Hi, I am not exactly sure how best to frame this, but recent events have got me wondering where exactly Framework, as a company, stands with regards to human rights and equality. If I understand correctly (and please do correct me if I am wrong), it seems like Framework has started sponsoring Hyprland: So I presume this is fact: Framework, as a company, has decided to sponsor a Wayland compositor who is well known to be led as a rather “toxic and hateful community”. Separately, but on the ...

Title of the (concerning) thread on their community forum, not voluntary clickbait. Came across the thread thanks to a toot by @Khrys@mamot.fr (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

  • DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    3·
    4 hours ago

    Wow. Okay. Thats a really bad response.

    The furthest I’ve seen is advocating for conservative politicians, which is generally for more favorable tax treatment and maybe some more flexibility in what services they need to provide to their employees.

    First off, that’s still indefensible? Like advocating for less worker safety isn’t a good thing right? Or lower pay? Like those are all agreeable bad things for companies to be doing right?

    We’ll come back to the second “where the money comes from”.

    I don’t think business owners care about the trans community for good or ill.

    That’s a pretty broad brush there.

    Chick-fil-A does a pretty good job of showing you that’s not a rule by any means.

    The only reason it seems that conservatives care at all is because liberals are so vocal about it. And liberals aren’t even really pushing for anything to help the trans community, it’s mostly lip service.

    This makes no sense, If neither side cares, then why is it a problem?

    Also, why are conservatives in your view just reactionary to what every ‘liberals’ are saying?

    The real enemy isn’t you average conservative voter, but specific politicians pushing a populist agenda, which paints trans people as the enemy. If it wasn’t trans people, it would be gay people, some variety of immigrant, etc, the target is less important to the movement, they just need to be weak and unpopular enough for them to get away with it. Again, it’s not your average voter, but whoever is pushing that agenda.

    This is so submissive to hate. Heaven forbid we don’t tolerate intolerance? This is such dismissive “it’s the way it is” talk.

    I never said my problem is with the average voter (although the average Republican voter absolutely hate my guts). My problem is with the money that flows. It’s the money fueling this hate. So yes, where I spend money has ALWAYS been political. So yes, it matters who my money is funding, and if that fund is funding my danger.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      23·
      3 hours ago

      First off, that’s still indefensible? Like advocating for less worker safety isn’t a good thing right?

      I think it makes logical sense. They own a business, so they see everything as a cost, and that includes employee benefits. They’re merely voting for their self interests.

      And while I likely disagree with them, I think that’s how the system should work.

      The counter to that should be regular people voting for their self-interests. Average people want better benefits and whatnot, so theoretically politicians should take that into account when crafting policy.

      The issue here isn’t business owners voting for their self-interest, but a mix of politicians not actually providing good representation and yet still getting reelected (gerrymandering), not having good options (only two candidates are viable), and media spin (again, with only two parties, they need to pick one to get favorable treatment).

      why are conservatives in your view just reactionary to what every ‘liberals’ are saying?

      That’s their purpose. Conservatives are pretty universally against change/in favor of reverting change, while liberals want more change. Sometimes you want one more than the other, depending on what’s going on.

      The problem is that our political system only has two viable options, so both parties jump all over the place to pick up votes and it’s actually unclear why they have the positions they do. For example, Republicans used to be super anti-union (they love representative democracy, but not in the private sphere?), yet they courted labor unions last year. Why? To get swing state voters. They’re less about pushing ideas and more about maintaining power.

      The real issue isn’t conservative voters, but our entire voting system. If we had 5 viable parties, people could effectively vote for the direction they want the country to go. If you don’t like the way the GOP is, you should demand more viable options so people can express themselves better.

      • DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        3·
        2 hours ago

        I think it makes logical sense. They own a business, so they see everything as a cost, and that includes employee benefits. They’re merely voting for their self interests.

        Can you see how dehumanizing that is? Viewing people as cost?

        This is how Nazis start by the way, not viewing people as people

        Employees are still people. Business should take care of people, not the other way arround.

        That’s their purpose. Conservatives are pretty universally against change/in favor of reverting change, while liberals want more change. Sometimes you want one more than the other, depending on what’s going on.

        Your assumption is that every side serves a purpose. But when we say “hey we shouldn’t kill people” and the answer is “shut up libtard” can you see how they don’t have a “purpose” other than to spread hate?

        And I’m not gonna copy and paste the rest of them comment.

        I know who my problem with is, is it’s just hate. Not exclusively politicians, anyone who wants to seee dead.

        Can I just say, get fucked? Must be nice when your existence isnt political.