Wow. Are people even reading my comments? I don’t think I’m saying anything confusing. I literally go step-by-step through my questions and concerns, and once again someone’s arguing at me about things I didn’t say.
I’ve been explicit in everything I’ve written that I’m talking about the hypothetical of DHH joining the forums and linking to his own fascist blog or Omarchy’s website that promotes his fascist blog.
The community guidelines would indicate to me that DHH could not link to his own blog or Omarchy’s website, given the fascism, and I’m pointing out that that is bananas. Framework economically supporting a person and project that cannot be linked to in Framework’s own forums because of associated fascism is absurd.
Or, that’s not the case. If DHH can link to his blog or the Omarchy website, then, yes, that means Framework is okay with my murder. And, to explain like you’re 5, this is not an accusation, because of the “If”. See, it’s conditional. I’m basically saying, “If Framework is okay with their forums promoting writings that advocate my murder, then Framework is okay with my murder.” That’s practically a tautology.
On the other hand, this is an accusation: Because Framework economically supported a prominent fascist, and Framework has defended that support, and that fascist will inevitably use some of that support as a means of advocating for my murder, I must conclude that Framework is okay with my murder.
As mentioned above, there’s literally no logically consistent way to say, “We are opposed to fascism” and also “We economically supported a prominent fascist and that’s not bad” at the same time. Framework could have plead ignorance, apologized, and denounced DHH and fascism. They chose not to. This results in obvious conclusions being drawn.