> Most importantly my entire family uses it. You know how difficult it was to get them to use a password manager consistently. [...] I asked my parents whether they knew of linux or dhh and they do not. Most people dont. They will ask: why move if its working and no issue with the software itself. [...] Say I find a new one, am I suppose to research what their corporate policy is and who they support. Sorry, I have a life to live.
It's just such an uphill battle to get anyone you care about to use a password manager, getting them to switch it out unless it stops working would probably be ever harder.
If it requires me to get my mom to migrate accounts, remove 1password, install bitwarden, write notes about how things worked in 1password and how those specific things are now different, then personally for me this wouldn't be "super easy".
I switched to bitwarden a couple of years ago when 1password locked down on their subscription model. I don't do subscriptions, I prefer paying for upgrades which I need.
Importing was truly super easy, but bitwarden has some kind of latency issue compared to 1p on the same machine and the same browser. 1p was always a smooth and unobtrusive experience, you will be extremely aware of BW's presence.
Since we are talking about a security app, remember that the latency may possibly be evidense of BW doing a job that 1P simply isn't doing. IE intentionally artificially slow and hard decryption steps that you don't want to be efficient.
Why would you want to switch? Did you check the original sources or did you only observe how angry some person on the Internet is and deduced how guilty some other person must be?
Not OP, but personally I spent some time reading DHH's blog posts. They are truly vile. It's entirely reasonable to want to boycott any product that sends money his way.
I have never seen a more obnoxious and pointless effort to politicize and raise awareness about something absolutely nobody cares about. What about worry about things that matter instead? There's more unjust things out there to be mad about than the company behind your password manager supporting a linux distribution associated with a guy you dislike.
He is a big Tommy Robinson supporter. I care that my money funds people who support bigots, and I'll vote with it, regardless of your ability to comprehend that there are people with differing opinions.
A guy who promoted murderous genocidal slaughter of humans.
From a couple days ago. That thread went about as it should. Funny watching folks weirdly show up to this one pretend indifference or to try to cast mock back at those who have standards, care, and wish to see a world with some dignity.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49509876
*You* don't care about it. Please don't confuse this with no one caring about it. I care a lot, as do most of my peers. If you don't see any pushback to this bullshit in your follows, you are in a bubble.
For the curious. This is the thing everyone is mad about. [0]
I'll leave it you to decide if advocating that your country deport the homeless people who are publicly defecating in the bushes makes you into actual Hitler (as he's been compared to even in this post).
Jake's blog post points out how David Hamburger Helper is quite skilled at running right up to the line but not crossing it explicitly.
His type is great at using weasel words and dog whistles. The kind of person who thinks he's clever for using hyperlinks in their blog posts to imply the shit they don't have the balls to say outright while going "tee hee I'm so clever for making every mention of Obama's name in my blog post a linking to the wikipedia article about bananas." (David Hamburger Helper didn't actually do this, it's an illustrative example.)
In the US, conservatives pre-you-know-who would say things like "hard working Americans" (ie "not urban blacks on welfare taking public transit and using their food stamps to buy cigarettes and potato chips") or "American family values" (ie "not the gays") and so on.
I assumed you would link the actual articles, but instead you linked articles about his articles. One should start with the original sources at least.
You got a good point, it's not always clear what people try to imply, on the other hand however I have experienced many times that interpretations were not really based on what was actually said/written.
I like the first article in that regard as it is based on quoted sections. It does quite hard framing on what's actually written, but at least it's easier to judge the merit of the argument when it's side by side with the original quote it's based on.
I have no idea what you're implying. How does the wolf comparison make this a racism thing?
He's saying that he wants the homeless people who poop in the bushes deported because like wolves there are too many, and they're dangerous. People who poop in public are like that. It has very little to do with racism as far as I can tell.
I'm as liberal as they come, but I draw the line at shrubbery-shitting.
> I have no idea what you're implying. How does the wolf comparison make this a racism thing?
I was trying to reinforce it by saying the wolf comparison is a current public safety concern and has nothing to do with comparing Romani to actual animals.
"When wolves get out of control, you shoot them. When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them."
This is not "homeless pooping in the bushes," but just "gypsies". And the (very, very intentional) juxtaposition of killing wolves to deporting an entire ethnic group is revolting.
> How does the wolf comparison make this a racism thing?
Because wolves are being used as a dogwhistle/proxy for "migrants" by the far right.
Denmark has a problem with wolves crossing into Denmark. So the far right gives speeches about what a menace wolves are, they don't belong here, they don't deserve to be here, they're not FROM here" and so on - while doing a lot of theatrical smiling and winking, or just shifting right into talking about immigrants and migrants, "totally separately and unconnected, bro! I just wanted to talk about them both while i was here!"
You might want to not take anything David Hamburger Helper says at face value given he perpetuates far-right conspiracies / racist tropes like "Pakistani rape gangs."
This seems like a common misconception, but it actually isn't an indivisible human right to settle in another EU country if you don't have the means to support yourself [1]. If you have ever been engaged by them, it's obvious the sort of "gypsies" panhandling and pooping on Copenhagen or Helsinki streets clearly do not meet the criteria and are not citizens.
Left, right, north or south on the political compass, all parties are in agreement about this, and thousands of people are deported from Denmark every year without Alligator Alcatraz concentration camps or other platitudes about nazism.
> the sort of "gypsies" panhandling and pooping on Copenhagen or Helsinki streets clearly do not meet the criteria and are not citizens.
I'm guessing by the quotes on "gypsies" that these are not the Roma that have been in and out of Finland and Denmark since the 16th century .. but apparently still being used as a slur after several hundred years?
The woman got radicalized by her political audience. Given all her publicly espoused views as well as documented activism (including financial backing for almost any anti-trans activism), you're going to have to offer actual arguments why this classification is obviously wrong.
Few, if any, deny that rape gang existed - the "racist" part is the people that bang on about Pakistani rape gangs never seem to mention Irish Catholic rape gangs, or Upper class Toff rape gangs, or ...
The "official report" that gets bandied about by Reform UK is a fairly selective cut down from some other actual report on child abuse in the UK that puts more perspective on the full scale of the issue.
Yea this was quite a post. There’s a lot of pointing at a post about immigration in England[1], and not that I agree, it wasn’t beyond the pale really. It was standard stuff. This piece is really over the top though and makes it very clear he sees those unlike him as subhuman.
I read it. I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation. I read it as pretty standard right-wing anti-immigration stuff. He even somewhat addresses it and tries to make it clear that he's not saying one race is better than another when he says:
"There's absolutely nothing racist or xenophobic in saying that Denmark is primarily a country for the Danes, Britain primarily a united kingdom for the Brits, and Japan primarily a set of islands for the Japanese."
I interpret him to be advocating for less immigration, and maybe some deportations of criminal types. He's allowed to.
Personally, I disagree with him, but we're all adults. We're allowed to disagree and still respect each other. That's the basis of society.
He's not advocating for violence and the hyperbole some people are coming up with is way overblown when compared to what he actually said.
He is an average right-wing adult. Not some rabid fascist who wants death-camps.
By native Brits he means white people born in the UK [1]. People who are not white are not native Brits by his reckoning no matter how many generations their family has been there.
I think that is a lot more extreme than the average UK right-wing adult.
[1] Follow the link in his second paragraph and compare with the numbers he gives in that paragraph.
The prey/predator analogy is what you'd find the der Sturmer nazi paper in the 30s. They also just wanted to deport the Jews, even worked with Zionists to do so in the early years. He can say write that the park camping and bush pooping is bad and that the police/government should do something about it, but he's not just writing that.
I care far far far more about technical excellence and capability when it comes to security critical pieces of software like 1Password and as long as they demonstrate they are capable then I could care less if the founder voted Rasputin and worships Morgoth.
I don't care if the guy who made my hammer is a Pastifarian I care how well the hammer hammers, I don't care if my accountant likes to dress up as a skunk and go to conventions demanding people address him by Sir Reginald Stinkington as long as he does a good job at my taxes.
In this case it seems the concern is that the company donated to an OS project that is headed by a guy whom you don't like....
That just seems like there are plenty of other problems to address in the world.
To push this further to the logical extreme, so you're saying that if the founder was to say they are using their profits to directly fund a group who's sole purpose is to wipe out a particular ethic group that they believe has no right to exist, you'll continue your support because the product is technically excellent?
I think your analogy goes the wrong way. If you buy bananas from a grocery store, along the entire chain of people that were involved in selling you that banana there could be all kinds of sick fucks. You'd never know because you've only met the store clerk and you don't really know that person either. I also don't know why anyone would care, except maybe the manager.
Your situation would describe something like Panda antivirus. They're known for funding scientology. I'd rather not buy from them, but honestly I also don't know if the competitors are worse. Perhaps that Norton guy has flipped swastikas all over his basement and that Kaspersky dude also runs an illicit brothel in south-west Asia on the side. Who knows.
Would you care if your accountant liked to sit outside a high school and watch teenage girls with binoculars? What if a local shop owner was known to harass female employees? Everybody has a line somewhere.
In a world where capital is the only vote that counts it makes sense to vote with your money. That said, everyone should read what DHH actually said rather than this blog post before you decide on this one in particular.
On a liberal-ness scale from 1 to 10 I'm an 11, and even I can't imagine that many folks would read what DHH actually said and jump to the conclusions that these people did. This is not a Godwins law case... The dude just wants some homeless people to stop shitting in the bushes in public.
Either some people have poor literacy skills, or they just want to be mad.
> As I grow older, I am feeling the need to stand up and try to protect my values.
I agree. I'm tired of repeated bad faith interpretations of anyone who shows even the slightest disagreement with the current political milieu. Opinions that were considered anodyne in 2010 are now "far right, "fascism", and "genocide". This whole approach is grossly undemocratic as it treats half the country as a problem to be solved or worked around. This is far more authoritarian than stuff supported by many of the supposed fascists.
You're not engaging in good faith if you reduce every criticism to "they're not 100% with us". People have explained their views well enough for you to understand where they're coming from.
Didn’t Obama and Biden both deport more people than Trump has? It didn’t require ICE to become some kind of militarized police force, and there was no question they got a day in court, and nobody was exiled to a different country that than they were from.
The deportations aren’t the fascistic part, all that other stuff is?
Generally championing the removal of rights IS seen as fascistic - so removing gay marriage in 2026 would be a good example. That differs from 2008, before the right was universally won, however.
In both cases it seems like you’re minimizing some serious differences, or either not arguing in good faith or extremely confused about why people are calling things fascist these days.
I have examples to help:
Starting a war without Congress? That’s fascist. Ignoring the courts? Also fascist. Pardoning J6 traitors? Fascist. Using the presidency to enrich yourself? Threatening the news, comedians, and artists you don’t like? Threatening your allies (Canada)? Putting your name and image all over things? Taking large gifts to swing favors, even whole jets? Minimizing and interrupting science and the arts, especially any that goes against your investments? Interfering with the courts and trying to use right wing weirdos to claim that we have a “unitary executive”? Interfering with the post office, closing polling places, and partisan redistricting?
Those things, especially taken holistically, are very indicative of fascism. But I can’t see how they wouldn’t have been considered the same in 2010?
I am so very, very tired of having to even consider, let alone make decisions about, the technical vs. political merits of products. It’d be so great if CEOs would keep their views to themselves.
> It’d be so great if CEOs would keep their views to themselves.
Would it, really? I personally appreciate it when they're so open, it gives me absolute certainty about two things:
1. Whether I want to work for their company
2. Whether I want to buy what they're selling
This is extremely valuable information. If they were keeping that information hidden, it would be far more difficult to obtain answers to these questions. This way I don't even have to do any real work (job application, accepting an offer, moving, purchasing, etc) to find out.
Sadly only the odious behaviors convey such certainty, the sneaky nice ones are who you have to watch out for.
He's not "voicing being impacted by immigrants", he's advocated for removing anyone who isn't white from the UK.
That is called ethnic cleansing, and yeah, comparisons to Hitler's "policies", especially during the early stages of his rise to power, are quite fair.
I'm sorry, but you're not being honest. He both mentions specific problems that need to be addressed ("Cue the gypsies in Copenhagen, and their increasingly brazen behavior, after the city legalized overnight sleeping in parks and other green areas last year. Because "it shouldn't be illegal to be homeless", so the police refuses to act.") and links immigration policy to dealing with those who violate the law ("When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them. This isn't hard, it isn't cruel. It's the basic logic of self-preservation."). Where is the racism? Is it just in the "noticing" that a lot of folks engaged in this activity come from the same communities?
> Bernie Sanders: Open borders? No, that's a Koch brothers proposal.
> Ezra Klein: Really?
> Bernie Sanders:Of course. That's a right wing proposal which says essentially there is no United States.
> Ezra Klein: But it would make ...
> Bernie Sanders: Excuse me ...
> Ezra Klein: It would make a lot of global poor richer, wouldn't it?
> Bernie Sanders: It would make everybody in America poorer, you're doing away with the concept of a nation state and I don't think there's any country in the world which believes in that. If you believe in a nation state or in a country called the United States or UK or Denmark or any other country, you have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people. What right wing people in this country would love is an open border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for 2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don't believe in that.
This doesn't concern me, but how do you go from "inferior product" to "less secure" and "let me contact your employer"?
There are other secure password managers out there, including open-source alternatives, which can be considered to be inferior due to having fewer features or a worse UI.
On a side note, while I'm sure some people only make decisions based on technical reasons, most don't. Not saying if it's right/wrong or better/worse, but that's how most humans work.
No no no, you are dodging the question. My question could not have been more clear but you are trying to side step it: "You would willingly and intentionally chose a less secure password manager and put your company at risk?"? Yes or no?
What company do you work for that is okay with that? To let your own personal politics compromise their security posture?
Slow down mate, you're not replying to the same user :-)
You asked them the following:
> Would you chose a product inferior to 1password if it better aligned with your politics?
Nowhere in your question you mentioned security, but your conclusion was that they would pick a less secure option and that their employer should be made aware. Maybe not intentionally, but looks like you're trying to win the argument with some word twisting and a 'gotcha'? But maybe that's just my limited English.
Anyway, I'm just pointing out that "inferior" doesn't mean "less secure" and that most people don't only choose things based on technical merits alone (I'd be surprised if you did). With this clarified... I will now leave the thread. Have a nice day!
That wasn't my "conclusion", that was my question to them. There was no "gotcha" here, only asking OP to clarify their position on if they would let politics influence their decision making to the point of undermining their company's security posture.
The linked article (not DHH's article) is the reason why Trump is in power and why right wing extremists are in the rise in Europe.
People are concerned about things that can't even be expressed without getting labeled as fascist or racist. While the concerns may be irrational and without merit, it should be talked and discussed with those people and trying to understand their concerns better. Instead the reaction is "no need to talk with them as they are racists".
And yes, there are many racists out there and they have gotten so much support lately because many people feel heard by them and only them.
Bullshit: the primary reason Trump (and many other right-wingers) are in power is economic. Pushback to this sort of outward white supremacy is, in fact, quite popular.
And to a large degree, there is little point in rationally debating these concerns as they are rooted in racial animus. If somebody deeply feels that their glorious white race is being replaced by hordes of deranged brown immigrants, that's not a position they can be argued out of: it's an axiomatic outlook on the nature of society and humanity that, for the most part, only generational turnover (and maybe life experience) can correct.
So if some company donated to the Python Software Foundation during during Guidos rein as BDFL, would it be fair to characterize that as "That is a contribution to an individual"?
Was Guido designing Python for only his own sake, during his time as BDFL? As far as I know, he was not doing that.
Additionally, Guido never had exclusive control over the Python Software Foundation, from what I can see.
If Guido was the only person responsible for the Python Software Foundation, its only board member, its only share holder that the board is responsible to, and was designing Python for the use-case of a single person, himself, and he was soliciting donations, then yes I would consider those donations to effectively be a contribution to an individual. Of course I would.
Merging tech and politics like this is insufferable, and most of us are tired of it.
Omacom foundation is funding good open source dev work. I see nothing wrong with that, and their response was perfectly reasonable.
If you think you can do better, start a competing foundation. Whinging about it just makes you lose all objectivity; now your opinions on actual technology are less relevant as your personal bias is on full display.
This seems like a very reasonable and thoughtful response. You have plenty of password manager options if it bothers you.
The linked toot (?) (https://social.lol/@mcn/117204227884873406) puts things in a understandable way:
> Most importantly my entire family uses it. You know how difficult it was to get them to use a password manager consistently. [...] I asked my parents whether they knew of linux or dhh and they do not. Most people dont. They will ask: why move if its working and no issue with the software itself. [...] Say I find a new one, am I suppose to research what their corporate policy is and who they support. Sorry, I have a life to live.
It's just such an uphill battle to get anyone you care about to use a password manager, getting them to switch it out unless it stops working would probably be ever harder.
i’ve just looked, apparently it’s super easy and basically transparent to switch to bitwarden.
it apparently imports the password vaults painlessly.
i’ll check it out tonight and if it is that easy, it’ll be my new rec for people.
> it’s super easy
If it requires me to get my mom to migrate accounts, remove 1password, install bitwarden, write notes about how things worked in 1password and how those specific things are now different, then personally for me this wouldn't be "super easy".
1password is miles ahead of bitwarden. It is much better.
In what way? Genuinely curious
It must be exhausting to be surrounded by vacuous people that don't care about what their money is going to support.
thanks. i had no idea.
apparently bitwarden can import data vaults super easily from 1passwd.
guess i’ll be recommending clients to bitwarden from here.
I switched to bitwarden a couple of years ago when 1password locked down on their subscription model. I don't do subscriptions, I prefer paying for upgrades which I need.
Importing was truly super easy, but bitwarden has some kind of latency issue compared to 1p on the same machine and the same browser. 1p was always a smooth and unobtrusive experience, you will be extremely aware of BW's presence.
Since we are talking about a security app, remember that the latency may possibly be evidense of BW doing a job that 1P simply isn't doing. IE intentionally artificially slow and hard decryption steps that you don't want to be efficient.
Why would you want to switch? Did you check the original sources or did you only observe how angry some person on the Internet is and deduced how guilty some other person must be?
Not OP, but personally I spent some time reading DHH's blog posts. They are truly vile. It's entirely reasonable to want to boycott any product that sends money his way.
I have never seen a more obnoxious and pointless effort to politicize and raise awareness about something absolutely nobody cares about. What about worry about things that matter instead? There's more unjust things out there to be mad about than the company behind your password manager supporting a linux distribution associated with a guy you dislike.
He is a big Tommy Robinson supporter. I care that my money funds people who support bigots, and I'll vote with it, regardless of your ability to comprehend that there are people with differing opinions.
A guy who promoted murderous genocidal slaughter of humans.
From a couple days ago. That thread went about as it should. Funny watching folks weirdly show up to this one pretend indifference or to try to cast mock back at those who have standards, care, and wish to see a world with some dignity. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49509876
*You* don't care about it. Please don't confuse this with no one caring about it. I care a lot, as do most of my peers. If you don't see any pushback to this bullshit in your follows, you are in a bubble.
*majority people dont care or practice it to full extent. There is no bubble here.
That can also be said to you. We're all in our own bubbles
For the curious. This is the thing everyone is mad about. [0]
I'll leave it you to decide if advocating that your country deport the homeless people who are publicly defecating in the bushes makes you into actual Hitler (as he's been compared to even in this post).
[0] https://world.hey.com/dhh/wolves-sheep-and-gypsies-ba44af6a
Crap... the crazy thing is that apparently this person is behind RoR. I guess someone boycotting him would need to stop using the internet.
He's merely the most uninteresting unremarkable thing in the word, a douchebag who can code.
Sure RoR is nice, and he's a asshole. Go ahead and use RoR, and don't admire him or value his deep thoughts in any other way.
That's just the latest. David Hamburger Helper is a lot more than just that, and he's been at this for years.
https://jakelazaroff.com/words/dhh-is-way-worse-than-i-thoug...
https://tekin.co.uk/2025/09/the-ruby-community-has-a-dhh-pro...
Jake's blog post points out how David Hamburger Helper is quite skilled at running right up to the line but not crossing it explicitly.
His type is great at using weasel words and dog whistles. The kind of person who thinks he's clever for using hyperlinks in their blog posts to imply the shit they don't have the balls to say outright while going "tee hee I'm so clever for making every mention of Obama's name in my blog post a linking to the wikipedia article about bananas." (David Hamburger Helper didn't actually do this, it's an illustrative example.)
In the US, conservatives pre-you-know-who would say things like "hard working Americans" (ie "not urban blacks on welfare taking public transit and using their food stamps to buy cigarettes and potato chips") or "American family values" (ie "not the gays") and so on.
I assumed you would link the actual articles, but instead you linked articles about his articles. One should start with the original sources at least.
You got a good point, it's not always clear what people try to imply, on the other hand however I have experienced many times that interpretations were not really based on what was actually said/written.
I like the first article in that regard as it is based on quoted sections. It does quite hard framing on what's actually written, but at least it's easier to judge the merit of the argument when it's side by side with the original quote it's based on.
One thing that needs to be noted is that the comparison to wolves isn't entirely random, it's also a current topic of political discussion in Denmark.
I have no idea what you're implying. How does the wolf comparison make this a racism thing?
He's saying that he wants the homeless people who poop in the bushes deported because like wolves there are too many, and they're dangerous. People who poop in public are like that. It has very little to do with racism as far as I can tell.
I'm as liberal as they come, but I draw the line at shrubbery-shitting.
Prey/predator analogies is what you'd find in der sturmer in the 30s.
> I have no idea what you're implying. How does the wolf comparison make this a racism thing?
I was trying to reinforce it by saying the wolf comparison is a current public safety concern and has nothing to do with comparing Romani to actual animals.
I just didn't grasp what you meant, I thought you were saying there was some nuance to the local politics I missed. Thanks for clarifying.
"When wolves get out of control, you shoot them. When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them."
This is not "homeless pooping in the bushes," but just "gypsies". And the (very, very intentional) juxtaposition of killing wolves to deporting an entire ethnic group is revolting.
> How does the wolf comparison make this a racism thing?
Because wolves are being used as a dogwhistle/proxy for "migrants" by the far right.
Denmark has a problem with wolves crossing into Denmark. So the far right gives speeches about what a menace wolves are, they don't belong here, they don't deserve to be here, they're not FROM here" and so on - while doing a lot of theatrical smiling and winking, or just shifting right into talking about immigrants and migrants, "totally separately and unconnected, bro! I just wanted to talk about them both while i was here!"
You might want to not take anything David Hamburger Helper says at face value given he perpetuates far-right conspiracies / racist tropes like "Pakistani rape gangs."
"So the far right gives speeches about what a menace wolves are, they don't belong here, they don't deserve to be here, they're not FROM here""
That doesn't sound like a far right position though, just advocating for less or even no migration (from outside EU I guess).
The "wolves" are, IIRC, "Romanian" gypsies - people that have lived for many generations within a number of European countries.
Romania is part of the EU, when DHH suggests they are wolves that need to be deported, where is he suggesting they be deported to?
~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people_in_RomaniaBear in mind the specific "gypsies" he had a bit of a rant about may well have been in 'his' country for a few generations already.
> That doesn't sound like a far right position though
And yet, they were on Hitler's list that included Jews, Gays, Disabled, Pinko's, etc.
This seems like a common misconception, but it actually isn't an indivisible human right to settle in another EU country if you don't have the means to support yourself [1]. If you have ever been engaged by them, it's obvious the sort of "gypsies" panhandling and pooping on Copenhagen or Helsinki streets clearly do not meet the criteria and are not citizens.
Left, right, north or south on the political compass, all parties are in agreement about this, and thousands of people are deported from Denmark every year without Alligator Alcatraz concentration camps or other platitudes about nazism.
[1] https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/residence/residence-ri...
> the sort of "gypsies" panhandling and pooping on Copenhagen or Helsinki streets clearly do not meet the criteria and are not citizens.
I'm guessing by the quotes on "gypsies" that these are not the Roma that have been in and out of Finland and Denmark since the 16th century .. but apparently still being used as a slur after several hundred years?
~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Roma
Ah, well, baby steps.
"far right" has also become a dog whistle for right wings nowadays. So much that even JK Rowling got called "far right".
The woman got radicalized by her political audience. Given all her publicly espoused views as well as documented activism (including financial backing for almost any anti-trans activism), you're going to have to offer actual arguments why this classification is obviously wrong.
> perpetuates far-right conspiracies / racist tropes like "Pakistani rape gangs."
Hardly a conspiracy theory or a racist trope if it's true.
https://www.news18.com/world/pakistani-rape-gangs-operated-a...
Few, if any, deny that rape gang existed - the "racist" part is the people that bang on about Pakistani rape gangs never seem to mention Irish Catholic rape gangs, or Upper class Toff rape gangs, or ...
The "official report" that gets bandied about by Reform UK is a fairly selective cut down from some other actual report on child abuse in the UK that puts more perspective on the full scale of the issue.
Yea this was quite a post. There’s a lot of pointing at a post about immigration in England[1], and not that I agree, it wasn’t beyond the pale really. It was standard stuff. This piece is really over the top though and makes it very clear he sees those unlike him as subhuman.
1: https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64
I read it. I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation. I read it as pretty standard right-wing anti-immigration stuff. He even somewhat addresses it and tries to make it clear that he's not saying one race is better than another when he says:
"There's absolutely nothing racist or xenophobic in saying that Denmark is primarily a country for the Danes, Britain primarily a united kingdom for the Brits, and Japan primarily a set of islands for the Japanese."
I interpret him to be advocating for less immigration, and maybe some deportations of criminal types. He's allowed to.
Personally, I disagree with him, but we're all adults. We're allowed to disagree and still respect each other. That's the basis of society.
He's not advocating for violence and the hyperbole some people are coming up with is way overblown when compared to what he actually said.
He is an average right-wing adult. Not some rabid fascist who wants death-camps.
By native Brits he means white people born in the UK [1]. People who are not white are not native Brits by his reckoning no matter how many generations their family has been there.
I think that is a lot more extreme than the average UK right-wing adult.
[1] Follow the link in his second paragraph and compare with the numbers he gives in that paragraph.
The prey/predator analogy is what you'd find the der Sturmer nazi paper in the 30s. They also just wanted to deport the Jews, even worked with Zionists to do so in the early years. He can say write that the park camping and bush pooping is bad and that the police/government should do something about it, but he's not just writing that.
I care far far far more about technical excellence and capability when it comes to security critical pieces of software like 1Password and as long as they demonstrate they are capable then I could care less if the founder voted Rasputin and worships Morgoth.
I don't care if the guy who made my hammer is a Pastifarian I care how well the hammer hammers, I don't care if my accountant likes to dress up as a skunk and go to conventions demanding people address him by Sir Reginald Stinkington as long as he does a good job at my taxes.
In this case it seems the concern is that the company donated to an OS project that is headed by a guy whom you don't like.... That just seems like there are plenty of other problems to address in the world.
To push this further to the logical extreme, so you're saying that if the founder was to say they are using their profits to directly fund a group who's sole purpose is to wipe out a particular ethic group that they believe has no right to exist, you'll continue your support because the product is technically excellent?
I think your analogy goes the wrong way. If you buy bananas from a grocery store, along the entire chain of people that were involved in selling you that banana there could be all kinds of sick fucks. You'd never know because you've only met the store clerk and you don't really know that person either. I also don't know why anyone would care, except maybe the manager.
Your situation would describe something like Panda antivirus. They're known for funding scientology. I'd rather not buy from them, but honestly I also don't know if the competitors are worse. Perhaps that Norton guy has flipped swastikas all over his basement and that Kaspersky dude also runs an illicit brothel in south-west Asia on the side. Who knows.
Would you care if your accountant liked to sit outside a high school and watch teenage girls with binoculars? What if a local shop owner was known to harass female employees? Everybody has a line somewhere.
In a world where capital is the only vote that counts it makes sense to vote with your money. That said, everyone should read what DHH actually said rather than this blog post before you decide on this one in particular.
On a liberal-ness scale from 1 to 10 I'm an 11, and even I can't imagine that many folks would read what DHH actually said and jump to the conclusions that these people did. This is not a Godwins law case... The dude just wants some homeless people to stop shitting in the bushes in public.
Either some people have poor literacy skills, or they just want to be mad.
It would have been fine if he did so. But he decided to make it a der Sturmer like blog post instead.
> As I grow older, I am feeling the need to stand up and try to protect my values.
I agree. I'm tired of repeated bad faith interpretations of anyone who shows even the slightest disagreement with the current political milieu. Opinions that were considered anodyne in 2010 are now "far right, "fascism", and "genocide". This whole approach is grossly undemocratic as it treats half the country as a problem to be solved or worked around. This is far more authoritarian than stuff supported by many of the supposed fascists.
Thanks. It's terrible that for many there's no gray area, only "100% with us or against us and therefore a fascist".
You're not engaging in good faith if you reduce every criticism to "they're not 100% with us". People have explained their views well enough for you to understand where they're coming from.
What opinion, precisely, was anodyne in 2010 and is now far right/fascist/genocide?
https://youtube.com/shorts/wDDNF0LP5fs?si=w_V3w93eUHSpurYu
Obama was pro-deporting illegal immigrants and anti-gay marriage at one point.
Didn’t Obama and Biden both deport more people than Trump has? It didn’t require ICE to become some kind of militarized police force, and there was no question they got a day in court, and nobody was exiled to a different country that than they were from.
The deportations aren’t the fascistic part, all that other stuff is?
Generally championing the removal of rights IS seen as fascistic - so removing gay marriage in 2026 would be a good example. That differs from 2008, before the right was universally won, however.
In both cases it seems like you’re minimizing some serious differences, or either not arguing in good faith or extremely confused about why people are calling things fascist these days.
I have examples to help: Starting a war without Congress? That’s fascist. Ignoring the courts? Also fascist. Pardoning J6 traitors? Fascist. Using the presidency to enrich yourself? Threatening the news, comedians, and artists you don’t like? Threatening your allies (Canada)? Putting your name and image all over things? Taking large gifts to swing favors, even whole jets? Minimizing and interrupting science and the arts, especially any that goes against your investments? Interfering with the courts and trying to use right wing weirdos to claim that we have a “unitary executive”? Interfering with the post office, closing polling places, and partisan redistricting?
Those things, especially taken holistically, are very indicative of fascism. But I can’t see how they wouldn’t have been considered the same in 2010?
Dictator/Emperor is a better word for Trumps desire. It’s what he desperately wants despite being born free.
[flagged]
>Hitler
Huh? What did I miss?
DHH compared Romani people to wolves [0].
I am so very, very tired of having to even consider, let alone make decisions about, the technical vs. political merits of products. It’d be so great if CEOs would keep their views to themselves.
0: https://world.hey.com/dhh/wolves-sheep-and-gypsies-ba44af6a
> It’d be so great if CEOs would keep their views to themselves.
Would it, really? I personally appreciate it when they're so open, it gives me absolute certainty about two things:
1. Whether I want to work for their company
2. Whether I want to buy what they're selling
This is extremely valuable information. If they were keeping that information hidden, it would be far more difficult to obtain answers to these questions. This way I don't even have to do any real work (job application, accepting an offer, moving, purchasing, etc) to find out.
Sadly only the odious behaviors convey such certainty, the sneaky nice ones are who you have to watch out for.
"anyone whose material circumstances are impacted by immigrants and voices that == literally hitler"
He's not "voicing being impacted by immigrants", he's advocated for removing anyone who isn't white from the UK.
That is called ethnic cleansing, and yeah, comparisons to Hitler's "policies", especially during the early stages of his rise to power, are quite fair.
> he's advocated for removing anyone who isn't white from the UK.
Can you provide a quote that demonstrates this?
I'm sorry, but you're not being honest. He both mentions specific problems that need to be addressed ("Cue the gypsies in Copenhagen, and their increasingly brazen behavior, after the city legalized overnight sleeping in parks and other green areas last year. Because "it shouldn't be illegal to be homeless", so the police refuses to act.") and links immigration policy to dealing with those who violate the law ("When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them. This isn't hard, it isn't cruel. It's the basic logic of self-preservation."). Where is the racism? Is it just in the "noticing" that a lot of folks engaged in this activity come from the same communities?
Unless you get "grandfathered in"[1].
> Bernie Sanders: Open borders? No, that's a Koch brothers proposal.
> Ezra Klein: Really?
> Bernie Sanders:Of course. That's a right wing proposal which says essentially there is no United States.
> Ezra Klein: But it would make ...
> Bernie Sanders: Excuse me ...
> Ezra Klein: It would make a lot of global poor richer, wouldn't it?
> Bernie Sanders: It would make everybody in America poorer, you're doing away with the concept of a nation state and I don't think there's any country in the world which believes in that. If you believe in a nation state or in a country called the United States or UK or Denmark or any other country, you have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people. What right wing people in this country would love is an open border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for 2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don't believe in that.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0
[flagged]
Clearly this is something that was important to the person who posted it.
I am not the OP, but I am somebody who decides what software we use org-wide in a company, and this sort of thing matters to me.
Would you chose a product inferior to 1password if it better aligned with your politics?
I heard a wonderful quote the other day:
> Politics is just another word for how we treat our neighbors.
So yes, as I accept this definition - I may choose a "less efficient" tool if it treated my neighbor better.
You would willingly and intentionally chose a less secure password manager and put your company at risk?
Is your management chain aware of this? Which company do you work for? They have the right to know.
This doesn't concern me, but how do you go from "inferior product" to "less secure" and "let me contact your employer"?
There are other secure password managers out there, including open-source alternatives, which can be considered to be inferior due to having fewer features or a worse UI.
On a side note, while I'm sure some people only make decisions based on technical reasons, most don't. Not saying if it's right/wrong or better/worse, but that's how most humans work.
No no no, you are dodging the question. My question could not have been more clear but you are trying to side step it: "You would willingly and intentionally chose a less secure password manager and put your company at risk?"? Yes or no?
What company do you work for that is okay with that? To let your own personal politics compromise their security posture?
Slow down mate, you're not replying to the same user :-)
You asked them the following:
> Would you chose a product inferior to 1password if it better aligned with your politics?
Nowhere in your question you mentioned security, but your conclusion was that they would pick a less secure option and that their employer should be made aware. Maybe not intentionally, but looks like you're trying to win the argument with some word twisting and a 'gotcha'? But maybe that's just my limited English.
Anyway, I'm just pointing out that "inferior" doesn't mean "less secure" and that most people don't only choose things based on technical merits alone (I'd be surprised if you did). With this clarified... I will now leave the thread. Have a nice day!
That wasn't my "conclusion", that was my question to them. There was no "gotcha" here, only asking OP to clarify their position on if they would let politics influence their decision making to the point of undermining their company's security posture.
I've got a neighbour that throws garbage onto my balcony, how should I treat them?
To stick with your analogy, why should that allow you to throw out every tenant who shares the ethnicity of your troublesome neighbor?
If you're implying 'being slightly racist' (if you even consider that possible) not being as offensive as it was in the past, sure.
But the DHH posts linked in the original post are clearly beyond any kind of 'light'.
"Slightly" racist? He literally wants to ethnically cleanse Britain by removing anyone who isn't white?
https://jakelazaroff.com/words/dhh-is-way-worse-than-i-thoug...
He's also wildly misogynistic, transphobic...he's your standard white supremacist, far-right fascist.
The linked article (not DHH's article) is the reason why Trump is in power and why right wing extremists are in the rise in Europe.
People are concerned about things that can't even be expressed without getting labeled as fascist or racist. While the concerns may be irrational and without merit, it should be talked and discussed with those people and trying to understand their concerns better. Instead the reaction is "no need to talk with them as they are racists".
And yes, there are many racists out there and they have gotten so much support lately because many people feel heard by them and only them.
Bullshit: the primary reason Trump (and many other right-wingers) are in power is economic. Pushback to this sort of outward white supremacy is, in fact, quite popular.
And to a large degree, there is little point in rationally debating these concerns as they are rooted in racial animus. If somebody deeply feels that their glorious white race is being replaced by hordes of deranged brown immigrants, that's not a position they can be argued out of: it's an axiomatic outlook on the nature of society and humanity that, for the most part, only generational turnover (and maybe life experience) can correct.
[flagged]
[flagged]
> Our contribution is made to the Omacom Foundation, not to an individual
However, from DHH:
> Before this can be an amazing system for everyone, it first has to be an amazing system for me, personally.
By DHH's own words, all money currently is 100% spent on DHH's desires. That is a contribution to an individual.
So if some company donated to the Python Software Foundation during during Guidos rein as BDFL, would it be fair to characterize that as "That is a contribution to an individual"?
Was Guido designing Python for only his own sake, during his time as BDFL? As far as I know, he was not doing that.
Additionally, Guido never had exclusive control over the Python Software Foundation, from what I can see.
If Guido was the only person responsible for the Python Software Foundation, its only board member, its only share holder that the board is responsible to, and was designing Python for the use-case of a single person, himself, and he was soliciting donations, then yes I would consider those donations to effectively be a contribution to an individual. Of course I would.
Ridiculous conclusion.
Merging tech and politics like this is insufferable, and most of us are tired of it.
Omacom foundation is funding good open source dev work. I see nothing wrong with that, and their response was perfectly reasonable.
If you think you can do better, start a competing foundation. Whinging about it just makes you lose all objectivity; now your opinions on actual technology are less relevant as your personal bias is on full display.
False: "most of us" is just vibes based on chatter in your chosen social circles. Rest assured this is not actually the case.
I could say the same to you. Rest assured, your echo-chamber is a minority. (Omarchy's popularity is proof of that)