this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2026
48 points (86.4% liked)
Opensource
6670 readers
122 users here now
A community for discussion about open source software! Ask questions, share knowledge, share news, or post interesting stuff related to it!
⠀
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You've fallen for the paradox of tolerance, OSS version.
The author, and you, were mistaken: OS is not for everyone. It's not about whether I or anyone else "likes" them. Nazis and corpos don't come to software communities with honest intent. They lie and mislead to gain power and control. Then they consolidate power and exploit their control for personal gain.
That isn't "political" it's predatory, and people who treat it like politics are running cover for the exploiters whether they know it or not.
I don't want to change their shitty opinions. I want them banned from our communities so their corrosive influence can't cause further harm.
The paradox clears itself up if you look at what tolerance actually is. It's simply not interfering with people's agency over themselves. Given that your right to self-agency doesn't entitle you to restrict others' self-agency, behavior that does try restricting others' agency is automatically not included in "tolerance."
So you want to call people fascists and nazis while also excluding people whose opinions you don't like? The irony is downright wild.
To reiterate what Karimov said:
You've missed something.
The tolerant want as much tolerance as possible. If the tolerant decide to tolerate the intolerant, then eventually you end up with no tolerance. So to have as much tolerance as possible, the tolerant must tolerate everyone except the intolerant.
But doesn't that mean that the tolerant are no longer tolerant / are now intolerant?
This is the paradox of tolerance.
But it stops being a paradox once you understand that tolerance can be ordered by degrees of tolerance.
I'll demonstrate it with game theory:
Game 1:
Game 2:
Game 3:
Game 4:
Game 5:
That is the simple version of the game: Player 3 leans tolerant, so they're on the tolerant side.
The other simple version of the game has Player 3 leaning intolerant, but that results in only one path of players 3-5 remove player 1, then player 2, then 4-5 removes 3, then the game is stuck in stalemate since player 5 can't remove player 4 since there is no tiebreaker, or there is only player 5 and the project stalls out.
The complex version of the game has player 1 as the most inclusive and player 5 the most exclusive with player 3 is on neither team and randomly voting with team a, team b, or abstaining from voting. It's too long to fit in a comment here (since there's a lot of games to write out), but you end up with the same verdict as player 3 being on the tolerant side.
Verdict: It is always better to be on the more inclusive team rather than the more exclusive team.
Now back to the current issue at hand.
The "Chuds" (as the original post has called them) are the exclusive team. Their members have stated things like removing non-white people from the UK, removing trans people from projects, shooting Romani people (which would obviously remove them from participating in projects), etc...
The "non-chuds" team are the inclusive team. They want to include as many people as possible (non-whites, trans, Romani, etc...).
When the "Chuds" team tries to remove someone, it is in the best interest for the "non-chuds" team to prevent the person from being removed, even if it leads to the "chuds" breaking away from the project, or if it leads to the "chuds" needing to be removed from the project to stop the stalemate.
The "non-chuds" removing the "chuds" doesn't make them intolerant. It's the option which preserves the most tolerance when the "non-chuds" don't withdraw their demands.
Edit: Formatting
I think you missed the first part of my comment though.
Being "better" (which is subjective) doesn't mean any other positions are automatically intolerant or "fascist."
I think people are grossly misunderstanding his intent and framing it in the worst possible interpretation.
DHH never said he wanted anyone dead. He never said to shoot anyone. He never said anyone shouldn't exist.
It's natural to not want to become a minority yourself. We know how badly they are treated. People often have natural preferences for their own culture and people, and they can still want those things while also acknowledging other people can exist... but not everyone agrees on the most appropriate balance.
Mass immigration undeniably brings with it certain logistical, economical and cultural aspects to the table.
I have no problem with any specific people immigrating to my country, but that doesn't mean I want all my local culture, friends and favorite restaurants to be replaced with everything else from another country. You need balance.
Even if someone faced with that same situation said something tone-deaf like "these need to go home"... that doesn't necessarily mean they want them dead or that they think they don't have a right to exist, or even that they are racist. They might just not like change in general, or like I mentioned, they feel like part of their (local) culture is disappearing. They just might not have the best way of articulating that.
And similarly, I think we should not be so quick to judge their intent without actually talking to them about it.
Isn't it part of the definition that it is?
https://opensource.org/osd
Licensing is not community, quit defending Nazis.