The question is, where are you going to go? Finance? Farming, Logistics? Writing/Literature/Philosophy? Big Pharma? All those people are funneling funds to people you find utterly objectionable. You'll find that every career/industry is probably proportionally representative of people who share your values as those who don't. Tech is is only so visible to you because you are so immersed in it. Care less about "Tech" and more about your family/community/friends.
I grew up believing that capitalism somehow separates business from government, with each operating independently. Same with separation of church and state. Not sure what to think of things now.
I think the problem, if we're talking about the US at least, is that the conservatives running things believe a government should be small... which inevitably leads to corporations virtually running parts of the government, unless you come up with a way to explicitly prevent that. But the people in power who want to remain in power would never go along with that.
The problem is, if the government is small, then corporations are more powerful and can run over it and do whatever they want. If government is large, then its a much juicier target for corporations to lobby and bribe to get what they want.
It comes down to culture and society. A democratically elected government should ideally be there to represent the interests of the masses as a way to counteract the inevitable power of the wealthy elite. But when those same wealthy elite spend decades and billions of dollars to brainwash the masses by owning all the media companies and influencing school curriculums and so on, I don't see how the masses stand a chance over the long term.
I think it's pretty clear that the 'small' government preference of conservative politicians is a myth. They want to make the parts of government they don't like small and the parts they do like quite large. None of that takes away from your point, but I just wanted to deflate the meme slightly.
Those hypothetical "small government conservatives" are running up the Federal deficit at a breathtaking, unprecedented pace. What's actually going on is much simpler to explain as corruption.
>, if we're talking about the US at least, is that the conservatives running things believe a government should be small
No they don't, at least not anymore (if they ever really did.) They believe government shouldn't regulate business and shouldn't provide social welfare or invest in scientific research that doesn't align with their political ideology, but they absolutely believe in having a trillion dollar military industrial complex.
Fascism is Capitalism's immune response. Under stress, whether real or imagined, the rich and thus powerful begin dismantling the very systems that made them that way, gambling that their existing positions of influence will ensure their own survival (whether economic or literal).
I used to think that sexual preferences were decoupled from business, capitalism, and government but gestures around recent events seem to have proven otherwise.
I suspect you'd have fewer downvotes if you had simply said "everything is political" instead of bringing up a contentious topic that isn't obviously related.
I absolutely feel this. I quit my job at Microsoft because they were too complicit with Israel's crimes against humanity (posted about it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48925777). That left me looking for a job and I have one now, with a startup I like a lot and hasn't done anything unethical to the best of my knowledge. The investors have though. Most of the VC community is straight up fascist/supremacist/genocidal... our industry is sick and while no doubt there was always this underpinning (I just didn't see it or realize my own complicity), it feels like it's ratcheted up a lot in the last 5 or so years.
For the record I am with you and OP in the sense that I personally would struggle with such proximity. But the reality is that even if you do what I did and give up quite a bit of salary in exchange for something so mundane as the same work in a public university-run health system, you can still often follow the money to some ugly places that are not as far away as you'd like. Regarding startups, the ones like yours are probably the best one can realistically hope for, ideological inclinations of the founders aside
I totally agree with you. The problem is bigger than tech. Is it capitalism? I was historically not anti-capitalist but it's hard not to lean in that direction now. I feel like the issue is somehow bigger than even that though. If we were living under communism, the same people would probably be in charge. There's something about consolidation and centralization of power and access to resources being fungible through ideologies that makes this possible. Maybe it's the existence of "states" that is the problem (i.e. a monopoly on violence).
I sure have been thinking a lot about this recently as Gaza was the ultimate manifestation of where this can go. I actually think there's a movement to bring that type of violence to places like the US. Flock and fascism are steps in that direction imo.
Congrats on rediscovering Anarchism from first principles. Hierarchy begets hierarchy. As long you have a society where some people can coerce others into acting for the master's benefit and against their own, you end up on a ratchet. Power accumulates, leading to more coercion, leading to more power. Such systems select for individuals who are the most feverishly driven to amass power at any cost and put them in the position to seize more.
> The problem is bigger than tech. Is it capitalism?
The underlying problem is that power and wealth causes people to believe themselves above others to a degree proportional to how much more power and wealth they have relative to those considered below them.
Unfortunately, we've seen unprecedented concentration of wealth occur, so it should come as no surprise that those who are running things exhibit very little humanity towards others.
The world separates cleanly into those of us who could never knowingly and freely take any money from any fascist and those who would point out the generous meal plan bestowed upon the camp guards.
If I had more time, I might elaborate on the fact that both the author and those he criticizes are children of the Enlightenment. I mention this, because it has a great deal of relevance. Neither Promethean Techno-Pelagianism on the one hand nor Socio-Voluntaristic Manichaeism on the other present a great vision of the good, whatever validity we can find in their criticisms.
Seems like an unnecessarily broad brush to paint with, as if "tech" were a monolith. Just don't work for the companies that cross your self-stated lines in the sand:
> But my personal lines definitely extend to don’t give money to people who enable fascism and don’t create value for them, either.
I think there's a systemic problem with the investors though. It's a smallish pool of very much monocultured venture capitalists that's very easy to get blacklisted from if you don't adhere to their ideology. It's not as simple as just finding a job somewhere else, when the financing is controlled by a small group of people who are extremely vindictive.
Founders swim in the incentive pool of VCs, who swim in the incentive pool of LPs, who swim in the incentive pool of capital-c Capital.
When you architect your industry around "number goes up" as the number one priority that everybody agrees on, and then add multiple layers of abstraction separating capital from labor, you end up with the Ouroboros-style arrangement we have today. The head forgets that it is the tail, and vice-versa.
I think we used to (in, idk, the era of the Roosevelts) have a very different leadership class, with competing interests that were more complicated than "number go up", even in the corporate class.
Since the Kennedy assassination(s!) in the US, I don't think we've had a single leader (corporate or political) who has publicly and sincerely questioned that narrative. At this point we struggle to imagine a civilization with alternative priorities, but history is littered with examples.
> But my personal lines definitely extend to don’t give money to people who enable fascism and don’t create value for them, either.
You simply cannot use any technology at all in general while abiding by this ideology though. Just the keystrokes you used to write this already were paid for by, and continue to be used to enable, countless people to do their "fascism" as you call it.
I want nothing to do with fascists, and with programmer jobs as thin on the ground as they are, I would be forced to take whatever. That's not a coin flip I feel like making. No amount of money can compensate you for severe moral injury.
I still don't understand how these people think they can achieve ultra right wing and unemployment through AI at the same time. Even Hitler didn't manage.
But the tech people have been programmed for obedience and followed their industry leaders through wokeness and now protofascism without thinking.
Tech people are weak and just act as repeaters, so I guess the leaders know what they are doing and the useful idiots will carry it out, even if they live under a bridge in 5 years.
However, if you don't like the creator of Brave or Ladybird, and you don't believe Google or Mozilla can be trusted to make a browser that respects privacy, giving up is just ceding to those forces.
Like, make a browser. Make it with people who do share your values. That's exactly what Andreas King and the Brave people did. That's what DHH is doing.
If they're right about anything, the "anti-SJW/DEI/Woke/'politics'" groups are right in that you cannot demand creators share your values.
If you like Harry Potter, you have to deal with JK Rowling. There's no way around it. You have to reconcile that with your morals. You don't get to demand that she supports the groups you want her to support in order for you to enjoy her content guilt-free.
So your options are, don't use those browsers, or make your own. You have that ability.
And yes, you, singular you, cannot make all the software. But you can make something and you can find others with your values and eventually you can build a network and that network can build all the software. With values that you can support.
* I know I talk a lot about browsers, but that's just the example. This is applicable to everything.
> If you like Harry Potter, you have to deal with JK Rowling. There's no way around it. You have to reconcile that with your morals.
It's a very straightforward reconciliation given her women's rights advocacy. Massive respect to her for taking a stand against the progressive-styled misogyny that's arisen in recent years.
One of the best freedoms out there is freedom of association.
I don't need to associate with people I don't like or find distasteful. I don't need to join hands with the Tankies. I don't need to read JK Rowling's works. I get to choose.
> If they're right about anything, the "anti-SJW/DEI/Woke/'politics'" groups are right in that you cannot demand creators share your values.
I don't associate that claim with these groups, if anything they seem to be saying the opposite.
Conservatives will come out to say that you can't force JK Rowling to be pro (or even neutral) on the trans issue.
Now, they'll also say that certain people shouldn't be allowed to create. Or at the very least create based on certain properties. Which is admittedly almost a "same result, different mechanism" issue.
But they will claim to allow the market decide (aka "go woke, go broke").
Conservatives have many forms of "cancel culture". They want to deport people from places they don't like (or from a race they don't like), they want to enforce Christianity in public places, they want to make being "antifa" illegal...
And the ultimate form of cancel culture, conservatives (including the neo-liberal variety) will straight up murder you if you're Muslim and live in the Middle East.
That costs money though (or takes time, which is money). When you need to eat and put a roof over your head, you realize our system is not setup to allow you to do this.
So the author is just now, in 2026, getting where many conservatives in tech were in around 2018. Now, though, the author wants to occupy the moral high ground while tacitly suggesting Islam is swell. Good luck with all that.
If you would like to contribute to the discussion then you can find one of the people called a fascist or white supremacist and contest the claim. Then someone can counter that claim, and dialogue can happen.
I disagree. Enough people disagree that "blatant" is probably, by definition, not an appropriate adjective.
But at the same time, I don't hold that position passionately. Maybe it is fascism. It's not "blatant", but it's arguable.
Semantic arguments are never very interesting. It's more reasonable to simply argue that something is immoral - to argue the specifics of your disagreement - rather than to fight over whether a specific term applies, which would serve as emotional leverage for your argument due to its connections to historical atrocities. That's some kind of logical fallacy that I can't name.
Why is this strawman such a common trope among certain walks of life? I have yet to encounter someone who actually considers everything they disagree with to be fascist.
I don't consider it a strawman. Do you understand what hyperbole is? When people say "everyone is X"... they very rarely actually mean the literal definition of everyone.
Words are not always used in a rigid black-and-white manner according to their definition... understanding and being able to deal with this, without getting angry or trying to "correct" people, is what makes for good social etiquette IMO.
Racial essentialism, xenophobia and white supremacy are all fascist. Praising and supporting right-wing extremists is fascist. Believing in ethnic cleansing and that non-whites need to be forcibly removed is fascist. Believing all non-Christian religion needs to be banned is fascist. Equating "gypsies" to dogs is fascist.
When you believe the things that fascists believe, it is accurate to call you a fascist.
Obviously, you will disagree with my interpretation and the interpretation of many others, and I'm not interested in having that argument, because I know it will be futile. The point is that your original hyperbolic assertion that the author had no rationale for considering DHH to be fascist other than pure arbitrary spite is incorrect. They have a rationale, you just disagree with it.
The problem is that your side promotes essentially the same ideas in other directions. Praising and supporting left-wing extremists, believing in ethnic cleansing and that “whites” must not migrate to non-white countries in large numbers. You believe in blood-soil, but only when the blood is dark.
You are also into racist dog whistles when it comes to certain minorities you don’t like, such as claiming that a small group of people are controlling the puppet strings of world leaders and “enslaving” the rest of the world.
The question is, where are you going to go? Finance? Farming, Logistics? Writing/Literature/Philosophy? Big Pharma? All those people are funneling funds to people you find utterly objectionable. You'll find that every career/industry is probably proportionally representative of people who share your values as those who don't. Tech is is only so visible to you because you are so immersed in it. Care less about "Tech" and more about your family/community/friends.
I grew up believing that capitalism somehow separates business from government, with each operating independently. Same with separation of church and state. Not sure what to think of things now.
I think the problem, if we're talking about the US at least, is that the conservatives running things believe a government should be small... which inevitably leads to corporations virtually running parts of the government, unless you come up with a way to explicitly prevent that. But the people in power who want to remain in power would never go along with that.
They need to add to their beliefs... corporations need to be small too.
That's a great idea actually :) Personal wealth caps wouldn't hurt either.
The problem is, if the government is small, then corporations are more powerful and can run over it and do whatever they want. If government is large, then its a much juicier target for corporations to lobby and bribe to get what they want.
It comes down to culture and society. A democratically elected government should ideally be there to represent the interests of the masses as a way to counteract the inevitable power of the wealthy elite. But when those same wealthy elite spend decades and billions of dollars to brainwash the masses by owning all the media companies and influencing school curriculums and so on, I don't see how the masses stand a chance over the long term.
I think it's pretty clear that the 'small' government preference of conservative politicians is a myth. They want to make the parts of government they don't like small and the parts they do like quite large. None of that takes away from your point, but I just wanted to deflate the meme slightly.
Those hypothetical "small government conservatives" are running up the Federal deficit at a breathtaking, unprecedented pace. What's actually going on is much simpler to explain as corruption.
>, if we're talking about the US at least, is that the conservatives running things believe a government should be small
No they don't, at least not anymore (if they ever really did.) They believe government shouldn't regulate business and shouldn't provide social welfare or invest in scientific research that doesn't align with their political ideology, but they absolutely believe in having a trillion dollar military industrial complex.
Fascism is Capitalism's immune response. Under stress, whether real or imagined, the rich and thus powerful begin dismantling the very systems that made them that way, gambling that their existing positions of influence will ensure their own survival (whether economic or literal).
They certainly dismantle systems of support, but the "system that made them that way" is more often than not simply inheriting wealth and power.
I used to think that sexual preferences were decoupled from business, capitalism, and government but gestures around recent events seem to have proven otherwise.
What are you gesturing at? That type of vague posting is, well… too vague, I have no idea what position you’re hinting at
The current state of world affairs
I suspect you'd have fewer downvotes if you had simply said "everything is political" instead of bringing up a contentious topic that isn't obviously related.
> I used to think that sexual preferences were decoupled from business, capitalism, and government
When was that supposed to have happened?
I realize now that the point I was trying to make, did not come across at all. I will try to write better next time.
TL;DR A global cabal of pedophiles runs the world
I absolutely feel this. I quit my job at Microsoft because they were too complicit with Israel's crimes against humanity (posted about it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48925777). That left me looking for a job and I have one now, with a startup I like a lot and hasn't done anything unethical to the best of my knowledge. The investors have though. Most of the VC community is straight up fascist/supremacist/genocidal... our industry is sick and while no doubt there was always this underpinning (I just didn't see it or realize my own complicity), it feels like it's ratcheted up a lot in the last 5 or so years.
For the record I am with you and OP in the sense that I personally would struggle with such proximity. But the reality is that even if you do what I did and give up quite a bit of salary in exchange for something so mundane as the same work in a public university-run health system, you can still often follow the money to some ugly places that are not as far away as you'd like. Regarding startups, the ones like yours are probably the best one can realistically hope for, ideological inclinations of the founders aside
I totally agree with you. The problem is bigger than tech. Is it capitalism? I was historically not anti-capitalist but it's hard not to lean in that direction now. I feel like the issue is somehow bigger than even that though. If we were living under communism, the same people would probably be in charge. There's something about consolidation and centralization of power and access to resources being fungible through ideologies that makes this possible. Maybe it's the existence of "states" that is the problem (i.e. a monopoly on violence).
I sure have been thinking a lot about this recently as Gaza was the ultimate manifestation of where this can go. I actually think there's a movement to bring that type of violence to places like the US. Flock and fascism are steps in that direction imo.
Congrats on rediscovering Anarchism from first principles. Hierarchy begets hierarchy. As long you have a society where some people can coerce others into acting for the master's benefit and against their own, you end up on a ratchet. Power accumulates, leading to more coercion, leading to more power. Such systems select for individuals who are the most feverishly driven to amass power at any cost and put them in the position to seize more.
> The problem is bigger than tech. Is it capitalism?
The underlying problem is that power and wealth causes people to believe themselves above others to a degree proportional to how much more power and wealth they have relative to those considered below them.
Unfortunately, we've seen unprecedented concentration of wealth occur, so it should come as no surprise that those who are running things exhibit very little humanity towards others.
The world separates cleanly into those of us who could never knowingly and freely take any money from any fascist and those who would point out the generous meal plan bestowed upon the camp guards.
"Quite a bit of salary" like
If I had more time, I might elaborate on the fact that both the author and those he criticizes are children of the Enlightenment. I mention this, because it has a great deal of relevance. Neither Promethean Techno-Pelagianism on the one hand nor Socio-Voluntaristic Manichaeism on the other present a great vision of the good, whatever validity we can find in their criticisms.
Seems like an unnecessarily broad brush to paint with, as if "tech" were a monolith. Just don't work for the companies that cross your self-stated lines in the sand:
> But my personal lines definitely extend to don’t give money to people who enable fascism and don’t create value for them, either.
I think there's a systemic problem with the investors though. It's a smallish pool of very much monocultured venture capitalists that's very easy to get blacklisted from if you don't adhere to their ideology. It's not as simple as just finding a job somewhere else, when the financing is controlled by a small group of people who are extremely vindictive.
Founders swim in the incentive pool of VCs, who swim in the incentive pool of LPs, who swim in the incentive pool of capital-c Capital.
When you architect your industry around "number goes up" as the number one priority that everybody agrees on, and then add multiple layers of abstraction separating capital from labor, you end up with the Ouroboros-style arrangement we have today. The head forgets that it is the tail, and vice-versa.
I think we used to (in, idk, the era of the Roosevelts) have a very different leadership class, with competing interests that were more complicated than "number go up", even in the corporate class.
Since the Kennedy assassination(s!) in the US, I don't think we've had a single leader (corporate or political) who has publicly and sincerely questioned that narrative. At this point we struggle to imagine a civilization with alternative priorities, but history is littered with examples.
> But my personal lines definitely extend to don’t give money to people who enable fascism and don’t create value for them, either.
You simply cannot use any technology at all in general while abiding by this ideology though. Just the keystrokes you used to write this already were paid for by, and continue to be used to enable, countless people to do their "fascism" as you call it.
At my end, same reasons, same conclusion.
I want nothing to do with fascists, and with programmer jobs as thin on the ground as they are, I would be forced to take whatever. That's not a coin flip I feel like making. No amount of money can compensate you for severe moral injury.
So, I hedge my bets and make contingency plans.
I still don't understand how these people think they can achieve ultra right wing and unemployment through AI at the same time. Even Hitler didn't manage.
But the tech people have been programmed for obedience and followed their industry leaders through wokeness and now protofascism without thinking.
Tech people are weak and just act as repeaters, so I guess the leaders know what they are doing and the useful idiots will carry it out, even if they live under a bridge in 5 years.
If he feels that way, he feels that way.
However, if you don't like the creator of Brave or Ladybird, and you don't believe Google or Mozilla can be trusted to make a browser that respects privacy, giving up is just ceding to those forces.
Like, make a browser. Make it with people who do share your values. That's exactly what Andreas King and the Brave people did. That's what DHH is doing.
If they're right about anything, the "anti-SJW/DEI/Woke/'politics'" groups are right in that you cannot demand creators share your values.
If you like Harry Potter, you have to deal with JK Rowling. There's no way around it. You have to reconcile that with your morals. You don't get to demand that she supports the groups you want her to support in order for you to enjoy her content guilt-free.
So your options are, don't use those browsers, or make your own. You have that ability.
And yes, you, singular you, cannot make all the software. But you can make something and you can find others with your values and eventually you can build a network and that network can build all the software. With values that you can support.
* I know I talk a lot about browsers, but that's just the example. This is applicable to everything.
"giving up" in this case would be to stay the course, to ignore one's own considered ethical obligations.
> If you like Harry Potter, you have to deal with JK Rowling. There's no way around it. You have to reconcile that with your morals.
It's a very straightforward reconciliation given her women's rights advocacy. Massive respect to her for taking a stand against the progressive-styled misogyny that's arisen in recent years.
One of the best freedoms out there is freedom of association.
I don't need to associate with people I don't like or find distasteful. I don't need to join hands with the Tankies. I don't need to read JK Rowling's works. I get to choose.
> If they're right about anything, the "anti-SJW/DEI/Woke/'politics'" groups are right in that you cannot demand creators share your values.
I don't associate that claim with these groups, if anything they seem to be saying the opposite.
A little bit sorta.
Conservatives will come out to say that you can't force JK Rowling to be pro (or even neutral) on the trans issue.
Now, they'll also say that certain people shouldn't be allowed to create. Or at the very least create based on certain properties. Which is admittedly almost a "same result, different mechanism" issue.
But they will claim to allow the market decide (aka "go woke, go broke").
Conservatives have many forms of "cancel culture". They want to deport people from places they don't like (or from a race they don't like), they want to enforce Christianity in public places, they want to make being "antifa" illegal...
And the ultimate form of cancel culture, conservatives (including the neo-liberal variety) will straight up murder you if you're Muslim and live in the Middle East.
None of that is free market.
I don't necessarily disagree.
But this is getting rather forest for the trees.
End point is: If you don't like who is making your software, make your own. Giving up is just letting them win.
That costs money though (or takes time, which is money). When you need to eat and put a roof over your head, you realize our system is not setup to allow you to do this.
They did it though.
And I didn't say it would be easy, just possible.
I think that's some of the disconnect for some people. They think that simply because a thing is possible, it should be easy.
They most likely had access to capital though. That is extremely unevenly distributed and not an option for most people.
> anti-SJW/DEI/Woke/'politics' groups are right in that you cannot demand creators share your values.
Strange because that’s exactly what the anti-SJW/DEI/Woke/'politics' groups in the government demand.
Of course this is flagged. From 2020-2024 anti-woke was flagged, since Trump anti-fascist is flagged.
I wish China could host an HN clone so we could have free discussions.
You shouldn't expect real tech industry critique on website run by most famous tech accelerator. Of course admins gonna flag this.
I doubt the admins flagged it, just the users. That said, it sucks that it got flagged it's an interesting (mostly reasonable) discussion.
[flagged]
[flagged]
So the author is just now, in 2026, getting where many conservatives in tech were in around 2018. Now, though, the author wants to occupy the moral high ground while tacitly suggesting Islam is swell. Good luck with all that.
Why does "everything I disagree with is fascist" seem to be a common trope among certain walks of life?
It is the McDonalds of the intellectual world. It is lazy, low effort, but lets you feel good about yourself for a moment.
If you would like to contribute to the discussion then you can find one of the people called a fascist or white supremacist and contest the claim. Then someone can counter that claim, and dialogue can happen.
Disagreeing with fascism seems like a reasonable position to me.
Disagreeing with communism seems like a reasonable position to me.
As far as i know there is no threat of communism formin in US. Unlike fascism
The problem in this case is a flamewar about what really is or isn't "fascist".
The fact that the vast majority of people are not calling the same things fascist as OP is, tells me this seems to be a quite controversial opinion.
OP is calling blatant fascism fascism. I am utterly baffled by your position.
I disagree. Enough people disagree that "blatant" is probably, by definition, not an appropriate adjective.
But at the same time, I don't hold that position passionately. Maybe it is fascism. It's not "blatant", but it's arguable.
Semantic arguments are never very interesting. It's more reasonable to simply argue that something is immoral - to argue the specifics of your disagreement - rather than to fight over whether a specific term applies, which would serve as emotional leverage for your argument due to its connections to historical atrocities. That's some kind of logical fallacy that I can't name.
Why is this strawman such a common trope among certain walks of life? I have yet to encounter someone who actually considers everything they disagree with to be fascist.
I don't consider it a strawman. Do you understand what hyperbole is? When people say "everyone is X"... they very rarely actually mean the literal definition of everyone.
Words are not always used in a rigid black-and-white manner according to their definition... understanding and being able to deal with this, without getting angry or trying to "correct" people, is what makes for good social etiquette IMO.
Hyperbole is as useless to productive conversation as strawmen and one is usually just an excuse to prop up the other.
Maybe you could tell us what, specifically, the author refers to as fascist that you don't consider to be fascist?
My understanding is that they are referring to DHH lamenting that his race is becoming a minority in his home country due to mass immigration.
Is it fascist to not want to become a minority based on how we see them often treated badly? I think it's normal to fear that.
Yes, it is.
Racial essentialism, xenophobia and white supremacy are all fascist. Praising and supporting right-wing extremists is fascist. Believing in ethnic cleansing and that non-whites need to be forcibly removed is fascist. Believing all non-Christian religion needs to be banned is fascist. Equating "gypsies" to dogs is fascist.
When you believe the things that fascists believe, it is accurate to call you a fascist.
Obviously, you will disagree with my interpretation and the interpretation of many others, and I'm not interested in having that argument, because I know it will be futile. The point is that your original hyperbolic assertion that the author had no rationale for considering DHH to be fascist other than pure arbitrary spite is incorrect. They have a rationale, you just disagree with it.
The problem is that your side promotes essentially the same ideas in other directions. Praising and supporting left-wing extremists, believing in ethnic cleansing and that “whites” must not migrate to non-white countries in large numbers. You believe in blood-soil, but only when the blood is dark.
You are also into racist dog whistles when it comes to certain minorities you don’t like, such as claiming that a small group of people are controlling the puppet strings of world leaders and “enslaving” the rest of the world.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49279662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49191469
> your original hyperbolic assertion that the author had no rationale for considering DHH to be fascist
I did not assert there was no rationale, and that was never my intent.
> When you believe the things that fascists believe, it is accurate to call you a fascist.
I never claimed to believe any of the things that "fascists believe".
I think you shouldn't have ever been in tech. You don't seem to like freedom very much. Good riddance.