For context, i would like to point to the below post.
With that context provided, i am making this post because i believe outspoken withdrawal of financial support is necessary if i wish to support any chance for this to change.
Framework’s response to the above post is, in my opinion, absolutely unacceptable- to dismiss all further discussion of the matter as “a discussion that cannot be nuanced”, even as the original poster attempted to provide further nuance to the faults of the “big tent” approach paints the original poster in an inherently “unreasonable” light, and i would argue very intentionally.
The Paradox of Tolerance is a long-proven concept, and something that is exercised frequently in the open-source community due specifically to the behaviours of figures like the Hyprland developer. This is not “political”, it is necessary, and anyone who would say otherwise would not only tolerate, but support people who would be intolerant of others within the community. How long would it have been until i, a transfem person, been the one spoken out against by a major developer, only for them to later be financially supported by Framework? When you stand on neither side, you- unfortunately, perhaps, but still- support the oppressor. That is the fact of the matter.
Not to mention, there is nothing “political” about removing people from the community who ACTIVELY politicize software development by weaponising their platform to spread hateful beliefs. We remove people who inherently politicize this community.
It’s my opinion that this “big tent” theory acted as a dogwhistle to begin with, because the mention of it drew in droves of people who went on to outwardly support the “apolitical viewpoint” of a businessperson who is financially supporting software developers who politicize software development. Make that make sense.
While i do not fault the company for attempting to adopt a policy to support all open-source software development, to make such a display of not financially but also verbally supporting these figures on their social media, and then to- when questioned- dismiss and subtly besmirch the original poster, whilst providing no advice of a platform in which that “nuanced discussion” can be had, and invite so far bad-faith discussion on “political division” is incredibly disappointing, and as a result, i feel it necessary to provide my own outspoken withdrawal of any further support of this company, and i urge anyone affected by this controversy to create their own posts in addition to mine. Give them numbers. Tell them what they’re losing if they continue to cowtow to racists.
This is not intended for the community to comment on- because quite frankly, the community response to the post above gives me very, very little hope of “convincing” anyone that this behaviour is unacceptable. This community seems to be comprised largely of “centrists” who just sit on the fence and stand in favor of oppressors, and quite frankly, i post this full-well understanding that my response will be deemed “unreasonable”, “extreme”, and “political”, when this is not an “unreasonable” or “un-nuanced” discussion. Nuance was given, nuance was denied, and nuance was created through the bad-faith response to Nirav’s dogwhistle.
Stop supporting racists.