undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmijoharas7mo ago0 comments

Thanks Mike, I editted, and asked this:

> Why do the maintainers have a problem with this? I thought the stated reason was about RC removing everyone's access with no warning.

I seem to remember some of DHH's controversy due to banning politics at basecamp or something. Is it related to that?

0 comments

kubectl_h7mo ago

https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64

junon7mo ago

Yet another "it's okay if I move there, but now that they have moved there, it sucks and is 'foreign'" take.

It just reads like thinly veiled racism.

sebastianz7mo ago

> It just reads like thinly veiled racism.

Thinly veiled? What veil - it's completely naked, one can clearly see all the constituent parts, including the repugnant bits.

bakugo7mo ago

> I seem to remember some of DHH's controversy due to banning politics at basecamp or something. Is it related to that?

I wouldn't be surprised. The presence of this quote in the linked document:

> A person’s character is determined not only by their actions, but also the actions they stay silent while witnessing.

Suggests that the person who wrote it is deeply obsessed with political activism.

lstodd7mo ago

Inaction is an action in itself, they are right in this. IDK where you see a deep obsession in a recognition of this obvious fact.

bakugo7mo ago

No, inaction is inaction.

Claiming otherwise is just a roundabout way of saying "you must actively support my agenda at all times, otherwise I will consider you my enemy, even if you take a neutral stance" that political activists love to use to pressure normal people into supporting them.

beachy7mo ago

Also consider that many people are not in the US and are not obliged to wade into US politics.

1 more reply

lstodd7mo ago

Inaction is a manifestation of one of two things: ignorance, or conscious decision to not act. I agree that strictly only the latter can be considered an act, while the former .. well. Not an act, but a then the question arises if an unconscious person can even be considered a person _in_relation_to_having_a_conversation_with_them_. That last point I must even more press.

I think this is what we are discussing. Please share your viewpoint on this.

1 more reply

ranger_danger7mo ago

I think it depends on why there is inaction.

rexpop7mo ago

There is no "neutral stance," only ignorance of bias.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10970937

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

kubectl_h7mo ago

https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64

junon7mo ago

Yet another "it's okay if I move there, but now that they have moved there, it sucks and is 'foreign'" take.

It just reads like thinly veiled racism.

sebastianz7mo ago

> It just reads like thinly veiled racism.

Thinly veiled? What veil - it's completely naked, one can clearly see all the constituent parts, including the repugnant bits.

bakugo7mo ago

> I seem to remember some of DHH's controversy due to banning politics at basecamp or something. Is it related to that?

I wouldn't be surprised. The presence of this quote in the linked document:

> A person’s character is determined not only by their actions, but also the actions they stay silent while witnessing.

Suggests that the person who wrote it is deeply obsessed with political activism.

lstodd7mo ago

Inaction is an action in itself, they are right in this. IDK where you see a deep obsession in a recognition of this obvious fact.

bakugo7mo ago

No, inaction is inaction.

beachy7mo ago

Also consider that many people are not in the US and are not obliged to wade into US politics.

1 more reply

lstodd7mo ago

I think this is what we are discussing. Please share your viewpoint on this.

1 more reply

ranger_danger7mo ago

I think it depends on why there is inaction.

rexpop7mo ago

There is no "neutral stance," only ignorance of bias.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10970937

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse