Comment

Comment on Framework supporting far-right racists?

NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

This is a tricky one.

It really isn’t and is, if anything, a “solved problem” in the scientific/medical community.

If a bigot says the sky is blue, they’re not wrong about that.

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

A more timely example might be Einstein and Relativity. The Theory of Relativity (and all the other fun stuff Al did) very much came out of previous work… much of it by the German physicists who didn’t flee nazi Germany. But (again, in large part because of marketing) that tends to get ignored in favor of the Jew who got the hell out of nazi Germany and put his brain to good use.

That is to say, we might deliberately use that code for anti-hate purposes, perhaps, subverting the bigot’s preferred goals.

This comes up somewhat often. And, in theory, it sounds great. HP Lovecraft was a RIDICULOUSLY bigoted bastard even by the standards of his time (look up what his cat was named…). And yet, his stories have more or less become synonymous with discussions of homosexuality and persecution. And that is awesome. But it also leads to countless people every year deciding to “read the original works” and realizing… lovecraft had a few good ideas (that were mostly REALLY offensive takes on existing religions) but was a HORRIBLE writer. But they took hold.

Which brings up folk like jk rowling who are also hateful bigots. But because everybody can’t stop glazing Harry Potter just because they grew up with it, someone who is a fairly mediocre writer who wrote REALLY generic YA continues to get more and more money to support actively hateful things.

Because the core is that this “We’ll use it even though we hate you” is just promoting the idea of a meritocracy. You can be such a good writer/coder/whatever that people will begrudgingly praise you. And, much like “you are a great coder so you don’t need people skills”, it just makes for a REALLY toxic world.

There’s a really neat and geometrically useful symbol; fourfold symmetry, previously used by Hindus, that picked up an extremely negative association around 90 years ago, for example, and short of humanity forgetting history, we’re never getting that one back.

Similarly, bullshit.

Spend ANY time in Asia or any other region with a large concentration of Hindu or Buddhist people. As a Westerner, it is always a bit of a shock to look at a map of Tokyo and see a LOT of swastikas. At which point you immediately realize “Oh, they aren’t Nazis. They are Buddhists. I am an idiot”.

Because context matters. An Indian person who has a big swastika on their wall? First off, it probably is drawn differently. But second? It very much is unlikely to mean they actually want to eradicate anyone who isn’t aryan. Whereas that white guy with a swastika tattooed on his head? Homeboy probably isn’t celebrating the idea of the Buddha stepping on his face.

Which is why fricking Germany has zero problems with swastikas to represent Hindu and Buddhist and Jainist and so forth religion. Walking down the street with one would probably result in a “… Please don’t do that” but the people who have the most reason to feel shame and hatred for that symbol? They understand it has multiple meanings.

Also: I don’t think a bunch of bigoted assholes wanting to be bigots is at all comparable to usurping/repurposing a holy symbol but you do you.

source

Sort:hotnew top

palordrolap@fedia.io ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
You say it's a solved problem in one area as though it should be a solved problem elsewhere. That puts your comment on unsound footing.

As for the comparison you don't like, there are often only so many ways to write certain things in code. Some of those are invariably going to be very similar to that which was written by a bigot. That might be OK (like continued Hindu and Buddhist use of the swastika). Outright using that which was actually written by the bigot though?

People may say "please don't do that".

And there's the rub.

source
- NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  
  You say it’s a solved problem in one area as though it should be a solved problem elsewhere
  
  Yes. That is the point. This problem has already been solved. “Well we don’t do that” is not an explanation of why it is suddenly a problem here: it is an admission of incompetence.
  
  Don’t get me wrong. There are very much reasons to consider whether that solution applies. That is not what you, and the other… moving on, are doing.
  
  You instead continue to insist that we should… give money to known bigoted chuds because we still let the Hindus and the Buddhists use swastikas?
  
  source
  - palordrolap@fedia.io ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    
    You are [...] implying that people of (generally) Asian religions need to change their iconography
    
    That is not and was not my intent, and I was less sure of yours until just now. (This may be reading (in)comprehension on my part, to which I'll be happy to admit fault.)
    
    So, let me make sure I'm understanding you. Are you saying that you think that any and all gains from bigoted or unethical sources should be thrown away and that we should have nothing to do with them?
    
    I understand why people would be extremely uncomfortable with some of these and I even think that where we can, we should avoid them, but we can't get rid of everything.
    
    If we must insist on everything then the whole of humanity needs to get in the sea because we're all products of humanity's inhumanity if you go back far enough. In many cases, it's not that far.
    
    If we say "nothing" then we give way to terrible people and let them have free reign.
    
    So tell me. Where is the line? I still think that's a fairly difficult question, even if you don't.
    
    source
    NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    
    So, let me make sure I’m understanding you. Are you saying that you think that any and all gains from bigoted or unethical sources should be thrown away and that we should have nothing to do with them?
    
    No. As I said in the comment you clearly did not read while deciding to dismiss
    
    The reality is that it is almost never one person saying something. And you can EASILY prioritize the other orgs that came to a similar decision. It is more about marketing and less about ideology, but people generally attribute calculus to Newton over anyone else even though it was largely an evolution and codification of existing concepts.
    
    (…)
    
    And if the reality is that it truly did come out of hatred and evil (e.g. a surprisingly small amount of medical research does indeed come out of the atrocities of WW2). You don’t tell someone “Hey, this medicine came from torturing and murdering Romani twins”. You give it to them, maybe think a bit if you are aware, and move on. And any historical discussion provides all the context and uses that context as a thought discussion.
    
    As for your other comment
    
    So tell me. Where is the line? I still think that’s a fairly difficult question, even if you don’t.
    
    Well, in this case I think the line is pretty clear: Don’t give money to nazis. Which is what Framework Corp is doing. This is not a case of choosing to not remove a package run by known hateful bigots from a package manager. It is a case of actively giving money to said bigots.
    
    source