←back to thread

Ruby Central's Attack on RubyGems [pdf]

(pup-e.com)
659 points jolux | 5 comments | 19 Sep 25 08:09 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
davidw ◴[19 Sep 25 15:37 UTC] No.45302820[source]▶
Seems relevant: https://ruby.social/@getajobmike/115231677684734669

I'm just reposting it though. I haven't followed any of this myself.

replies(2): >>45302882 #>>45302944 #
mijoharas ◴[19 Sep 25 15:47 UTC] No.45302944[source]▶
> The unstated reason for this change was that many of the existing Rubygems maintainers have recently quit (including their only full-time engineer) due to their continued relationship with DHH.

Can someone expand on what this means? Is it a continued relationship between Ruby Central and DHH, or the maintainers and DHH? Why does the other party have a problem with that?

EDIT: It seems the post was clarified since I copy/pasted this, and it's RC and DHH. Why do the maintainers have a problem with this? I though the stated reason was about RC removing everyone's access with no warning.

replies(4): >>45302987 #>>45303007 #>>45303111 #>>45305424 #
mperham ◴[19 Sep 25 15:57 UTC] No.45303111[source]▶
DHH is a white supremacist. Here he complains about too many brown people in London.

https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64

replies(6): >>45303193 #>>45303231 #>>45303239 #>>45303245 #>>45303333 #>>45307098 #
baggy_trough[dead post] ◴[19 Sep 25 16:04 UTC] No.45303231[source]▶
[flagged]
15155[dead post] ◴[19 Sep 25 16:21 UTC] No.45303440[source]▶
[flagged]
cogman10 ◴[19 Sep 25 17:53 UTC] No.45304499[source]▶
Don't write long blog posts about how your country doesn't have enough white people (and should start deporting brown people) and you won't be called a white supremist. Pretty simple.
replies(2): >>45307383 #>>45307654 #
15155 ◴[19 Sep 25 22:45 UTC] No.45307654[source]▶
Nowhere does the blog post say that, which is why this is libel.
replies(1): >>45307977 #
1. cogman10 ◴[19 Sep 25 23:21 UTC] No.45307977[source]▶
> There's absolutely nothing racist or xenophobic in saying that Denmark is primarily a country for the Danes, Britain primarily a united kingdom for the Brits, and Japan primarily a set of islands for the Japanese.

That is a white supremacist rhetoric and fascist rhetoric. Looking for racial purity based on geography was a core tenant of the Nazis [1], some of the most famous white supremacists (white german supremacists. Nobody is at their level.)

It's not libel if it's true.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nur_f%C3%BCr_Deutsche

replies(1): >>45308464 #
2. 15155 ◴[20 Sep 25 00:25 UTC] No.45308464[source]▶
How is nationality equivalent to race? Watch this:

America should be a country for Americans.

Which race am I talking about here?

replies(1): >>45308663 #
3. cogman10 ◴[20 Sep 25 00:51 UTC] No.45308663[source]▶
The real question is who isn't American? When someone says "X is for Xes" they are implicitly saying "and not for Ys".

If you don't believe that's the case, then tell me exactly what that phrase means other than to exclude some group. To claim "these are not real Americans".

replies(1): >>45309753 #
4. 15155 ◴[20 Sep 25 02:40 UTC] No.45309753{3}[source]▶
Totally dodging the issue. You claimed "white supremacist" was an accurate title, cited Nazis who invaded other countries and eradicated the local culture/population/racial groups without assimilating (eerily similar to mass immigration), and then immediately moved the goalposts when it was illustrated how ignorant such a statement could be.

> who isn't American?

Is this a trick question? People who were not born in America are clearly not American, save for naturalized citizens and a handful of other caveats. If you were born in Iceland, Greenland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark (just picking some traditionally/predominantly-white countries to really drive it home) and are not the child of a diplomat or even a citizen: you are not American.

Seriously: do you believe you are Japanese? If you actually are Japanese, do you think you're Peruvian, too? Are you also a Liechtensteiner? People are citizens of specific nations, believe it or not - this is not some new, misunderstood concept.

> means other than to exclude some group

Why is it a foregone conclusion that exclusion is automatically unjust?

Are countries not permitted to exclude people? Again: this is not based on race. Does one have an automatic right to immigrate wherever they please?

replies(1): >>45311640 #
5. cogman10 ◴[20 Sep 25 08:57 UTC] No.45311640{4}[source]▶
You are feigning ignorance.

I'm done, you aren't been honest in this exchange.

But let me spell it out.

When someone says "America for the Americans" they are saying "not the Latinos or Muslims or brown people I don't like". This is crystal clear with how ICE is currently operating and by the number of Latino citizens they've arrested.

Also, yes, someone that naturalizes is American. We're a melting pot nation. You can be two things. American and Japanese. American and Peruvian, American and Mexican. Where you or your parents were born does not take away from you being American.

Feel free to write more about how "actually no, it's just a patriotic call".