Hi, I am not exactly sure how best to frame this, but recent events have got me wondering where exactly Framework, as a company, stands with regards to human rights and equality. If I understand correctly (and please do correct me if I am wrong), it seems like Framework has started sponsoring Hyprland: So I presume this is fact: Framework, as a company, has decided to sponsor a Wayland compositor who is well known to be led as a rather “toxic and hateful community”. Separately, but on the ...

Title of the (concerning) thread on their community forum, not voluntary clickbait. Came across the thread thanks to a toot by @[email protected] (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

  • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zipEnglish
    4·
    5 days ago

    You say it’s a solved problem in one area as though it should be a solved problem elsewhere

    Yes. That is the point. This problem has already been solved. “Well we don’t do that” is not an explanation of why it is suddenly a problem here: it is an admission of incompetence.

    Don’t get me wrong. There are very much reasons to consider whether that solution applies. That is not what you, and the other… moving on, are doing.

    You instead continue to insist that we should… give money to known bigoted chuds because we still let the Hindus and the Buddhists use swastikas?

    So how is this rub?

    I tried to talk around it but I am just going to say it: You are being RIDICULOUSLY offensive by implying that people of (generally) Asian religions need to change their iconography because of a bunch of racist white people. You are being RIDICULOUSLY offensive by comparing that to giving chuds money because they wrote some code you might like.

    If you can find a way to restructure your thoughts in ways that don’t imply (generally) people of color need to bend over backwards before you’ll consider anything else? We can have a conversation. Otherwise? Truth Social is that way.

    And, because you seem to not understand commonly used rhetorical devices: Yes, that is me saying “please don’t do that”. Just with the words “you fucking” implicitly added on before a few more choice ones.

    • palordrolap@fedia.io
      12·
      5 days ago

      You are […] implying that people of (generally) Asian religions need to change their iconography

      That is not and was not my intent, and I was less sure of yours until just now. (This may be reading (in)comprehension on my part, to which I’ll be happy to admit fault.)

      So, let me make sure I’m understanding you. Are you saying that you think that any and all gains from bigoted or unethical sources should be thrown away and that we should have nothing to do with them?

      I understand why people would be extremely uncomfortable with some of these and I even think that where we can, we should avoid them, but we can’t get rid of everything.

      If we must insist on everything then the whole of humanity needs to get in the sea because we’re all products of humanity’s inhumanity if you go back far enough. In many cases, it’s not that far.

      If we say “nothing” then we give way to terrible people and let them have free reign.

      So tell me. Where is the line? I still think that’s a fairly difficult question, even if you don’t.

      • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zipEnglish
        4·
        5 days ago

        So, let me make sure I’m understanding you. Are you saying that you think that any and all gains from bigoted or unethical sources should be thrown away and that we should have nothing to do with them?

        No. As I said in the comment you clearly did not read while deciding to dismiss

        The reality is that it is almost never one person saying something. And you can EASILY prioritize the other orgs that came to a similar decision. It is more about marketing and less about ideology, but people generally attribute calculus to Newton over anyone else even though it was largely an evolution and codification of existing concepts.

        (…)

        And if the reality is that it truly did come out of hatred and evil (e.g. a surprisingly small amount of medical research does indeed come out of the atrocities of WW2). You don’t tell someone “Hey, this medicine came from torturing and murdering Romani twins”. You give it to them, maybe think a bit if you are aware, and move on. And any historical discussion provides all the context and uses that context as a thought discussion.

        As for your other comment

        So tell me. Where is the line? I still think that’s a fairly difficult question, even if you don’t.

        Well, in this case I think the line is pretty clear: Don’t give money to nazis. Which is what Framework Corp is doing. This is not a case of choosing to not remove a package run by known hateful bigots from a package manager. It is a case of actively giving money to said bigots.