Title of the (concerning) thread on their community forum, not voluntary clickbait. Came across the thread thanks to a toot by @[email protected] (French speaking)
The gist of the issue raised by OP is that framework sponsors and promotes projects lead by known toxic and racists people (DHH among them).
I agree with the point made by the OP :
The “big tent” argument works fine if everyone plays by some basic civil rules of understanding. Stuff like code of conducts, moderation, anti-racism, surely those things we agree on? A big tent won’t work if you let in people that want to exterminate the others.
I’m disappointed in framework’s answer so far
I get your point with the rest but…
Yeah, it kinda is? That’s a core plank of the MAGA platform; it’s practically inseparable. Unless you’re talking non-USA parties but then there’s still a better chance than none it’s a yes.
I don’t even think it “kinda is” I think it fully is. Trans rights are currently against tradition and the status quo, this makes trans rights a progressive topic until the day that trans people are so established in the history of a society that it can’t be argued being trans is some new disorder or something.
I hope that one day Trans rights will have been so established globally that to challenge them is anti tradition and uncouth
What rights don’t trans people have? What rights is anyone trying to take away from trans people? I still haven’t seen an actual answer to this since the “trans rights are human rights” slogan became a thing.
It has to do with a phenomenon that is censored in most online spaces, so I’ll spell it out in capitals, aSjUrIbCoIgDaEl, basically if a person being denied care would cause them to off themselves, then denying care is tantamount to manslaughter.
Post-transition people are reportedly much happier than they were pre-transition, but right-wingers find that icky, so they’d rather commit war crimes than allow medicine to go to those who need it.
If you’re going to write a word with so many Is like suicide you really shouldn’t also throw in a lower case l. It took me forever to figure out what sucde meant because I was excluding the Is due to the trailing l. (Would’ve made more sense also if you just used the phrase offing ones self which you seemed fine with.)
If you read the rest you’ll discover that the reactionaries don’t care how you vote, they’ll call you that regardless.
I’m taking from the downvotes that there are a lot of people here who got caught up on those first few words and didn’t bother reading the rest or engaging their critical thinking skills…
When someone uses “critical thinking skills” or “common sense” they sure always seem to be on the wrong side of history.
People who vote for a particular party generally don’t agree with 100% of that party’s platform. Just because someone voted for a party that has transphobia-motivated policies doesn’t mean they are transphobic. The correlation may be high, but it’s far from 100%.
You’re right, they are just performing hateful acts towards trans people, they may be doing it out of laziness or ignorance rather than actually hating trans people. As we all know, materially helping an anti trans cause doesn’t mean you hate trans people in the same way materially helping terrorists doesn’t make you a terrorist. Ex: our friends and allies in Saudi Arabia.
Voting isn’t a hateful act. Any insinuation of that needs to stop.