The Omarchy/Framework Thing

7 pointsposted 4 months ago
by gpi
(gardinerbryant.com)

17 Comments

eigencoder

4 months ago

I guess it's hard when people don't share your politics

PaulHoule

4 months ago

It's a reason why you and your organization should depend 0% on open source software because any open source software could be ruined by a bunch of people who don't get along.

In my mind DHH and the people who are still fighting with him years later are all bad people and if I had the power I would cut them off from the net completely, not even let them have a credit card.

gsf_emergency_4

4 months ago

It seems plausible that the value accrued by any given extreme response to binary [discrete-classed] emotions is upper-bounded by zero

One good thing about opensource: there's realtime leakage of how things are run so wiseguys have time to fork and/or pivot.

Some people factor that attention premium into the routine cost of a sw business. Because the other scenario-- the downside of depending on proptech-- is not recoverable without a team of lawyers

I find it heartening that lack of backprop from reality to character is (albeit not always career ending) still generally relationship-ending..

Maybe similar mechanisms can be developed wrt intra-/inter-org relations.

dismalaf

4 months ago

Nirav Patel is of Indian origin, DHH is Danish, Vaxry is Polish, and this whole "thing" is smug white Americans telling them what to think. No one sees any irony in this?

tovej

4 months ago

No? I don't think their nationality matters. And there's even a connection. All three countries have governments enacting extreme nationalist immigration policies (Poland:suspension of asylum rights, Denmark: atated goal of no asylum seekers, India: the prime minister is part of an ethnonationalist paramilitary organisation who has passed legislation blocking islamic asylum seekers from getting accepted).

Nationalism is strong in all three countries, and when nationalism is strong, so are the most extreme expressions of it.

dismalaf

4 months ago

So now nationalism is bad? Are all nations bad? Including non-white nations? Wait until you find out what the "free Palestine" movement wants...

And Denmark was formerly very liberal, the pushback is for real reasons. Poland saw the lessons of other countries so wants immigrants with shared values, they've still taken more Ukrainians than anyone. And India has been the victim of many terrorist attacks.

tovej

4 months ago

Did you notice the word "extreme"? And ethnonationalism is bad, nost definitely.

dismalaf

4 months ago

None of them are extreme. You putting the word there doesn't make it so.

And ethnonationalism is the rule for the majority of countries in the world. The only reason the Americas are different is because of colonialism.

tovej

4 months ago

They are extreme by any sensible use of the term. If your nationalist beliefs make you ignore human rights such as asylum, or if you specifically limit the rights of one ethnic group of people (such as India has done, e.g.) while you otherwise pretend to support liberal democracy, that is an extreme position.

And ethnonationalism is _not_ the rule of the world. It is in Israel, where there is an apartheid rule. Ethnonationalism means you believe in one ethnicity being the only rightful cirizens of your state, superior to other ethnicities that live there. Every country on earth has more than one ethnicity loving there, and given that ethnocity is a fuzzy concept itself, any ethnonationalist project is a social construction of an in-group made to exclude some out-group. That is irrational and radical.

dismalaf

4 months ago

> It is in Israel, where there is an apartheid rule

Are you thick? Israel literally has Arab politicians and political parties, and 2 million Arabs living in Israel proper.

> Ethnonationalism means you believe in one ethnicity being the only rightful cirizens of your state, superior to other ethnicities that live there.

No, you're making up your own definition. Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_nationalism

While occasionally it means other ethnicities are second class citizens (if you want to use Jews as an example they were kicked out of a ton of Arab countries where they had lived for centuries) that's far from the rule.

> Every country on earth has more than one ethnicity loving there

I mean, if a single person from another ethnicity lives there than this is true I guess.

An absolute ton of countries are named after and defined by the majority ethnic group. Literally most in Asia, a bunch in Africa (and in the rest you have ethnic strife), most in Europe. Again, the places this isn't true is mainly places that were defined by colonialism. Name a country, either they're an ethnostate or a colonial remnant.

tovej

4 months ago

The wikipedia article supports the point I made that you claim I made up:

"The central tenet of ethnic nationalists is that "nations are defined by a shared heritage, which usually includes a common language, a common faith, and a common ethnic ancestry. Those of other ethnicities may be classified as second-class citizens."

That doesn't say "sometimes", that says "central tenet".

Considering your reading comprehension, you calling me "thick" is hilarious. Quite literally the second paragraph of your own citation, it supports my main point, and you somehow still have the confidence to say that I'm making it up. That's some misplaced confidence.

The apartheid in Israel is well documented, even by Israeli sources, I'll take a page out of your book and refer to wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_apartheid

If you would apply some elementary logic to the situation in Israel, you would be able to understand the apartheid and racism towards arabs. Israel quite literally disenfranchised nearly a million native Palestinian arabs in 1948, and are neither interested in goving them their own state, nor absorbing them into the state of Israel. Why not give them Israeli citizenship if they want to, and a right to return, as the U.N. has required them to do? Because they're the wrong ethnicity. Any ethnic jew (by Israels definition) is given automatic "birthright citizenship", even if they have no connection to the land, but arabs that were born in the territory are not let in. That's ethnonationalism right there (that's part of the apartheid).

The rest of your post is a weird starwman handwave? (there's only single persons of the non-plurality ethnicity living anywhere?), and arguing about names, which is quite literally too dumb to even engage with.

One final point: you seem to think I believe that nation states are a rare phenomenon, maybe because you're conflating the concept of nation states in general with the ideology of ethnonationalism. The most common form of nationalism is civic or cultural nationalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_nationalism), which does not place one ethnicity above another. It's not ideal either, but it's considerably more moderate.

You're clearly out of your depth and arguing in bad faith, and I think you should calm down before you reply again. Maybe the discussion will be more civil then.

dismalaf

4 months ago

> The central tenet of ethnic nationalists is that nations are defined by a shared heritage, which usually includes a common language, a common faith, and a common ethnic ancestry.

This is one sentence. The "central tenet" applies to what's written in this sentence.

> Those of other ethnicities may be classified as second-class citizens.

"May be"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/may

Try reading.

tovej

4 months ago

Did you see that "common ethnic ancestry" is part of what ethnonationalists define a nation through? As part of their central tenet? Do you still claim that I was making that up about ethnonationalism defining nationhood through ethnicity and looking down on other ethnicities?

And you know what, let me concede the "may". Does that somehow make it less extreme? Not really. "Ethnonationalists look down on other ethnicities, and as a consequence _sometimes_ codify their status as subhuman into law, but not always, if they don't have the political power to enforce it." shouldn't really sell anyone on how _moderate_ they are. That just means ethnonationalism has degrees and variation in how it expresses itself in practice, because everything does. The fact that there isn't always an explicit, formal legally codified class of out-group people doesn't mean that the ideology doesn't always define a national ethnos that is superior to others. Because that is quite literally what ethnonationalists do, it's what Hitler did, it's what Netanyahu does, and it's what DHH does.

You know it's funny, because you were clearly unaware of what ethninationalism meant, and had to look it up on wikipedia, because you quote it exactly in your previous reply. So there is a possibility that you're not trolling, that you're just too embarassed to admit that you're wrong. Let me help you with that.

In that same wikipedia article that you cited but did not read, the only explicit examples given are fascism in Europe (including nazis), and white nationalism in the US. It also details the racist nature of ethnonationalism, which is exactly what I've been saying. The whole article supports my argument and undermines yours. Ethnonationalism is an extreme ideology, exemplified by nazis and the KKK, says _your main source_.

You're clearly emotionally worked up, as you keep snarking and throwing insults at me. I have also crossed some lines I don't usually cross, but I feel I can allow myself that once the person on the other side starts hurling random insults. I suggest you log off for a while, or maybe read through that entire article you linked.

dismalaf

4 months ago

> You know it's funny, because you were clearly unaware of what ethninationalism meant, and had to look it up on wikipedia,

I didn't need to look it up just like I didn't need to look up the word "may". It's for you, since you seem to be having difficulty understanding words.

> looking down on other ethnicities

You keep jumping to this conclusion when it's not a thing. Having shared ethnicity != looking down on others.

> Hitler did, it's what Netanyahu does, and it's what DHH does.

Again, quite the jump. Genocide against millions to writing that maybe London should stay British.

> throwing insults

Show one.

tovej

4 months ago

This is sad. You're already picking the raisins out of the bun to misrepresent my argument.

I did not claim that sharing an ethnicity means you look down on someone, that's a strawman. The full argument is that defining the in-group elite by a shared ethnicity obviously excludes other ethnicities, in other words looking down on them. So looking down on others is inherent to ethnonationalists.

The wikipedia article goes through this logic, and maybe it's a little longwinded way to get there. You can also read the dictionary definition, which is more straightforward: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ethnonationalism

"noun

the belief, theory, or doctrine that shared ancestry is the principal element of a cohesive national identity, and that a government should protect and promote the culture, language, and religion of one group, considered the primary or prestigious people of a nation, over other cultures, languages, or religions that may share that space in a multicultural society."

Re: Hitler, Netanyahu, DHH, I'm not talking about their actions, I'm talking about their ethnonationalism. That they differ in their actions is irrelevant to that point.

> Show one. That's hilarious, there's one just above it: "you seem to be having difficulty understanding words"

dismalaf

4 months ago

Ok, excerpt from the definition in your link:

"over other cultures"

And your words:

> obviously excludes

This is you, jumping to yet another conclusion. Promoting one thing over another means promoting one thing more than another. It does not mean exclusion.

> That's hilarious, there's one just above it: "you seem to be having difficulty understanding words"

Not an insult, just a statement of fact at this point.

Your whole argument hinges on you making assumptions that are not inherent to the definition of words. That the most mild form of something MUST automatically lead to the most extreme form.

This is like me saying that because communists had universal healthcare, universal healthcare must automatically lead to Stalinism. Economics, politics and culture are never black and white, it's always various degrees of everything. The US shares elements of both communism and fascism, in fact, every country on earth does. This does not mean every country is either the USSR or Nazi Germany and about to murder millions...

tovej

4 months ago

Ouf, you are either in denial about being wring or in denial about being an ethnonationalist yourself. You're unsuccessfully arguing about minor semantics without addressing any actual points.

Have a good day, I hope you find help.