> Okay, let's say that I do the same thing: I fork Ladybird and give it a new name (Ladybug) and a new icon. Maybe I swap out the IO library for whatever reason. Does that free Ladybug from upstream's drama? Can 1attice now safely use Ladybug knowing that it respects human rights because Ladybird is a mere dependency?
Once again, you seem to be missing the point. It's not a simply a matter of moral purity. OP is interested in projects where they and their friends feel welcome in the community: to submit bugs, to contribute, or just to use the tool. DHH's views on race (https://web.archive.org/web/20250925050154/https://world.hey...) - and pronouns - make that difficult for some people.
While I don't personally submit pull requests to change documentation which refers to users with male pronouns, I do always find it jarring and confusing when I come across gendered language in that context. I guess the best way to put it is that I find it "illogical" and so I double-take. In technical documentation, it seems sensible to reduce confusion through accurate terminology, politics aside. So, DHH's stance that using a non-gendered term for a userbase that consists of more than one gender is woke "politics", seems to me to be it's own form of virtue signaling - virtues which make me feel unwelcome contributing.
> You're unsure whether their ad hominem was an attack on my character, but you are certain that me questioning their boycott was an attack? Huh?
I don't think that saying someone "might be amoral" is an ad hominem, especially in the this context: in this thread you criticize "the usual moralistic response" in defense of "combating Chromium/Firefox's hegemony" - a technical goal. You may be thinking of the word immoral instead, which would certainly be an ad hominem attack.
> amoral: having or showing no concern about whether behavior is morally right or wrong
You went beyond "questioning their boycott" when you stated assumptions like this:
> > What I'm assuming is that 1attice is boycotting public statements, not actual impact.
When OP and others explained how they evaluate projects, you haven't demonstrated a willingness to genuinely understand them. It seems you are more interested in proving that they are illogical. But in fact it's OK to disagree and have different goals.
Once again, you seem to be missing the point. It's not a simply a matter of moral purity. OP is interested in projects where they and their friends feel welcome in the community: to submit bugs, to contribute, or just to use the tool. DHH's views on race (https://web.archive.org/web/20250925050154/https://world.hey...) - and pronouns - make that difficult for some people.
While I don't personally submit pull requests to change documentation which refers to users with male pronouns, I do always find it jarring and confusing when I come across gendered language in that context. I guess the best way to put it is that I find it "illogical" and so I double-take. In technical documentation, it seems sensible to reduce confusion through accurate terminology, politics aside. So, DHH's stance that using a non-gendered term for a userbase that consists of more than one gender is woke "politics", seems to me to be it's own form of virtue signaling - virtues which make me feel unwelcome contributing.
> You're unsure whether their ad hominem was an attack on my character, but you are certain that me questioning their boycott was an attack? Huh?
I don't think that saying someone "might be amoral" is an ad hominem, especially in the this context: in this thread you criticize "the usual moralistic response" in defense of "combating Chromium/Firefox's hegemony" - a technical goal. You may be thinking of the word immoral instead, which would certainly be an ad hominem attack.
> amoral: having or showing no concern about whether behavior is morally right or wrong
You went beyond "questioning their boycott" when you stated assumptions like this:
> > What I'm assuming is that 1attice is boycotting public statements, not actual impact.
When OP and others explained how they evaluate projects, you haven't demonstrated a willingness to genuinely understand them. It seems you are more interested in proving that they are illogical. But in fact it's OK to disagree and have different goals.