they disagree with" means racism, homophobia and ableism. There certainly is an argument that each of those is ethically problematic, because each denies some human beings' basic rights to be considered human.
You may well argue that dhh doesn't hold those views, or argue that the community should accept that some members have toxic views and move on. It is best to avoid claiming that racism is just another respectable political opinion.
Politics is, by its very nature, about power and coercion. It is a delicate miracle of only a few centuries through which many of us are able to actually voice our opinions peacefully and live in liberal democracies where disagreements impact policy rather than collapse into violence and war.
That includes disagreements about incredibly serious, controversial things with devastating impacts. Does the ontological status of the fetus affect the ethics (never mind legality) of terminating a pregnancy? Should people be able to seek medical help in ending their own lives to end suffering? When is a minor allowed to consent to their own medical treatments? These are questions with enormous impact on those affected.
Yet people disagree. They have different values, assumptions, experiences, predictions, and priorities which will often be at odds. Even if you disagree on what a good life is or how to achieve it.
You may feel a particular policy or party advocating for policies you strongly disagree with is deeply harmful to you or those you care about. You may resent their ideology so much that you get angry, sad, tense, violent thoughts, frustrated, etc. You may have absolutely no idea how someone can promote a particular policy. Your only explanation is that they are bad actors out to cause more harm than good.
But they feel the same about you. Your ideas are just as harmful and incomprehensible to others as theirs are to you. People are different. Acknowledging this is called empathy, and its departure from political discourse has been strongly felt. Part of a mature and healthy society is recognizing that although your peers may have different views they are still good faith actors who want to live in a better world.
No one person or one subgroup gets to unilaterally decide the Overton Window, or which topics are "settled" and which are off-limits. This is a decision made by the masses, and within the EU approx. between 25 and 50% of representatives hold (some) views in line with what dhh writes in his blog. It is mainstream, governments of major world economies kind of stuff. Are we actually going to propose a world where people are deemed persona non grata for supporting the CPC in Canada? Hell, let's expand that to the LPC because bill C-5 and the Major Projects Office says its going to undermine the human rights of indigenous peoples under UNDRIP as well. 85% of Canadians are racist, we'll welcome them back when they learn respectable political opinions.
I mean... it's all completely unworkable. How do you walk down the street knowing that other people are so evil, and who want to do you such harm? Anyone who believes in $religion1 genuinely believes that members of $religion2 are doomed or preventing salvation, yet we can smile and say "good morning" and hold the door open for each other. Where did we lose that?
Okay, but I also won't hold it for you unless you belong to the same branch of my religion.
In fact, I'll just provide a form and you can let me know everything you believe. If it's not 100% identical to mine you're wrong and I'll lock the door. Because I said so. If that's how this works now.
I don't give a fuck what your religion is. Spit in my face, i no longer have to be nice to you. Call me names, i no longer have to be nice to you. Threaten my friends, family, or neighbors, i no longer need to be nice to you.
The fact you don't see a difference between your personal religious beliefs and physically threatening people says an awful lot about you
> unless you belong to the same branch of my religion
This is a straw man. It is reasonable for you to be upset when I say you do not belong in my country and not reasonable for you to be upset when I say I am Christian. That's the perspective you're arguing against and you only hurt your counter-argument when you misunderstand other points of view. If you tell me that I don't belong in your country, you can bet I won't hold the door for you. How is that at all controversial?
Just calling something a strawman does not make it a strawman. "Motte and Bailey" would be a better accusation, if you do assert that religion is less significant to someone's worldview than their politics.
> It is reasonable for you to be upset when I say you do not belong in my country
Sure, I've been a new immigrant before and have felt that pang of discomfort when "othered." It's part of why I personally am very pro-immigration. It helps that I'm both from and moved to countries which have very open attitudes to immigration. Not every country is the same: Denmark is among the most critical countries in Europe to immigration. Are Danish people simply not allowed to hold that view? What about Japan (obv. not in Europe, but still) - is that society and its people "bad" or "wrong" for not being more accepting to immigrants than Germany or Canada or the UK? dhh actually touches on these topics in depth in one of the posts you are likely alluding to ("As I remember London" 2025-09-15) with quotations from Denmark's (SocDem) PM.
> not reasonable for you to be upset when I say I am Christian.
Why? If you are not of my faith, you are rejecting it and saying that I am wrong about the most important thing in all of metaphysics. And potentially will be punished or doomed for that. Religion is a core part of many people's worldview and politics. It's also a great indicator of how well pluralism is working in a society. If Christians and Muslims are bombing each other's places of worship, that's bad. If they can coexist despite their fundamental differences in theology and ethics, that's good. And so it should be extended to alternative political views.
This isn't because I want to defend any particular policy or person, but because the pendulum always swings and its what we do now that dictates what will be done to us in the future. In a democracy, when all of the votes are counted, the loser phones the winner and congratulates them. If the incumbent lost, there is a peaceful transition of power. It doesn't matter if the loser thinks (rightly or wrongly) that the winner will run the country into the ground and harm the people. It doesn't matter if their entire campaign was based on lies or misrepresented facts. The rules of the game say that you accept the vote and the process whether it goes your way or not.
That is what allows elections to not become riots and civil wars. It is what allows debates rather than assassinations. It is what allows me to hold the door open at the coffee shop no matter if the person behind me voted for $foo [wants to keep housing prices high and cut social spending, evil] or for $bar [promised free candy, savors of the nation] or if they are wearing clothing from a different faith from me. And they'll do the same for me.
This is all basic social empathy. You feel they're wrong, they feel you're just as wrong, you look past it because the alternative is so much worse. If you can't internalize that anyone would ever disagree with you and therefore we should not have a society which allows for peaceful disagreements, then that's on you.
> "Motte and Bailey" would be a better accusation, if you do assert that religion is less significant to someone's worldview than their politics.
No, straw man is accurate. You're going after a position they didn't take.
> If you are not of my faith, you are rejecting it and saying that I am wrong about the most important thing in all of metaphysics. And potentially will be punished or doomed for that.
Well that's just not true. My faith is not metaphysical and I don't think you should or will be punished for having a different one. (This is another straw man.) My statement about my faith and personal philosophy is a statement about me. My statement that you don't belong is about you. That is the difference which you misunderstand.
At this point, the phrase "politics they disagree with" is transparently rage-bait. It serves primarily to dismiss and invalidate the reasons for the disagreement without addressing them in good-faith discussion. People using this phrase are not intending to empathize with another's point of view.
> > "Politics they disagree with" means racism, homophobia and ableism.
> No, it doesn't.
It literally and obviously does. The people making statements about his statements are the ones who decide what they mean with their statements about his statements. That is plainly obvious and doesn't need to be explained.
> And that perception is itself politically driven.
What I see is politically-driven dismissal of others' perspectives, such as by saying "politics they disagree with" instead of addressing the reasons for the disagreement.
> It serves primarily to dismiss and invalidate the reasons for the disagreement without addressing them in good-faith discussion.
There is nothing to discuss. I am summarizing past discussions that already concluded, which I have not shown here and you presumably have not seen. (Hint: the overwhelming majority of the disagreement I have in mind has nothing to do with DHH or Omarchy.)
When I propose that someone else's reasons for disagreement are not based in objective fact but in their subjective assessment of the evidence, that is simply me disagreeing with that assessment. I am equally entitled to disagree with them as they are with me. There is no good reason for you, as a third party, to be enraged by this or to question my good faith.
> The people making statements about his statements are the ones who decide what they mean with their statements about his statements.
They can mean whatever they want. However, this discussion is about "people [who] label politics they disagree with as “ethical” problems." in the abstract. To say that "'politics they disagree with' means XYZ", as a third party, is not an observation about what someone else intended to community. It's a claim being made about the supposed objective nature of whatever was disagreed with; and it's simply not possible to evidence that in general.
I am sharing my personal experience that, generally speaking, when people call someone else a racist etc. due to expressed political views, very commonly the expressed political views do not reasonably evidence racism.
You are misunderstanding what others mean. aaplok at the top of the thread is making a point that allows for you to disagree that it's actually racist. Still, the pull quote you disagreed with is about what people are intending to communicate, which is that they think DHH's comments are racist. It's a different discussion to say you disagree with that assessment.
Shouldn't they stop using all of the computers altogether because they have parts produced in oppresive comunist country? I get it - DHH pissed off gay/lesb/non-binary community and now they're after him.
> If you like strange and unusual descriptions of common things, explained in extreme depth, the Tedium newsletter is a great place to look for those, because it’s what we specialize in. Rather than focusing on viral things, we instead write about things that would never go viral on their own, that need context and storytelling around them to highlight their importance. Sometimes, the best stories haven’t been properly contexualized. There’s room for someone to do that, and that’s where we come in.
I don't think their mission statement covers ongoing internet dramas & cancel campaigns. Rather, this article feels like mission creep, lacking novel insight. For me, the only new info I caught is the author's intimation that the founder of Framework laptops should be canceled.
Much like LARBS, if I ever see you using Omarchy I just have to assume you don't know what you're doing. You can install Arch and rice i3wm in literally 10 minutes if your SSD and WiFi is fast enough.