I stopped reading at the point he described Basecamp as having imploded.
Can we please at least try to be a little more objective in how we use language?
You may agree or disagree with what Basecamp, now 37signals, did but the company did not “implode”.
Many of their employees - one third - did disagree with what they did and chose to leave.
Was their leaving a protest? Well, maybe. But IIRC they were offered very generous severance terms, which would have made that choice much easier to make and so perhaps robs it of some of its value as a protest.
And what about the company? Well, as far as I can tell, they seem to be doing fine. They’re offering junior devs, was it 125k or 150k US fully remote? Somewhere in that ballpark anyway. And just about anywhere within a certain range of time zones. That’s not a sign of a company that’s struggling.
I have read DHH’s blog post about London, and I am a Brit, so think I can offer a somewhat qualified point of view here. DHH is correct about the demographic changes in London over the past decades, but he’s absolutely wrong to cast Tommy Robinson (aka Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) as some kind of good faith activist standing up for the rights of ordinary British folks. The guy is a criminal and a low-life grifter. I can’t even really call him a fascist because I’m not convinced he really believes a word he’s saying. So I’ll stick with con-artist.
Back to the post: the most charitable interpretation I can put on it is that DHH simply hasn’t done his homework on Robinson. Is that an accurate characterisation? I honestly don’t know.
And I don't even know much of these stuff is related to Ruby Central Is Not Behaving in Good Faith. Not a good sign for an article if it's for showing evidence... (maybe it's not
I wish I can see more summary, state facts mostly (with sources even they might not be reliable but better than just guessing without source)
It isn't being used as a pejorative. But an adult person shouldn't write like an emotionally unstable teenager if they want to be taken seriously. Teenage girls have a particularly clichéd way of writing and communicating. That's it. Being emotionally unstable isn't a pejorative either; it's part of growing up. It's called adolescence, when the brain is in a particularly turbulent and dynamic part of development.
I can't remember exactly what the now flagged comment said, but there is something odd and affected about adopting the slang/jargon of people a generation younger than you.
And this type of person seems to be exactly why Ruby Central did what it did: To save the projects from being misused as protest tools by histrionic people that make sweeping derogatory remarks about other people whose benign opinions they dislike.
I am not affiliated with either “side” so I allow myself this small outburst of my own because I see no receipts and the tone of this blog post set the stage for it.
This is the decay of the current political discourse.
World views that disparage human beings where previously condemned but the overton window slowly shifted the topic of eg. "degenerates" back into the public. Even though we are thankfully not quite there to talk openly about a final solution (that time might come!).
It started with "edgy humor" and ambigous statements and slowly increased in misantrophy and number.
Ofc it is predominantly the political right that, openly or indirectly, revolves around conservative identity politics and in turn is more susceptible to disgust driven out-group biases.
But this behaviour can be seen on the political left too. As a reaction to the right communicating in dog whistles, they got kind of conditioned on it too and that is IMO the prime motivator of this blog post.
Jared White could have done a better job by collecting more examples of such "hate speech" but to be pedantic here, DHH -- like any reasonable person -- should avoid ambiguity and take a big step back from any ambiguous public communication or at least clarify.
When this open, clear and construstive communication doesnt happen, you can observe stuff like this. Name calling and blame around "banalities". Its just the surfacing part of a bigger conflict, which can be hard to pin point since one side is (intentionally) ambiguous/evasive/ignorant.
Reading DHHs quoted X post is a good example of deteriorating communication:
> @dhh: While the rest of the tech world has mostly moved on from the nonsense of the early 2020s, there are still a few ardent ideologues fighting the last war on Reddit, believing that ridiculous accusations like “nazi” and “fascist” still carry any weight
I wouldnt put a text together, where (1) i am not adressing the other sides concerns, (2) frame them negatively and (3) normalize allegations, others take very serious (nazi, fascism) as wheightless when i am in charge of managing (and uniting) a community. This is a serious red flag.
And it's predominantly the politic left (in the US, not where I'm from) that literally censored speech [1] and called the political right any kind of derogative words to make them shut up, no matter what was said.
Everyone made this bed, and now they have to sleep in it.
What DHH is writing might seem extreme in the US, but in Europe, this is pretty much the dominant view. We're done with this. We've had the label "nazi" thrown at people who simply say "we need to reduce immigration", so it's lost all meaning. Which I don't like, to be clear: That term is terrible, and nazis are not acceptable in our societies. But the term has been diluted to the point where half of the political spectrum accuse the other half of being said thing when that's obviously bollocks.
I am not a propnent of cencorship or loose labeling as nazi etc. too. Identity politics is unfortunately also part of the left, which allows right wing media to manipulate the gullible by mis-portraying the left with dislikeable stereotypes of LGBTQ/communism/violence etc.
> we have enough of this
So do i. But what to do about it?
Having a clear, open and hopefully constructive conversation about
> we need to reduce immigration
would take one of two pathes (once we have agreed on that migration is required). Either the problems with migrants are inherent to them or to the society they grew up in. Its the nature vs nurture debate.
Path 1 would be the dehumanising, simple-minded right wing "pill". Path 2 is the complex left stance about wealth distribution leading to better social mobility, more stable families, strengthening institutions, communities and democracies, blablabla.
Which path would you take?
Would it be too much, if id call trump a nazi or could you still politically align yourself with someone who does?
You didnt state "we need to reduce _criminal_ migration."
Trump campaigned against criminal mexicans and is now deporting any hard working migrant, even when they are welcome in the local community and valuable members of society. ... like a racist? Maybe even a nazi?
I am tired of not having clear, open and constructrive conversations about self-critizing topics with people. I think, my previous post described the the political conversation matter pretty good and suprisingly not that inflamatory and all you responded was basically "but look at what the left does!"
I think you cannot imagine how often i got such a reply from right wingers and how increasingly annoying it is.
The older leftist path was that taking refugees was the moral thing to do, but taking immigrants to do cheap jobs was not.
In the past the left was saying "the real issue is capital using migration to drive down wages and fragment worker power".
Today nobody is saying that anymore, left or right, because nobody cares about neither refugees nor workers. It's just extremist positions in public discourse. Saying "economic migrant" has become a dog whistle.
I agree with tour depiction but tiny nitpick: this is not really describing problems with migrants and the real issue being capital driving down wages.
It's for similar reasons that frustrate you that I responded like I did: I am so _so_ tired from years and years of bad faith arguments where I will spend a great deal of time and energy to lay out detailed explanations, and the opposite party will respond with minimal energy, preconceived talking points, ignoring all of it.
We find ourselves in a prisoner's dilemma when it comes to debates around this topic (and many more) in terms of energy expenditure.
I have limited time and energy each day for discourse about these topics. I set off some time because I find it important. However I have been "stabbed" in the back so many times (as described above) that statistically I _have_ to assume the bad-faith arguments as the default. So why engage at all, you might ask. Because other people _need_ to see there's dissent here. Because fundamentally I do disagree with you.
I'll respond more concretely:
You say there are only two paths, once we agree that migration is required. In itself I refuse to accept that argument, because migration being needed is not a universal, indefinite, inalienable truth. It depends on many contextual factors, affecting its quantity, all the way down to 0.
Here's my stance on the primary limiting factors to this: The host nations' economic, societal and cultural health.
Societal health has to do with things like current crime rates, infrastructure like hospitals and schools, and more. It is tied to economic health, but not exclusively.
Cultural health has to do with a society's current ethical and moral foundation; how stable is it?
The entire point of taking in immigrants is not to brainwash them, that's not what I think when I write "integrate". But a minimum requirement is that immigrants respect the current culture and agree with more facets of it than they disagree with. To be concrete, if a predominantly _culturally_ Christian culture like Norway -- and we do not have a state religion anymore, but our lingering culture is deeply Christian in how our unwritten moral and ethical codes guide us -- if such a culture takes in too many immigrants of religions with complete counter ethical and moral views (I won't name names, use your imagination), then that erodes the societal health until such differences are reconciled.
Economical health speaks for itself. How are our hospitals doing? Elderly care? School and kindergartens? How many _new people_ can we _actually_ take care of without breaking the current economy and/or public services and infrastructure? What is the unemployment rate? What jobs are available?
These factors impact whether immigration is required. And we _must_ start there. And a country must be (and is, by international law) able to say no for whatever reason.
If you find what I've written so far to be entirely unreasonable then I'll save us both the time and energy by stopping here; they are limited resources, after all. But if you find the conversation interesting I am willing to continue.
> DHH would be platformed—and ironically at the very conference he was asked not to keynote in 2022 seemingly as a result of Basecamp’s politically-charged implosion which led to a third of the entire company resigning in protest.
That's a funny way to say that he asked for people to refrain from politics when they're at work and a third of the company said no and left, I really struggle to see this in a bad light. I don't have beefs on this whole discussion and only sporadically follow DHH blog posts, I think the main conflict people are having with his views is that work is not just work anymore, people are expected to share a vision, to have the same cliques, to live the same live, work became for some people what family, church or the local community used to be for most before that. See for example https://medium.com/signal-v-noise/the-company-isnt-a-family-... or his book "It Doesn't Have to Be Crazy at Work".
I was talking to a friend who worked in the US and the UK about the culture differences, and he mentioned how the US leaned more towards a family culture where the UK was more of a pub culture. On a family you feel required to cope with whatever bs is thrown at you because you're supposed to stick together. On a pub the more off putting you are the more chances people are not gonna talk to you.
Sounds rather dramatic. For some reason, the rails community seem to have some drama going on every few years. Wish nodejs or golang would have this kinda thing. I'd be shocked though. I think it is fairly easy to see that the ruby eco-system seems somewhat politically charged.
> Shan Cureton and Ruby Central, as of June 10, knew DHH was already weaponizing his return to RailsConf to attack his enemies, because I was the one who shared this information with them.
Mike Perham has been quite vocal on microblogs, and he pulled 250k/year funding from RubyCentral, which is why Shopify is the main sponsor now. AFAIK, he pulled his funding for reasons related to DHH.
The article did not live up to the title and shifts focus to DHH and his political tweets, which is totally irrelevant of RubyCentrals hostile takeover
What is even weirder is that towards the end, after all of the pie throwing, the author ends with "I am done. I am done with this drama." and suggests building a separate ecosystem for Ruby from the ground up
I can barely take the article serious at this point. I am afraid the author caused more damage and confusion than good, if anything, this might even make people feel like what RubyCentral did was right
"the drama never ends" because people like the author continually attempt to induce it, by doing things like demanding a guest at a tech talk be uninvited because of their non-tech views.
I don't really understand the outrage either. If he was planning on including his political views in the speech, that's something else, but I personally don't give much of a fuck about the political views of anyone, especially wouldn't use it to inform my technology choices.
It seem impossible for some people to allow anyone with dissenting views to their own to even exist anymore, pretty sad set of affairs.
What's the old quote? "Your right to swing your fist ends at the other guys nose?" Perhaps we'd all do better keeping that in mind.
Let's imagine my political views are "People called cyberpunk should be put in the gulag and starved to death."
Are you going to be happy coming to a conference which puts me on the main stage to talk about my CSS framework?
Will you say "Oh, I'll go but skip that guy's talk."
Will you say "Hey, organisers, would you mind not platforming someone who is trying to harm me?"
Or will you go "I can't be bothered with this drama."
The thing is, people like this are trying to actively harm people people like me and my friends. I'm not content to go "Oh well, let's agree to disagree" - because the issue at stake is whether me and my friends get to live.
Firstly, I don't give enough of a fuck about what any individual thinks and I certainly don't do background checks on conference speakers.
Secondly, where do you draw the line? Shop workers? Hair dressers? Your taxi driver? Many of those in the country in which I am an immigrant would gladly forcibly deport me and separate me from my family; but I don't run scared enough of them to try to silence them or hide from them.
Also, I think you're being somewhat dramatic here saying he openly called for imprisonment and executions, but please provide sources if I'm wrong.
I've literally asked a taxi driver to let me out early because he started a racist rant. With a hairdresser, I'd leave a bad review (never argue with someone holding scissors).
The thing is, now that you do know someone's views - what are you going to do?
People with abhorrent views should learn that people disagree with them. Otherwise they will continue to spill their toxic poison everywhere.
Don't you realise this cuts both ways though? Your views are abhorrent to them, why are theirs worth less than yours?
For sure I don't agree with those people, but they absolutely have the same rights as we do to have their own opinions. Trying to silence them just makes you as bad as they are. We can't change the current state of global discourse, but we can each be more tolerant of each other and that starts with ourselves.
Have you read his blog post about London? The one where he praises the racist convicted criminal Stephen Yaxley-Lennon? The one where he described the violent march as being full of "normal, peaceful Brits"? The one where he stirs up ethnic tension by talking about "rape gangs" from one minority (despite the stats not backing up his assertion)? The one where he lavishes praise on an obsessive trasphobe?
What do you think he is trying to do if not incite violence and hate?
By that standard, wouldn't DHH say that you're trying to kill him and people like him? Has he used his power to demand that people that share your viewpoints aren't platformed at tech conferences?
If David thinks that you support rape gangs, and replacing a city of white people with a city of non-white people, that certainly sounds like you are advocating violence against people like him, and want to get him thrown out of his home, based on the same standard that you described.
So making a switch like this can never happen perfectly. You will always have people hurt. The changes do make RubyGems more secure, right? Feelings are hurt, but no software is in danger.
I read through this and got to this bit. The first paragraph is DHH. The second paragraph is the author's interpretation.
>> “First-world problems” shouldn’t be seen as an insult, but a celebration! Hurraaaay, I have ascended from the daily toils and tribulations of a life in the third world, so my worries may now include slow laundry machines and air conditioning, not starvation or failed states
> I regret to say I am unable to support an organization which seems unable to publicly disavow a man who has demonstrated numerous times to be a racist, homophobe, transphobe, fatphobe, ableist white nationalist who is now apparently cheering on death via starvation in third world countries.
The quote clearly doesn't "cheer on death via starvation". Given that, I'm extremely doubtful about the author's other claims that DHH is a fatphobe, homophobe, thisphobe, thatphobe.... If the author can be this silly and/or dishonest about something he himself quotes, then why should I trust anything else he says?
Calling this "hateful to therapists" is just ridiculous. DHH is arguing that there are good alternatives to therapy! There is nothing remotely close to hate in the whole article.
Maybe DHH is actually a total Nazi - I'd never heard of the guy till today. What we can clearly see is that Jared White is either a liar or an idiot.
I'm sorry to see this sort of nonsense still thriving, and it is 100% right that it should have been left behind. More than that - people who slander others deserve to be shamed themselves.
In the article he supports Tommy Robinson[0], who I think most people in the UK would consider a fascist. He started the EDL (english defense league) which was a more violent extreme version of the BNP (british national party), which the ADL article I just linked describes as "fascist".
I only found out about his views the other day too, so can't say I've noticed any articles that are explicitly fascist, but given what I've read and his support for fascist figures I wouldn't necessarily be surprised at the moment to be honest.
I am from the UK and know about Tommy Robinson in passing. I read the ADL article and am struggling to see how he is a fascist, he is anti-islam and anti-immigrant but how does that translate to wanting a dictatorial leader, autocracy, forcible suppression etc like Russia?
you don't think of Tommy Robinson as fascist? that's surprising to me. Ok, so I've grabbed a random definition of fascism[0] (first thing that came up googling).
> a populist political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition
now, let's think about tommy robinson and the EDL.
* exalts nation and often race above the individual - check.
* wants a centralised autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader - check.
* by forcible suppression of opposition - I mean... it's the EDL, big check.
he excels in this kind of dog whistling. it confuses people who were born yesterday, but it is loud and clear to people who agree with him or are the intended victims.
He says "non-native brits" and says there are "about a third" and links to a page showing 36% "White British"[0] (note: explicitly excluding non-white british)
Agreed, but being a conservative or right wing person does not equal being a fascist. We should be reserving those words to the people that really deserve them, otherwise the word loses the meaning.
And this is why these very serious words have lost their power. Racist, Sexist, Fascist.... When half the country is deemed to support "literal" Himler, or when Elon Musk, or Jews with family impacted by the Holocaust, are called Nahtzees, then these words have been diluted to mean nothing.
I hope people who so overused&misused these words are happy with what they achieved.
Congratulations you made these words lose all power. I would have preferred a world where these words still had serious meaning attached to them.
We as a society keep coming up with more and more esoteric definition of "fascist" just to avoid having one that fits modern day political actors. I feel like the word has far more meaning here, where it's used to describe a set of policy prescriptions than it is as only referring to a list of groups with all criteria for entry erased.
Personally it seems the other way round, more and more esoteric definition of X so you can label your opponent it and discount everything about them without having to debate. Hence why I had to ask if he actually is one.
Interesting it says knife crime for 23/24 was up 16% for London. I wonder if they only record convictions so the 19% decrease will change as people are convicted.
Also West Midlands is that not Biringham etc? Is that not one of the other mostly non-white places in the UK? You could have pointed to number 3 on the list Cleveland being mostly white(95%+ I think) and not being much lower than London.
It's almost like crime isn't that strongly correlated with the ethnic mix of a place! I'm sorry reality doesn't support your racism.
Of course, if you don't believe the police data, that page suggests you look at hospital admissions.
Again, as I said, London is lovely. You said there was a problem with knife crime. I pointed out that London is lower than a comparable major US city. It's also lower than several areas in the UK.
Come and visit - don't believe the lies being spread.
> It's almost like crime isn't that strongly correlated with the ethnic mix of a place! I'm sorry reality doesn't support your racism.
How is what I said racist? I was agreeing with you but saying London being #2 and pointing to #1 is not really proving your point. You should point to #3 to make your point.
> I pointed out that London is lower than a comparable major US city.
Again, you can not compare across countries you don't know the difference in how the data is recorded. For example is a murder not recorded in the USA for every suspious death where as the UK it is for every murder conviction?
> It's also lower than several areas in the UK.
It is #2 on that 23/24 list.
> Come and visit - don't believe the lies being spread.
I lived on London's outskirts for multiple years and have to visit multiple times a year. I wouldn't describe it as great, I dread going everytime.
“First-world problems” shouldn’t be seen as an insult, but a celebration! Hurraaaay, I have ascended from the daily toils and tribulations of a life in the third world, so my worries may now include slow laundry machines and air conditioning, not starvation or failed states [party confetti emoji]
What this guy feels about that:
I regret to say I am unable to support an organization which seems unable to publicly disavow a man who has demonstrated numerous times to be a racist, homophobe, transphobe, fatphobe, ableist white nationalist who is now apparently cheering on death via starvation in third world countries
It's too much. I don't have the patience for this. The complaint is so out of left field I have to assume DHH and the RubyCentral guys are right.
> I regret to say I am unable to support an organization which seems unable to publicly disavow a man who has demonstrated numerous times to be a racist, homophobe, transphobe, fatphobe, ableist white nationalist who is now apparently cheering on death via starvation in third world countries.
The only direct quote from DHH in the article seems to be this, which is quoted as being offensive (?):
> “First-world problems” shouldn’t be seen as an insult, but a celebration! Hurraaaay, I have ascended from the daily toils and tribulations of a life in the third world, so my worries may now include slow laundry machines and air conditioning, not starvation or failed states
How is this offensive? Seems like a nothing burger.
I don't know anything about this topic other than what was in this post.
> I regret to say I am unable to support an organization which seems unable to publicly disavow a man [...] who is now apparently cheering on death via starvation in third world countries.
I do not understand how such conclusion could be drawn, I even started asking myself how any of this was related to the current issue with RubyCentral and RubyGems?
I really had no idea of DHH's politics and I read through the linked posts and, while I don't agree with a bunch of what DHH said, none strike me as excessively extreme. Worth debating? Sure. Worth protesting? Less sure.
I will say DHH's post on Trump's return is like reading something from an alternate universe (https://world.hey.com/dhh/mega-a0f62cd4). What optimism was there in Trump's second campaign? Trump promised exactly what he's doing: retribution, tariffs, self-dealing and corruption, accelerating climate change, etc. I'm curious DHH's assessment of the past ~9 months and how it matches with his original "optimism".
I think it's tricky because he's vocally supporting Tommy Robinson. It's pretty similar to if he came out in support of the KKK or something like that.
As someone who did enjoy his writing it's quite shocking and really very disappointing.
Yeah I came here to say this, if the author somehow understood that this is cheering for starving children, I believe he has some comperhension issues.
Hate to break it to you but, sample size of 9, my entire friend group talks like this. We're all in our 30s.
Language changes. The construction "what's up" and its extension "what's up with ..." didn't become widely accepted until Bugs Bunny brought it into the mainstream, and yet you use it as naturally as anything else at the beginning of your message.
I don't know that it's particularly constructive to dish on this post purely on that account.
Whilst I don’t necessarily disagree with your overall point, this kind of inflammatory commentary which has taken a solid step into personal attack territory
> If you and your friends all talk in this way you are just oblivious to the fact you are the problem.
isn’t really helping, is it?
Moreover, generational complaints about use of language and communication style are solidly off topic and do not rise above the level of cliche.
This is unrelated to Ruby and the author is against free speech because he wants to professionaly censor someone because of his work-unrelated opinions.
Plus there are perfectly valid reasons to prefer some categories of people over others. It has nothing to do with hate or fascism, it's only natural.
I'm a DINK (double-income no kids) and I don't feel the hate of DDH, I only see someone who thinks it's worthwhile to be a parent and it's a dead end not to be. It's technically true and you can't argue against that anyway.
I mean, what's the take here? Discrimination against people who can't have children? Hatred towards those who won't? Did he only encourage people of a certain race to have children?
I remember listening to some interviews/podcasts where he discussed this. I don't have children myself, but I did not detect any malice in his arguments.
His tone is so histrionic. I'm glad the influence of people like this is now somewhat lower than 5 years ago.
I stopped reading at the point he described Basecamp as having imploded.
Can we please at least try to be a little more objective in how we use language?
You may agree or disagree with what Basecamp, now 37signals, did but the company did not “implode”.
Many of their employees - one third - did disagree with what they did and chose to leave.
Was their leaving a protest? Well, maybe. But IIRC they were offered very generous severance terms, which would have made that choice much easier to make and so perhaps robs it of some of its value as a protest.
And what about the company? Well, as far as I can tell, they seem to be doing fine. They’re offering junior devs, was it 125k or 150k US fully remote? Somewhere in that ballpark anyway. And just about anywhere within a certain range of time zones. That’s not a sign of a company that’s struggling.
I have read DHH’s blog post about London, and I am a Brit, so think I can offer a somewhat qualified point of view here. DHH is correct about the demographic changes in London over the past decades, but he’s absolutely wrong to cast Tommy Robinson (aka Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) as some kind of good faith activist standing up for the rights of ordinary British folks. The guy is a criminal and a low-life grifter. I can’t even really call him a fascist because I’m not convinced he really believes a word he’s saying. So I’ll stick with con-artist.
Back to the post: the most charitable interpretation I can put on it is that DHH simply hasn’t done his homework on Robinson. Is that an accurate characterisation? I honestly don’t know.
And I don't even know much of these stuff is related to Ruby Central Is Not Behaving in Good Faith. Not a good sign for an article if it's for showing evidence... (maybe it's not
I wish I can see more summary, state facts mostly (with sources even they might not be reliable but better than just guessing without source)
[flagged]
Both sexist and ageist in one comment. Surprised you didn't manage to cram in homophobia.
[flagged]
Sure, OK. But why is "teenage girl" being used as a pejorative?
Is there something wrong with writing like a girl?
It isn't being used as a pejorative. But an adult person shouldn't write like an emotionally unstable teenager if they want to be taken seriously. Teenage girls have a particularly clichéd way of writing and communicating. That's it. Being emotionally unstable isn't a pejorative either; it's part of growing up. It's called adolescence, when the brain is in a particularly turbulent and dynamic part of development.
I can't remember exactly what the now flagged comment said, but there is something odd and affected about adopting the slang/jargon of people a generation younger than you.
And this type of person seems to be exactly why Ruby Central did what it did: To save the projects from being misused as protest tools by histrionic people that make sweeping derogatory remarks about other people whose benign opinions they dislike.
I am not affiliated with either “side” so I allow myself this small outburst of my own because I see no receipts and the tone of this blog post set the stage for it.
> I am not affiliated with either “side”
Then why are you carrying water for exclusively one "side"?
This is the decay of the current political discourse.
World views that disparage human beings where previously condemned but the overton window slowly shifted the topic of eg. "degenerates" back into the public. Even though we are thankfully not quite there to talk openly about a final solution (that time might come!).
It started with "edgy humor" and ambigous statements and slowly increased in misantrophy and number.
Ofc it is predominantly the political right that, openly or indirectly, revolves around conservative identity politics and in turn is more susceptible to disgust driven out-group biases.
But this behaviour can be seen on the political left too. As a reaction to the right communicating in dog whistles, they got kind of conditioned on it too and that is IMO the prime motivator of this blog post.
Jared White could have done a better job by collecting more examples of such "hate speech" but to be pedantic here, DHH -- like any reasonable person -- should avoid ambiguity and take a big step back from any ambiguous public communication or at least clarify.
When this open, clear and construstive communication doesnt happen, you can observe stuff like this. Name calling and blame around "banalities". Its just the surfacing part of a bigger conflict, which can be hard to pin point since one side is (intentionally) ambiguous/evasive/ignorant.
Reading DHHs quoted X post is a good example of deteriorating communication:
> @dhh: While the rest of the tech world has mostly moved on from the nonsense of the early 2020s, there are still a few ardent ideologues fighting the last war on Reddit, believing that ridiculous accusations like “nazi” and “fascist” still carry any weight
I wouldnt put a text together, where (1) i am not adressing the other sides concerns, (2) frame them negatively and (3) normalize allegations, others take very serious (nazi, fascism) as wheightless when i am in charge of managing (and uniting) a community. This is a serious red flag.
And it's predominantly the politic left (in the US, not where I'm from) that literally censored speech [1] and called the political right any kind of derogative words to make them shut up, no matter what was said.
Everyone made this bed, and now they have to sleep in it.
What DHH is writing might seem extreme in the US, but in Europe, this is pretty much the dominant view. We're done with this. We've had the label "nazi" thrown at people who simply say "we need to reduce immigration", so it's lost all meaning. Which I don't like, to be clear: That term is terrible, and nazis are not acceptable in our societies. But the term has been diluted to the point where half of the political spectrum accuse the other half of being said thing when that's obviously bollocks.
[1]: Recent example: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/sep/23/google-admi...
I am not a propnent of cencorship or loose labeling as nazi etc. too. Identity politics is unfortunately also part of the left, which allows right wing media to manipulate the gullible by mis-portraying the left with dislikeable stereotypes of LGBTQ/communism/violence etc.
> we have enough of this
So do i. But what to do about it?
Having a clear, open and hopefully constructive conversation about
> we need to reduce immigration
would take one of two pathes (once we have agreed on that migration is required). Either the problems with migrants are inherent to them or to the society they grew up in. Its the nature vs nurture debate.
Path 1 would be the dehumanising, simple-minded right wing "pill". Path 2 is the complex left stance about wealth distribution leading to better social mobility, more stable families, strengthening institutions, communities and democracies, blablabla.
Which path would you take?
Would it be too much, if id call trump a nazi or could you still politically align yourself with someone who does?
You didnt state "we need to reduce _criminal_ migration."
Trump campaigned against criminal mexicans and is now deporting any hard working migrant, even when they are welcome in the local community and valuable members of society. ... like a racist? Maybe even a nazi?
I am tired of not having clear, open and constructrive conversations about self-critizing topics with people. I think, my previous post described the the political conversation matter pretty good and suprisingly not that inflamatory and all you responded was basically "but look at what the left does!"
I think you cannot imagine how often i got such a reply from right wingers and how increasingly annoying it is.
How do we fix this?
There are more than two paths.
The older leftist path was that taking refugees was the moral thing to do, but taking immigrants to do cheap jobs was not.
In the past the left was saying "the real issue is capital using migration to drive down wages and fragment worker power".
Today nobody is saying that anymore, left or right, because nobody cares about neither refugees nor workers. It's just extremist positions in public discourse. Saying "economic migrant" has become a dog whistle.
I agree with tour depiction but tiny nitpick: this is not really describing problems with migrants and the real issue being capital driving down wages.
It's for similar reasons that frustrate you that I responded like I did: I am so _so_ tired from years and years of bad faith arguments where I will spend a great deal of time and energy to lay out detailed explanations, and the opposite party will respond with minimal energy, preconceived talking points, ignoring all of it.
We find ourselves in a prisoner's dilemma when it comes to debates around this topic (and many more) in terms of energy expenditure.
I have limited time and energy each day for discourse about these topics. I set off some time because I find it important. However I have been "stabbed" in the back so many times (as described above) that statistically I _have_ to assume the bad-faith arguments as the default. So why engage at all, you might ask. Because other people _need_ to see there's dissent here. Because fundamentally I do disagree with you.
I'll respond more concretely:
You say there are only two paths, once we agree that migration is required. In itself I refuse to accept that argument, because migration being needed is not a universal, indefinite, inalienable truth. It depends on many contextual factors, affecting its quantity, all the way down to 0.
Here's my stance on the primary limiting factors to this: The host nations' economic, societal and cultural health.
Societal health has to do with things like current crime rates, infrastructure like hospitals and schools, and more. It is tied to economic health, but not exclusively.
Cultural health has to do with a society's current ethical and moral foundation; how stable is it? The entire point of taking in immigrants is not to brainwash them, that's not what I think when I write "integrate". But a minimum requirement is that immigrants respect the current culture and agree with more facets of it than they disagree with. To be concrete, if a predominantly _culturally_ Christian culture like Norway -- and we do not have a state religion anymore, but our lingering culture is deeply Christian in how our unwritten moral and ethical codes guide us -- if such a culture takes in too many immigrants of religions with complete counter ethical and moral views (I won't name names, use your imagination), then that erodes the societal health until such differences are reconciled.
Economical health speaks for itself. How are our hospitals doing? Elderly care? School and kindergartens? How many _new people_ can we _actually_ take care of without breaking the current economy and/or public services and infrastructure? What is the unemployment rate? What jobs are available?
These factors impact whether immigration is required. And we _must_ start there. And a country must be (and is, by international law) able to say no for whatever reason.
If you find what I've written so far to be entirely unreasonable then I'll save us both the time and energy by stopping here; they are limited resources, after all. But if you find the conversation interesting I am willing to continue.
> Entranced by Portland, Oregon since 2017.
That explains so much
I don't live in US or know very well about US. Would you explain this a bit more for us ignorant people? (or would someone else do it? :3
If you don't like him don't go to his talk.
I fail to see any receipts.
> DHH would be platformed—and ironically at the very conference he was asked not to keynote in 2022 seemingly as a result of Basecamp’s politically-charged implosion which led to a third of the entire company resigning in protest.
That's a funny way to say that he asked for people to refrain from politics when they're at work and a third of the company said no and left, I really struggle to see this in a bad light. I don't have beefs on this whole discussion and only sporadically follow DHH blog posts, I think the main conflict people are having with his views is that work is not just work anymore, people are expected to share a vision, to have the same cliques, to live the same live, work became for some people what family, church or the local community used to be for most before that. See for example https://medium.com/signal-v-noise/the-company-isnt-a-family-... or his book "It Doesn't Have to Be Crazy at Work".
I was talking to a friend who worked in the US and the UK about the culture differences, and he mentioned how the US leaned more towards a family culture where the UK was more of a pub culture. On a family you feel required to cope with whatever bs is thrown at you because you're supposed to stick together. On a pub the more off putting you are the more chances people are not gonna talk to you.
I think one would have a hard time figuring out who quit because of the policy change, and who was just taking the buyout package.
Sounds rather dramatic. For some reason, the rails community seem to have some drama going on every few years. Wish nodejs or golang would have this kinda thing. I'd be shocked though. I think it is fairly easy to see that the ruby eco-system seems somewhat politically charged.
So... Did this get flagged because of its content or because of the backlash?
> Shan Cureton and Ruby Central, as of June 10, knew DHH was already weaponizing his return to RailsConf to attack his enemies, because I was the one who shared this information with them.
What's that about? Who are DHH enemies here?
Mike Perham has been quite vocal on microblogs, and he pulled 250k/year funding from RubyCentral, which is why Shopify is the main sponsor now. AFAIK, he pulled his funding for reasons related to DHH.
https://mastodon.xyz/@mperham
The article did not live up to the title and shifts focus to DHH and his political tweets, which is totally irrelevant of RubyCentrals hostile takeover
What is even weirder is that towards the end, after all of the pie throwing, the author ends with "I am done. I am done with this drama." and suggests building a separate ecosystem for Ruby from the ground up
I can barely take the article serious at this point. I am afraid the author caused more damage and confusion than good, if anything, this might even make people feel like what RubyCentral did was right
"the drama never ends" because people like the author continually attempt to induce it, by doing things like demanding a guest at a tech talk be uninvited because of their non-tech views.
I don't really understand the outrage either. If he was planning on including his political views in the speech, that's something else, but I personally don't give much of a fuck about the political views of anyone, especially wouldn't use it to inform my technology choices.
It seem impossible for some people to allow anyone with dissenting views to their own to even exist anymore, pretty sad set of affairs.
What's the old quote? "Your right to swing your fist ends at the other guys nose?" Perhaps we'd all do better keeping that in mind.
Bollocks.
Let's imagine my political views are "People called cyberpunk should be put in the gulag and starved to death."
Are you going to be happy coming to a conference which puts me on the main stage to talk about my CSS framework?
Will you say "Oh, I'll go but skip that guy's talk."
Will you say "Hey, organisers, would you mind not platforming someone who is trying to harm me?"
Or will you go "I can't be bothered with this drama."
The thing is, people like this are trying to actively harm people people like me and my friends. I'm not content to go "Oh well, let's agree to disagree" - because the issue at stake is whether me and my friends get to live.
Eh, maybe I would actually.
Firstly, I don't give enough of a fuck about what any individual thinks and I certainly don't do background checks on conference speakers.
Secondly, where do you draw the line? Shop workers? Hair dressers? Your taxi driver? Many of those in the country in which I am an immigrant would gladly forcibly deport me and separate me from my family; but I don't run scared enough of them to try to silence them or hide from them.
Also, I think you're being somewhat dramatic here saying he openly called for imprisonment and executions, but please provide sources if I'm wrong.
I've literally asked a taxi driver to let me out early because he started a racist rant. With a hairdresser, I'd leave a bad review (never argue with someone holding scissors).
The thing is, now that you do know someone's views - what are you going to do?
People with abhorrent views should learn that people disagree with them. Otherwise they will continue to spill their toxic poison everywhere.
Don't you realise this cuts both ways though? Your views are abhorrent to them, why are theirs worth less than yours?
For sure I don't agree with those people, but they absolutely have the same rights as we do to have their own opinions. Trying to silence them just makes you as bad as they are. We can't change the current state of global discourse, but we can each be more tolerant of each other and that starts with ourselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
DHH has proposed killing people?
Have you read his blog post about London? The one where he praises the racist convicted criminal Stephen Yaxley-Lennon? The one where he described the violent march as being full of "normal, peaceful Brits"? The one where he stirs up ethnic tension by talking about "rape gangs" from one minority (despite the stats not backing up his assertion)? The one where he lavishes praise on an obsessive trasphobe?
What do you think he is trying to do if not incite violence and hate?
By that standard, wouldn't DHH say that you're trying to kill him and people like him? Has he used his power to demand that people that share your viewpoints aren't platformed at tech conferences?
No.
I am not advocating violence against him. I am not trying to get him thrown out of his home.
The thing is, DHH can really easily stop being racist. Then people won't complain when he's invited to speak.
But the people he is complaining about cannot change their skin colour. They cannot change their nationality (according to him).
The people DHH support are advocating violence. They aren't asking politely for people to leave - they are threatening.
DHH is welcome to tell people not to come to my conferences. People can make up their own mind whether to listen to his opinion (or mine).
If David thinks that you support rape gangs, and replacing a city of white people with a city of non-white people, that certainly sounds like you are advocating violence against people like him, and want to get him thrown out of his home, based on the same standard that you described.
So making a switch like this can never happen perfectly. You will always have people hurt. The changes do make RubyGems more secure, right? Feelings are hurt, but no software is in danger.
I think that's debatable.
All the maintainers quit, including the single security engineer. The code is now unmaintained. There's a good argue that security has been reduced.
I read through this and got to this bit. The first paragraph is DHH. The second paragraph is the author's interpretation.
>> “First-world problems” shouldn’t be seen as an insult, but a celebration! Hurraaaay, I have ascended from the daily toils and tribulations of a life in the third world, so my worries may now include slow laundry machines and air conditioning, not starvation or failed states
> I regret to say I am unable to support an organization which seems unable to publicly disavow a man who has demonstrated numerous times to be a racist, homophobe, transphobe, fatphobe, ableist white nationalist who is now apparently cheering on death via starvation in third world countries.
The quote clearly doesn't "cheer on death via starvation". Given that, I'm extremely doubtful about the author's other claims that DHH is a fatphobe, homophobe, thisphobe, thatphobe.... If the author can be this silly and/or dishonest about something he himself quotes, then why should I trust anything else he says?
I then went and checked one of his links to DHH, which he describes as being "hateful to therapists". Here, check it yourself: https://world.hey.com/dhh/building-competency-is-better-than...
Calling this "hateful to therapists" is just ridiculous. DHH is arguing that there are good alternatives to therapy! There is nothing remotely close to hate in the whole article.
Maybe DHH is actually a total Nazi - I'd never heard of the guy till today. What we can clearly see is that Jared White is either a liar or an idiot.
I'm sorry to see this sort of nonsense still thriving, and it is 100% right that it should have been left behind. More than that - people who slander others deserve to be shamed themselves.
So how is DHH a fascist? Or is this just the in vogue ad hominem attack right now?
Yeah, I don't really think it's addressed much in this article, but it's fairly clear from his posts. There is a thread here discussing it[0].
Essentially, he is posting articles[1] saying he wants fewer non-white people in London.[2].
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45303111
[1] https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45303305
I was not aware of his opinions till yesterday, but I am still not sure how that is fascist, it might be something else but not fascist?
Ahhh, sorry, I was focusing on the rascist side.
In the article he supports Tommy Robinson[0], who I think most people in the UK would consider a fascist. He started the EDL (english defense league) which was a more violent extreme version of the BNP (british national party), which the ADL article I just linked describes as "fascist".
I only found out about his views the other day too, so can't say I've noticed any articles that are explicitly fascist, but given what I've read and his support for fascist figures I wouldn't necessarily be surprised at the moment to be honest.
You do raise a fair point though.
[0] https://www.adl.org/resources/article/tommy-robinson-five-th...
I am from the UK and know about Tommy Robinson in passing. I read the ADL article and am struggling to see how he is a fascist, he is anti-islam and anti-immigrant but how does that translate to wanting a dictatorial leader, autocracy, forcible suppression etc like Russia?
So you at least agree he's racist then?
Sure, just struggling to understand how to get to fascist.
you don't think of Tommy Robinson as fascist? that's surprising to me. Ok, so I've grabbed a random definition of fascism[0] (first thing that came up googling).
> a populist political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition
now, let's think about tommy robinson and the EDL.
* exalts nation and often race above the individual - check.
* wants a centralised autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader - check.
* by forcible suppression of opposition - I mean... it's the EDL, big check.
[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
> you don't think of Tommy Robinson as fascist? that's surprising to me.
I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of the British public don't think he is either. Which is why I am asking how he is one.
> Ok, so I've grabbed a random definition of fascism[0] (first thing that came up googling).
Yeah that is the same definition I was using.
> now, let's think about tommy robinson and the EDL. > * exalts nation and often race above the individual - check.
Sure I agree.
> * wants a centralised autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader - check.
Where did this come from? I don't think that article said anything about this.
> * by forcible suppression of opposition - I mean... it's the EDL, big check.
I don't know much about the EDL & what they have done so I couldn't comment on this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Defence_League#Relatio...
So has he ever expressed anti-democratic ideas? Such as wanting a dictatorial leader, autocracy etc that kind of is a key component of fascism.
I think the point is that was in vogue 5-10 years ago but now people are treating it as background noise due to overuse.
Which sucks because there is real fascism in some parts of society. But DHH? I have no idea.
He's literally posting nonsense about how London is awful because gasp there are some non-white people there.
He's gone pretty mask-off at this point.
That is not true, the phrase is non-native brits, and that is very different to what you wrote.
Do you really think he's complaining about the white Aussie bartender who comes over here?
Ah so you're deliberately writing stuff wrong so it can support your argument? Gotcha
He says "non-native brits" - but what does he actually link to?
Come on, this isn't hard.
He also complains that he, a non-brit, doesn't want to live in London because it has non-brits living there. He's a racist, plain and simple.
Can you define that term?
he excels in this kind of dog whistling. it confuses people who were born yesterday, but it is loud and clear to people who agree with him or are the intended victims.
He says "non-native brits" and says there are "about a third" and links to a page showing 36% "White British"[0] (note: explicitly excluding non-white british)
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45303111
Agreed, but being a conservative or right wing person does not equal being a fascist. We should be reserving those words to the people that really deserve them, otherwise the word loses the meaning.
Yeah, mate, at this point it does.
"I'm not a fascist, I just support people who are and repeat fascist talking points."
Gonna be honest, I didn't expect to have to explain that one.
And this is why these very serious words have lost their power. Racist, Sexist, Fascist.... When half the country is deemed to support "literal" Himler, or when Elon Musk, or Jews with family impacted by the Holocaust, are called Nahtzees, then these words have been diluted to mean nothing.
I hope people who so overused&misused these words are happy with what they achieved.
Congratulations you made these words lose all power. I would have preferred a world where these words still had serious meaning attached to them.
I agree the words are misused, it is the boy who cried wolf. Hence why I had to ask if DHH was X.
So who does he support that is fascist?
Tommy robinson
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45358819
We as a society keep coming up with more and more esoteric definition of "fascist" just to avoid having one that fits modern day political actors. I feel like the word has far more meaning here, where it's used to describe a set of policy prescriptions than it is as only referring to a list of groups with all criteria for entry erased.
Personally it seems the other way round, more and more esoteric definition of X so you can label your opponent it and discount everything about them without having to debate. Hence why I had to ask if he actually is one.
[flagged]
Mate, I live in London. It's great. Come visit and enjoy a pint of beer. Travel will help you pull your head out of the sand.
you should probably travel a bit yourself mate, if you think London is great, you will get your mind blown being anywhere else
Knife crime statistics seem to suggest otherwise. It is nice, until it is not.
Knife crime is down 19% in London this year https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62nqvzzq79o
And still fewer stabbings per-capita than NYC.
It only matters in comparison to the rest of the UK, you don't know how they are collected/recorded differently across countries.
London has a lower knife crime rate than the West Midlands.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn04...
Hope that helps!
Interesting it says knife crime for 23/24 was up 16% for London. I wonder if they only record convictions so the 19% decrease will change as people are convicted.
Also West Midlands is that not Biringham etc? Is that not one of the other mostly non-white places in the UK? You could have pointed to number 3 on the list Cleveland being mostly white(95%+ I think) and not being much lower than London.
It's almost like crime isn't that strongly correlated with the ethnic mix of a place! I'm sorry reality doesn't support your racism.
Of course, if you don't believe the police data, that page suggests you look at hospital admissions.
Again, as I said, London is lovely. You said there was a problem with knife crime. I pointed out that London is lower than a comparable major US city. It's also lower than several areas in the UK.
Come and visit - don't believe the lies being spread.
> It's almost like crime isn't that strongly correlated with the ethnic mix of a place! I'm sorry reality doesn't support your racism.
How is what I said racist? I was agreeing with you but saying London being #2 and pointing to #1 is not really proving your point. You should point to #3 to make your point.
> I pointed out that London is lower than a comparable major US city.
Again, you can not compare across countries you don't know the difference in how the data is recorded. For example is a murder not recorded in the USA for every suspious death where as the UK it is for every murder conviction?
> It's also lower than several areas in the UK.
It is #2 on that 23/24 list.
> Come and visit - don't believe the lies being spread.
I lived on London's outskirts for multiple years and have to visit multiple times a year. I wouldn't describe it as great, I dread going everytime.
What DHH said:
“First-world problems” shouldn’t be seen as an insult, but a celebration! Hurraaaay, I have ascended from the daily toils and tribulations of a life in the third world, so my worries may now include slow laundry machines and air conditioning, not starvation or failed states [party confetti emoji]
What this guy feels about that:
I regret to say I am unable to support an organization which seems unable to publicly disavow a man who has demonstrated numerous times to be a racist, homophobe, transphobe, fatphobe, ableist white nationalist who is now apparently cheering on death via starvation in third world countries
It's too much. I don't have the patience for this. The complaint is so out of left field I have to assume DHH and the RubyCentral guys are right.
> I regret to say I am unable to support an organization which seems unable to publicly disavow a man who has demonstrated numerous times to be a racist, homophobe, transphobe, fatphobe, ableist white nationalist who is now apparently cheering on death via starvation in third world countries.
Give me a break
The only direct quote from DHH in the article seems to be this, which is quoted as being offensive (?):
> “First-world problems” shouldn’t be seen as an insult, but a celebration! Hurraaaay, I have ascended from the daily toils and tribulations of a life in the third world, so my worries may now include slow laundry machines and air conditioning, not starvation or failed states
How is this offensive? Seems like a nothing burger.
I don't know anything about this topic other than what was in this post.
Author comes off as a bit of a Karen himself. This whole post is a waste of everybody's time.
Yeah I was a bit surprised by that part
> I regret to say I am unable to support an organization which seems unable to publicly disavow a man [...] who is now apparently cheering on death via starvation in third world countries.
I do not understand how such conclusion could be drawn, I even started asking myself how any of this was related to the current issue with RubyCentral and RubyGems?
I really had no idea of DHH's politics and I read through the linked posts and, while I don't agree with a bunch of what DHH said, none strike me as excessively extreme. Worth debating? Sure. Worth protesting? Less sure.
I will say DHH's post on Trump's return is like reading something from an alternate universe (https://world.hey.com/dhh/mega-a0f62cd4). What optimism was there in Trump's second campaign? Trump promised exactly what he's doing: retribution, tariffs, self-dealing and corruption, accelerating climate change, etc. I'm curious DHH's assessment of the past ~9 months and how it matches with his original "optimism".
I think it's tricky because he's vocally supporting Tommy Robinson. It's pretty similar to if he came out in support of the KKK or something like that.
As someone who did enjoy his writing it's quite shocking and really very disappointing.
Not only a nothing burger, but isn't this "checking your privilege"?
Yeah I came here to say this, if the author somehow understood that this is cheering for starving children, I believe he has some comperhension issues.
The ideology of the author needs starving children to survive. Once children stop starving, the author’s ideology is no longer useful and dies.
[flagged]
Hate to break it to you but, sample size of 9, my entire friend group talks like this. We're all in our 30s.
Language changes. The construction "what's up" and its extension "what's up with ..." didn't become widely accepted until Bugs Bunny brought it into the mainstream, and yet you use it as naturally as anything else at the beginning of your message.
I don't know that it's particularly constructive to dish on this post purely on that account.
The subheading is “ The drama never ends, but I am here to take a stand and do something about it”. It is total hypocrisy.
If you and your friends all talk in this way you are just oblivious to the fact you are the problem.
Whilst I don’t necessarily disagree with your overall point, this kind of inflammatory commentary which has taken a solid step into personal attack territory
> If you and your friends all talk in this way you are just oblivious to the fact you are the problem.
isn’t really helping, is it?
Moreover, generational complaints about use of language and communication style are solidly off topic and do not rise above the level of cliche.
> isn’t really helping, is it?
It isn’t wrong. How else are you supposed to tell people that their behavior indicates that their removal is a feature and not a bug?
> Moreover, generational complaints about use of language and communication style are solidly off topic and do not rise above the level of cliche.
There are no generational complaints. The problem is gossip culture, as indicated by the language.
This is unrelated to Ruby and the author is against free speech because he wants to professionaly censor someone because of his work-unrelated opinions.
Plus there are perfectly valid reasons to prefer some categories of people over others. It has nothing to do with hate or fascism, it's only natural.
I'm a DINK (double-income no kids) and I don't feel the hate of DDH, I only see someone who thinks it's worthwhile to be a parent and it's a dead end not to be. It's technically true and you can't argue against that anyway.
Wait, people are complaining about his views on having children now?
TBH my comment was a reaction to the tiniest bit of the article. The author just HAD to add this part after all the rest didn't he?
Hilarious
I mean, what's the take here? Discrimination against people who can't have children? Hatred towards those who won't? Did he only encourage people of a certain race to have children?
I remember listening to some interviews/podcasts where he discussed this. I don't have children myself, but I did not detect any malice in his arguments.
Neither did I and that was why I found the whole thing rather hilarious. This is not even a discussion