Looks like a confused Swedish dude that when questioned about his use of English pronouns defaults to not wanting to get political. Is there more besides a misguided decision to avoid relevant political topics?
I think we should chastise people that insist on not getting political, but not necessarily boycott everything they do. Or at least we should apply the same moral demands to Mozilla, Apple, Microsoft or Google when choosing which browsers to support. Which of them is the least bad?
There’s a big difference between negating the existence of people and what happend in this case, i.e. somebody writing a comment (only visible to him and other developers) using the male form.
Someone submits a 1-line PR changing the gender used in a code comment
PR rejected on the grounds that the change is “politically motivated”
Submitter got mad, and proposed removing the rule against “politically motivated” changes, calling it “white supremacist,” which is closed
Someone wrote a blog post about it
Here’s my analysis:
Stupid change - don’t make PRs that simply correct an irrelevant typo in a comment somewhere; some people do this to put stuff on a resume (look at how much FOSS work I do!), and it just wastes everyone’s time
Stupid response - it should’ve been rejected because it’s a useless change, not because it’s “politically motivated”
Stupid proposal - do you really want to waste a bunch of time fighting over wording in a comment? Because that’s the kind of crap you get without a rule like this.
This is all about an irrelevant change to a comment? Why is this getting so much attention?
I should be an idiot. I dont see a direct relationship between race and sexual orientation. Even if the PR was rejected because a pronounce how the hell this is white supremacist?
Fixing that makes sense because it’s wrong and misleading (it’s actually Manhattan distance), and a quick glace is insufficient to tell the difference.
But fixing a typo or something that wouldn’t be confusing is just noise and should only be fixed with other changes. For example, I intentionally misspelled Pythagorean in my comment above, fixing that to be the right spelling would be a useless change, even if the distance formula used the hypotenuse. It wouldn’t be an unreasonable policy to reject PRs that only fix spelling or similar to reduce noise for the maintainers.
Yep, I understand but disagree. Maybe it comes from working with so many ESL coders, but I’ll happily accept typo corrections because it’s not always obvious what words should be if you’re not steeped in the culture.
If you’re a larger project, you can see a ton of these from people hoping to land a commit to put “contributor to X” on a resume somewhere. Those add up and are really distracting and possibly automated. They waste everyone’s time, especially if they spawn a bunch of conversion like this did.
If you’re a smaller project, it doesn’t matter as much. I work with ESL coders too, so I get it (1/4 of my office is ESL immigrants, and ~2/3 of the broader team is ESL). I fix comments all the time, I just include them with other changes.
So it depends. But in general, a high profile project should reject this noise to discourage this behavior.
DDG search is garbage, I’m sorry… Whenever I switch to a browser that defaults to it, I’m reminded why I always switch it back to Google (unfortunately). Even Yandex is better, and that’s prob Russian spyware.
It was a niche story, I’ll have to dig through the GitHub issues. Basically someone tried to change the documentation pronouns to be gender neutral rather than masculine and the lead dev had a freak out and refused. Really soured me on the project
It wasn’t in documentation, but a code comment. No user would see this.
One part was a rejected change on the README, which was trying to remove this “white supremacist language”:
## On ideologically motivated changes
This is a purely technical project. As such, it is not an appropriate arena to advertise your personal politics or religious beliefs. Any changes that appear ideologically motivated will be rejected.
Someone changing “he” to “they” (original PR that started all this) in a comment as their only change could absolutely be seen as “politically motivated.” My understanding is that if changing the comment was part of some larger useful change, it would be fine (as would using “she” or “they” in a new comment), but just changing the gender of a pronoun in a comment is a useless change.
If the comment said “she,” would someone have been motivated to make this change? Probably not. Should changing this from “she” to some other pronoun (he or they) also be rejected? Yes, on the same grounds as changing it from “he,” it’s not a useful change and just wastes everyone’s time. If you’re in the code already, then go ahead, correct silly language like this if you care to.
Someone changing “he” to “they” (original PR that started all this) in a comment as their only change could absolutely be seen as “politically motivated.”
Look at the fallout in the comments on those PRs, it quickly devolved into politics and quickly away from any technical merit.
If this exact same change were included with other changes, I highly doubt anyone would’ve cared about the comment. The issue isn’t with the text of the comment, but with the likely motivation and the actual merits of the PR. Many projects immediately reject tiny PRs because they clog up the review queue, and that appears to be what’s happening here, plus all the political nonsense in the issue comments.
You’ll see the alt-right do that a lot, for some reason.
There’s real criticism, but they always mix it in with some made-up complaints like the slavery thing, which is some of the most obvious sarcasm I have ever seen on the internet, but somehow taken literally by the author of the post.
IDK if he’s a transphobe or whatnot, but his reaction to the change in language was indicative of, at the very least—with the most charitable of interpretations—, a disregard for inclusive language and, more realistically, some philosophy that doesn’t allow for “others” to participate because the existence of those that aren’t male is “political,” somehow.
You might not see it, because you haven’t seen it enough times to recognize it, but it happens again and again and again… But it’s always quiet.
“Don’t make this political,” “ideology isn’t welcome,” stuff like that. Statements that sound reasonable, but are only wielded to quiet those aiming for inclusiveness and acceptance of marginalized people.
It might sound like a less-than-generous interpretation, a bit callous and over-zealous, but it’s just patterns. I hear wolf, I say wolf.
Also, I thought that article had a really funny passage:
One activist (“cafkafk”) seen below, within the GitHub repository for the developer being attacked, celebrating the fact that other activists – organized on “The Fediverse” – had arrived to harass the Ladybird developer.
This alone made me think that it might be satire, but I don’t think it is… The Fediverse, huh? OK.
I would’ve rejected the PR too, but not for violation of that rule, but because one-line changes that merely fix a comment waste everyone’s time reviewing it, and are often just to build someone’s resume. I’ve even seen some that remove trailing whitespace.
If you want to fix it alongside other changes, go for it (and the reviewer said as much on the PR). But if you’re only interested in sending in drive-by commits to build a resume or something and aren’t actually interested in helping, then it should be rejected as noise.
If there’s a broader pattern of this, maybe that’s cause for concern. But if it’s literally just this instance, I could see the dev being annoyed at drive-by PRs.
I would’ve rejected the PR too, but not for violation of that rule, but because one-line changes that merely fix a comment waste everyone’s time reviewing it, and are often just to build someone’s resume.
That’s exactly what I was talking about. You’re taking what they said reasonably, because you’re probably a reasonable person! However, look at what they’re actually saying. The issue wasn’t framed as being a “drive-by,” though later that’s what they claimed. It was about ideology. It was about politics. They didn’t pull up rules about one-line changes to justify not accepting them, they pulled up rules about talking politics.
The problem wasn’t that it was a meaningless PR, the problem was that it was a meaningful PR that they disagreed with.
And, quite frankly, disagreeing with that does make you an asshole, at the very least, and a transphobic misogynist, at worst. There were at least a few PRs open about similar issues, too.
Look, I’m not calling him a transphobe or a misogynist; I’m just saying this was an asshole thing to do, and it was done in an asshole way, and that allowing this sort of thing to exist, especially in FOSS, is not good. That’s all.
The issue wasn’t framed as being a “drive-by,” though later that’s what they claimed. It was about ideology.
But that’s the problem, it’s both a drive-by, useless change and a politically motivated one. If you show up to a project and submit a change that violates multiple rules, it’s dealer’s choice which one to pick.
With asynchronous discussions like this, it’s impossible to know their motivations, so it’s helpful to assume the best instead of the worst.
In order to not look like I’m just repeating myself over and over, here is another pull request where a user fixed the specifically gendered language, and was denied
Here’s the PR in question. It was merged, probably because it didn’t just change “he” to “they” in one spot (but did just that in a few spots), but actually fixed confusing language.
And then after it was merged, there were tons of irrelevant comments about the policy and other PRs.
The one I pulled here included changes from the other rejected PRs. Maybe this was by a different reviewer, idk. That said, it’s still a little iffy since it’s just fixing grammar and especially pronouns that aren’t really relevant to the code it’s commenting.
I probably would’ve accepted that last one because it fixes stuff in a lot of places rather than one (quantity has a quality of its own), and accepting it will hopefully stop PR spam.
Look, I’m not calling him a transphobe or a misogynist
He may be. Idk.
My criticisms here go to everyone involved:
reviewer should’ve rejected the PRs because they’re noisy, not because they’re “political”
submitter shouldn’t just submit a 1-line grammar fix in a comment
github users shouldn’t brigade, discussion should be technical
blog author should be more accurate (see above)
It’s stupid drama all around.
Fixing comments is fine. If you’re going to only fix comments, at least fix a bunch of them at once, and ideally more than just a pronoun or grammar mistake here and there. English isn’t everyone’s first language, so assume the best and don’t waste everyone’s time with useless changes.
It was. Some other member of SerenityOS, not the person behind Ladybird (awesomekling).
blog author should be more accurate (see above)
That’s fair. I’ll say though, the blog post is dated from 1 day after the PR was actually merged. It’s not unreasonable to think that, when they wrote it, it really hadn’t been merged and they only saw the initial denial citing the policy.
He may be. Idk.
Yeah, I was just trying to say that that wasn’t the point of my rant. I get it I get it.
It’s not unreasonable to think that, when they wrote it, it really hadn’t been merged and they only saw the initial denial citing the policy.
That never happened on this PR. The only human reply before the merge (aside from the submitter) was this:
Please fix the commit messages (see BuggieBot’s comment); and maybe this can go in one commit? Doesn’t really need to be 5 separate ones.
And this is BuggieBot’s comment:
Hello!
One or more of the commit messages in this PR do not match the SerenityOS code submission policy, please check the lint_commits CI job for more details on which commits were flagged and why.
Please do not close this PR and open another, instead modify your commit message(s) with git commit --amend and force push those changes to update this PR.
It’s a completely different.
This, plus the tone of the blog post looks like they were on a crusade instead of trying to accurately portray events.
Sorry to beat a dead horse here, my point is that we all need to be careful jumping to conclusions, especially in FOSS where discussion almost exclusively happens asynchronously in text and with people with different backgrounds. Pretty much everyone involved failed at that.
I disagree with Lunduke videos, specailly when he tried to bork Rust as a bad language without knowing single shit of rust programming. But if he was left wing we weren’t having this conversation. People from moderate right should be excluded? I’m not talking about Lunduke here, but In general.
I dislike tech people who mix politics into their work, even if I agree with their opinions. If you do both, just keep them separate, like separate YouTube channels or blogs or whatever. Lunduke doesn’t do that, and many of his tech takes are colored by that as well, so I ignore him.
Definitely. Even other series were interesting. I especially like his perspective of how much bloated software currently is.
…but I ultimately unsubscribed him, because the most videos were alt-right bullshit, without providing even credible sources on the biggest claims. Definitely NOT give him any traffic anymore, he doesn’t deserve it.
““Half of us are trans,” he says. Accompanied by a call to “fight back” against an imagined “genocide”, assumedly perpetrated by those who do not fully buy into his particular sexual fetish.”
The blogs author purposely misgenders Alyssa Rosensweig and refers to being trans as a sexual fetish, which makes their politics obscenely clear. Further, Alyssa has a resume of amazing accomplishments in reverse engineering the apple m1 and m2 chips and developing graphics drivers for their gpus. Lundukes resume is basically growing up as a nerd and being a “tech blogger” from early in the game and going full qanon a few years ago
Further in the article he references hector Martin saying that people demanding to keep politics out of tech is bullshit because tech is made by humans and anti trans rhetoric is going to kill his colleagues. His response to this:
“Of course nobody is trying to kill Hector’s colleagues.
And the vast majority of major corporations – not to mention the President of the country – are continually coming out in support of the Trans fetish. So declaring that there is a genocide occuring is beyond ridiculous.”
So that didn’t age well (from less than 2 years ago)
I don’t know. But rather than just accepting the assertion, I did a cursory search. This turned up and I perused it. I didn’t see anything damning and thought maybe somebody could clarify. I am absolutely not trying to defend anybody, but I didn’t spend much time on it. Sorry folks.
Don’t you think for a second that talking like this is indicative of extremism, polarization, even fanatism? It is ok to take political posture, but this is excessive
It also can be a reasonable take though, and you’ll need more context to distinguish it.
In this case, Lunduke has a history of injecting politics where it doesn’t belong, which is a shame because I used to watch some of his content (esp. his “Linux sucks” series). But now it’s filled with nonsense.
My point is, don’t write someone off because they don’t want politics or political correctness in their project. Write them off when they use that excuse to silence things they don’t like and allow things they do.
Transphobic main dev ruined the project for me
Again this shit. This have been debunked many times, yet people still write this nonsense.
Looks like a confused Swedish dude that when questioned about his use of English pronouns defaults to not wanting to get political. Is there more besides a misguided decision to avoid relevant political topics?
I think we should chastise people that insist on not getting political, but not necessarily boycott everything they do. Or at least we should apply the same moral demands to Mozilla, Apple, Microsoft or Google when choosing which browsers to support. Which of them is the least bad?
There is nothing political about acknowledging peoples’ existence.
Don’t think we should be scared of the word “political” or “ideology”.
Existence? Because somebody used a wrong pronoun?
You’re right, words are meaningless and language has no bearing on society at large. after all, fuiebt eidiowb rhe efifo quifopim.
There’s a big difference between negating the existence of people and what happend in this case, i.e. somebody writing a comment (only visible to him and other developers) using the male form.
Language is extremely powerful. This is all part of the erasure (an integral part btw).
Hmm I don’t think you really understand what happened.
The developer wrote a comment (not visible to the end user) using the male form.
A random person opened a pull request without any useful changes, except for changing that comment from “he” to “their”.
The developer rejected that PR because it’s politically motivated and it doesn’t add anything else.
Totally excessive in view of the facts.
There are so few alternative browsers and the collapse of the privacy is so global. That seems to me a minor point in relation to the goal.
I see zero reason to out the “transphobic” label on the dev.
Think and read before labelling people.
Calling pronouns political is a straight up dog whistle
Under that POV stop using Volkswagen because Hitler invented it.
11 day old pro transphobia account, hmm
Wow. Calm down omg. This is not a witch hunting.
ugh transphobia rots people’s brains
it’s not too hard to just be a decent person ppl
Sure, but there’s no transphobia here. Stop spreading nonsense.
Ok, you keep saying that but never explain why/how. Like, why refuse such a small change so aggressively?
I can’t see anything about this on DuckDuckGo. Do you have a link?
https://mkultra.monster/tech/2024/07/03/serenityos-and-ladybird
This was a little „write-up“ back when everything became more public.
I’m surprised this got any kind of attention.
Here’s the turn of events from my perspective:
Here’s my analysis:
I should be an idiot. I dont see a direct relationship between race and sexual orientation. Even if the PR was rejected because a pronounce how the hell this is white supremacist?
Well, didn’t the Nazis also discriminate against gay people?
That said, it’s a massive leap to go from “rejects 1 line PR that only changes gender in a comment” to literal Nazi…
“comments must be accurate,” is not a rule you should bend. Bending it even a little leads to last programming and shit code.
True, but that only applies if it’s misleading. For example:
// pythagoran theorem distance = abs(p2.x - p1.x) + abs(p2.y - p1.y);Fixing that makes sense because it’s wrong and misleading (it’s actually Manhattan distance), and a quick glace is insufficient to tell the difference.
But fixing a typo or something that wouldn’t be confusing is just noise and should only be fixed with other changes. For example, I intentionally misspelled Pythagorean in my comment above, fixing that to be the right spelling would be a useless change, even if the distance formula used the hypotenuse. It wouldn’t be an unreasonable policy to reject PRs that only fix spelling or similar to reduce noise for the maintainers.
Yep, I understand but disagree. Maybe it comes from working with so many ESL coders, but I’ll happily accept typo corrections because it’s not always obvious what words should be if you’re not steeped in the culture.
It really depends on the project.
If you’re a larger project, you can see a ton of these from people hoping to land a commit to put “contributor to X” on a resume somewhere. Those add up and are really distracting and possibly automated. They waste everyone’s time, especially if they spawn a bunch of conversion like this did.
If you’re a smaller project, it doesn’t matter as much. I work with ESL coders too, so I get it (1/4 of my office is ESL immigrants, and ~2/3 of the broader team is ESL). I fix comments all the time, I just include them with other changes.
So it depends. But in general, a high profile project should reject this noise to discourage this behavior.
In theory that’s fair reasoning. Unfortunately the dev made it clear that his reasoning was based on politics
“We don’t accept ideologically motivated changes” = White supremacist language… Yeah, sounds about like what I expected…
Thank you for sharing.
“Don’t Be Evil” happily indexing while Bingcrosoft sleeps
Maybe disabling JavaScript helps?
DDG search is garbage, I’m sorry… Whenever I switch to a browser that defaults to it, I’m reminded why I always switch it back to Google (unfortunately). Even Yandex is better, and that’s prob Russian spyware.
there’s startpage which is a Google wrapper if you’re interested
Actually just tried this for the first time yesterday after switching to librewolf. Have only used it once, but already seems better than DDG.
Try out SearXNG.
It was a niche story, I’ll have to dig through the GitHub issues. Basically someone tried to change the documentation pronouns to be gender neutral rather than masculine and the lead dev had a freak out and refused. Really soured me on the project
Someone else posted a writeup about it.
It wasn’t in documentation, but a code comment. No user would see this.
One part was a rejected change on the README, which was trying to remove this “white supremacist language”:
Someone changing “he” to “they” (original PR that started all this) in a comment as their only change could absolutely be seen as “politically motivated.” My understanding is that if changing the comment was part of some larger useful change, it would be fine (as would using “she” or “they” in a new comment), but just changing the gender of a pronoun in a comment is a useless change.
If the comment said “she,” would someone have been motivated to make this change? Probably not. Should changing this from “she” to some other pronoun (he or they) also be rejected? Yes, on the same grounds as changing it from “he,” it’s not a useful change and just wastes everyone’s time. If you’re in the code already, then go ahead, correct silly language like this if you care to.
Inclusive pronouns are not political, full stop.
I never said they were.
Look at the fallout in the comments on those PRs, it quickly devolved into politics and quickly away from any technical merit.
If this exact same change were included with other changes, I highly doubt anyone would’ve cared about the comment. The issue isn’t with the text of the comment, but with the likely motivation and the actual merits of the PR. Many projects immediately reject tiny PRs because they clog up the review queue, and that appears to be what’s happening here, plus all the political nonsense in the issue comments.
deleted by creator
Freakout? Didn’t he just reject?
I didn’t know anything about this, but it doesn’t sound as bad with context.
edit: Removed link to a site which shouldn’t be receiving more traffic. I should have vetted it more thoroughly.
That blog post is pretty ridiculous, IMO.
You’ll see the alt-right do that a lot, for some reason.
There’s real criticism, but they always mix it in with some made-up complaints like the slavery thing, which is some of the most obvious sarcasm I have ever seen on the internet, but somehow taken literally by the author of the post.
IDK if he’s a transphobe or whatnot, but his reaction to the change in language was indicative of, at the very least—with the most charitable of interpretations—, a disregard for inclusive language and, more realistically, some philosophy that doesn’t allow for “others” to participate because the existence of those that aren’t male is “political,” somehow.
You might not see it, because you haven’t seen it enough times to recognize it, but it happens again and again and again… But it’s always quiet.
“Don’t make this political,” “ideology isn’t welcome,” stuff like that. Statements that sound reasonable, but are only wielded to quiet those aiming for inclusiveness and acceptance of marginalized people.
It might sound like a less-than-generous interpretation, a bit callous and over-zealous, but it’s just patterns. I hear wolf, I say wolf.
Also, I thought that article had a really funny passage:
This alone made me think that it might be satire, but I don’t think it is… The Fediverse, huh? OK.
I would’ve rejected the PR too, but not for violation of that rule, but because one-line changes that merely fix a comment waste everyone’s time reviewing it, and are often just to build someone’s resume. I’ve even seen some that remove trailing whitespace.
If you want to fix it alongside other changes, go for it (and the reviewer said as much on the PR). But if you’re only interested in sending in drive-by commits to build a resume or something and aren’t actually interested in helping, then it should be rejected as noise.
If there’s a broader pattern of this, maybe that’s cause for concern. But if it’s literally just this instance, I could see the dev being annoyed at drive-by PRs.
That’s exactly what I was talking about. You’re taking what they said reasonably, because you’re probably a reasonable person! However, look at what they’re actually saying. The issue wasn’t framed as being a “drive-by,” though later that’s what they claimed. It was about ideology. It was about politics. They didn’t pull up rules about one-line changes to justify not accepting them, they pulled up rules about talking politics.
The problem wasn’t that it was a meaningless PR, the problem was that it was a meaningful PR that they disagreed with.
And, quite frankly, disagreeing with that does make you an asshole, at the very least, and a transphobic misogynist, at worst. There were at least a few PRs open about similar issues, too.
Look, I’m not calling him a transphobe or a misogynist; I’m just saying this was an asshole thing to do, and it was done in an asshole way, and that allowing this sort of thing to exist, especially in FOSS, is not good. That’s all.
Check this out: https://mkultra.monster/tech/2024/07/03/serenityos-and-ladybird
But that’s the problem, it’s both a drive-by, useless change and a politically motivated one. If you show up to a project and submit a change that violates multiple rules, it’s dealer’s choice which one to pick.
With asynchronous discussions like this, it’s impossible to know their motivations, so it’s helpful to assume the best instead of the worst.
From that:
Here’s the PR in question. It was merged, probably because it didn’t just change “he” to “they” in one spot (but did just that in a few spots), but actually fixed confusing language.
And then after it was merged, there were tons of irrelevant comments about the policy and other PRs.
The one I pulled here included changes from the other rejected PRs. Maybe this was by a different reviewer, idk. That said, it’s still a little iffy since it’s just fixing grammar and especially pronouns that aren’t really relevant to the code it’s commenting.
I probably would’ve accepted that last one because it fixes stuff in a lot of places rather than one (quantity has a quality of its own), and accepting it will hopefully stop PR spam.
He may be. Idk.
My criticisms here go to everyone involved:
It’s stupid drama all around.
Fixing comments is fine. If you’re going to only fix comments, at least fix a bunch of them at once, and ideally more than just a pronoun or grammar mistake here and there. English isn’t everyone’s first language, so assume the best and don’t waste everyone’s time with useless changes.
Sigh, you do have a point.
It was. Some other member of SerenityOS, not the person behind Ladybird (awesomekling).
That’s fair. I’ll say though, the blog post is dated from 1 day after the PR was actually merged. It’s not unreasonable to think that, when they wrote it, it really hadn’t been merged and they only saw the initial denial citing the policy.
Yeah, I was just trying to say that that wasn’t the point of my rant. I get it I get it.
That never happened on this PR. The only human reply before the merge (aside from the submitter) was this:
And this is BuggieBot’s comment:
It’s a completely different.
This, plus the tone of the blog post looks like they were on a crusade instead of trying to accurately portray events.
Sorry to beat a dead horse here, my point is that we all need to be careful jumping to conclusions, especially in FOSS where discussion almost exclusively happens asynchronously in text and with people with different backgrounds. Pretty much everyone involved failed at that.
I agree with the rest.
Yeah I was referencing that comment.
Sequence of events:
Precocious, certainly, and I agree it was misguided. The blog post was indeed emotionally motivated, that’s more than clear.
It’s alright. I think these discussions need to be had.
What is this blog, it reads like a right wing child’s ramblings
Lunduke is definitely right wing and has been for years
Lunduke used to be somewhat interesting, and I enjoyed his “Linux sucks” series, but he really has doubled down on political nonsense.
I disagree with Lunduke videos, specailly when he tried to bork Rust as a bad language without knowing single shit of rust programming. But if he was left wing we weren’t having this conversation. People from moderate right should be excluded? I’m not talking about Lunduke here, but In general.
Exactly!
I dislike tech people who mix politics into their work, even if I agree with their opinions. If you do both, just keep them separate, like separate YouTube channels or blogs or whatever. Lunduke doesn’t do that, and many of his tech takes are colored by that as well, so I ignore him.
Definitely. Even other series were interesting. I especially like his perspective of how much bloated software currently is.
…but I ultimately unsubscribed him, because the most videos were alt-right bullshit, without providing even credible sources on the biggest claims. Definitely NOT give him any traffic anymore, he doesn’t deserve it.
Agreed. The signal to noise ratio really suffers now.
Because it is. A quote from the linked page on asahi linux devs leaving twitter because of rising anti trans rhetoric
““Half of us are trans,” he says. Accompanied by a call to “fight back” against an imagined “genocide”, assumedly perpetrated by those who do not fully buy into his particular sexual fetish.”
The blogs author purposely misgenders Alyssa Rosensweig and refers to being trans as a sexual fetish, which makes their politics obscenely clear. Further, Alyssa has a resume of amazing accomplishments in reverse engineering the apple m1 and m2 chips and developing graphics drivers for their gpus. Lundukes resume is basically growing up as a nerd and being a “tech blogger” from early in the game and going full qanon a few years ago
Further in the article he references hector Martin saying that people demanding to keep politics out of tech is bullshit because tech is made by humans and anti trans rhetoric is going to kill his colleagues. His response to this:
“Of course nobody is trying to kill Hector’s colleagues.
And the vast majority of major corporations – not to mention the President of the country – are continually coming out in support of the Trans fetish. So declaring that there is a genocide occuring is beyond ridiculous.”
So that didn’t age well (from less than 2 years ago)
I don’t know. But rather than just accepting the assertion, I did a cursory search. This turned up and I perused it. I didn’t see anything damning and thought maybe somebody could clarify. I am absolutely not trying to defend anybody, but I didn’t spend much time on it. Sorry folks.
Maybe he is a bad guy. Truly, I didn’t know.
Lunduke is an alt-right shithead.
My mistake. I didn’t look far enough into it. But the accusation was made without context so I didn’t know. I’m not trying to defend him.
Stay vigilant. Content about “Political correctness gone mad!” is step one of the alt-right pipeline.
Don’t you think for a second that talking like this is indicative of extremism, polarization, even fanatism? It is ok to take political posture, but this is excessive
It also can be a reasonable take though, and you’ll need more context to distinguish it.
In this case, Lunduke has a history of injecting politics where it doesn’t belong, which is a shame because I used to watch some of his content (esp. his “Linux sucks” series). But now it’s filled with nonsense.
My point is, don’t write someone off because they don’t want politics or political correctness in their project. Write them off when they use that excuse to silence things they don’t like and allow things they do.
It can also be the correct arrestment. Context is everything.