Huh, I guess TIL there is a controversy around Omarchy. I generally dismissed it as a serious distro after 5 second once realized it encourages using the AUR as your default package feed. The AUR is useful, but to me it’s something to be very aware of when you’re installing some software. Encouraging people to install everything through it is a crazy way to configure a distro. I just assumed it’s a distro for a very different target audience so kept my thoughts to myself
It's not really around Omarchy, but around DHH due to his political beliefs. I'm not deep into this, but I think the majority of the controversy stems from this article:
Wow. I just read this one now, and DHH really makes it hard to defend him. It's definitely possible to make this argument without likening groups of people to wolves and sheep...
> Cue the gypsies in Copenhagen, and their increasingly brazen behavior, after the city legalized overnight sleeping in parks and other green areas last year. Because "it shouldn't be illegal to be homeless" ...
> This has predictably led to these foreign vagrants setting up camp ...
> Copenhagen is the Danish capital. It's repeatedly been named the safest city in the world in recent years. Partly because it didn't tolerate vagrants ...
It would be easier to ask how this is a normal way of speaking? Gypsies is already a derogatory word, vagrant implies something criminal rather than cultural about their behaviours, and he's making an issue of them not being local vagrants (what?). The decisions he's incredulous about came about democratically and the debates involved were carried out by public representatives and are publicly actually. The incredulity is just rhetoric and the implication that they're dangerous because they're foreign or live transiently surely has no place in a modern society.
> When wolves get out of control, you shoot them.
How is this in any way a non-extreme metaphor to use?
It is. The Romani aren't vagrants and they're doing nothing illegal. Calling them vagrants is charged and misleading.
> Vagrants and transients are often dangerous and mentally ill.
That can be true. Again the Romani aren't vagrants and using the word to describe then implies a level of danger and/or mental health issues that isn't evidenced.
> It is reasonable to use state violence to suppress crimes.
No-one has asserted otherwise.
> the control of dangerous animals being similar to the control of dangerous people is not extreme.
It's generally accepted the dehumanising a people or culture is extreme, I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise. There are any number of alternative metaphors that could have been used (not to mention that the argument could have been built on its own weight) that wouldn't have involved comparing an entire people to a pest that needs to be controlled with lethal force.
You see nothing extreme with dehumanizing a group of people and comparing them to wolfs being killed?
> When wolves get out of control, you shoot them.
There isn’t more extreme than that. If you think that’s a normal way of talking about humans, I’m sorry but you’re very far down a radicalization rabbit hole
“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.”
