The question is more like this: would you keep giving the company the support of your money once you know they’ll use it to harm you and your loved ones? 
I may have a slight doubt that you’re truly honest with me if you tell me yes.
As for the question about « how much tolerance », well… I can guess where this question goes.
My point is that if you will just isolate and alienate those people, they will not learn the error of their ways, they will only get angrier and there will only get more of them.
I support keeping Politics out of this.
One could expand from a political perspective.
The above is a kind of “Schrödinger’s cat” type argument, but I think it makes my point.
There is a stark difference between “someone at the company” and “the main person who owns and manages the project”
Would you keep going to that gym, if you found out that they in fact do want your rights stripped away and deport you, but also publicly blog about it? Would you keep recommending that gym to others?
Just adding my voice to everybody here, it’s not ok to promote and give money to projects led by far-right racists. Yes of course, everybody can use any distro, window manager, etc, and it’s ok to support them in the forums, and not shame people on that. But the public communication of a company is a choice. There are many better distributions than Omarchy that you can talk about, why do a public post promoting the distribution of a more than controversial leader? And giving money to Hyprland is a big no.
And yes I was an unactive user on this forum, as I was just daily using my Framework without any problem and came for this topic. I was about to purchase a second Framework for my wife but I guess it will be another brand.
When the “remaining 5%” is about whether to send my money to people that want me and my friends dead or deported, that discussion must be had.
I think this youtube video goes some way to explaining the problem and its solution.
The public expression, or indeed a certain level of activism might be enough for me to stop. Good leaders keep their unrelated beliefs to themselves.
But would I ask my company to stop sponsoring memberships for all our other employees? This demands a more egregious level of activism by the CEO, I think.
For me to set up a booth in front of the gym to tell other members to terminate their membership would be also a higher bar.
Now expanding on the metaphor, I think, there’s a big difference between you yourself being alienated and stopping something because it makes you feel bad and you then going out there and trying to force your feelings on other groups or individuals.
“Why can’t everyone just calm down and get along”?
Would you want to “calm down and get along” when people give support to people that want YOU and YOUR friends dead or deported?
No matter how many times this gets parroted here it is baseless! Evidence! Otherwise you are willfully misleading people.
Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them far-right or a fascist.
I don’t want to participate in this thread anymore, but this is a SERIOUS statement and it must be checked! Because if this is true then he is breaking the law! (spoiler: He is not breaking the law because he has never called for the death of anyone. If your friends broke the law to be there, then if they are prosecuted and subsequently deported it is exactly how law and order have worked for centuries. )
I’ve been trying to stay out of this pig wrestling match for a long time, but I should just make one point.
Framework financially supported Hyprland, whose crime was insufficiently aggressive moderation, rather than DHH, whose crime was not changing their middle of the road centrist politics when someone took a bulldozer to the overton window and pushed it away from him, and that formerly centrist position involves sending people who gained asylum by fleeing from Assad back to a country that no longer is ruled by Assad. They’re only mentioning DHH’s project, not paying for it.
As for why, I think it’s only because he uses it himself and thus finds it to be a cool project.
Well, you can blame this on some kind of conspiracy.
Or you can realize that this topic resonates strongly with a lot of existing and potential customers, who want to make their voices heard in the hopes that framework will reevaluate their decision.
Completely divorced from reality given the staggering evidence in this thread. Stop arguing in bad faith.
Idk man, just read the sources linked in the top post? What about that isn’t conclusive in your opinion? If you actually made any points instead of just “this is baseless” people could elaborate.
As a customer with currently three FW laptops in operation, @nrp your response is very disappointing. To throw your own words into a mixer: “Congrats, Nirav, your big tent is now a nazi bar”. I think I understand where this “big tent” idea comes from, but it is ultimately misguided and googling the term “the paradox of tolerance” should be doable even for a busy CEO.
I think I have been a valuable ambassodor for FW hardware at conferences and usergroups and have done free advertising on social media for you because I believed in the idea and liked the execution. I’ll have to stop doing that, I guess.
Look, I get it. The current political climate (even more so in the US) is difficult to navigate, especially for companies who want to be able to sell their stuff. But this is an unforced error on your part. We don’t need you to be super vocal about your political affiliation. I don’t even particularly care where you personally stand, Nirav. But a sponsorship is an endorsement and people will see this and go “ewww” and I am relatively sure the small number of people who will see this and will go “Yay!” are not particularly worth it.
Maybe you did the math and concluded otherwise. That’d be a shame, but so be it then.
How far down the supply chain should the due diligence go? Clearly people think it’s evil to have bought a product from a company that sources some of its parts from places run by people with bad politics. How many removes away does it stop? - what if the suppliers one link away are all clean, but the ones further along have issues?
Also, what’s special here that isn’t true of, say, the decision to use parts made in China? The Chinese government is nasty to all the same groups of people. Does the evil taint not propagate in a similar manner? Why not?
Opinions are not evidence. What people are claiming about here breaks the law in most countries. If this were true he could be sued on top of criminal proceedings.
No, none of that has happened. The rantings of people and opinions do not make something true.
