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
That’s a false dichotomy. Freedom of speech should not solely be for those you a priori agree with. That’s how autocrats motivate their supression: it’s always for the greater good, of which they’re the arbiter.
Good thing the people here are not asking for the government to ban Omarchy/hyprland, but asking “normal people” to not associate with known assholes, which is a very normal thing to ask for. And defending your right to associate with assholes whitout being shamed about it makes you look very much like an asshole.
Your continue in the same style and doubling down on victim-hood polemics.
Of course free speech includes a variety of viewpoints.
I am pointing out that “FreedomAdvocate” has a comically preformative view on free speech. Rejecting people who use the slur “tranny” is not a free speech issue and shows that FA doesn’t actually care or believe in free speech.
It’s all theatrics to try and show how allegedly independent he is and how is an alleged free thinker.
Embarrassing really.