The last time I felt DHH deserved headlines was in the early 2000s. Since then I think we're just forced to hear from him because he's good at soundbites.
I'm not sure he's bringing it up for that reason. He thinks the label is losing its power because it really is losing power over him, because he's becoming more comfortable with it and beginning to accept it. Keep an eye out for if he starts to call himself a fascist "ironically".
Is being vaguely anti-immigrant actually that far outside of what people people consider moral or acceptable these days? Like, I am shocked how much gets said on HN when H1B's are brought up.
I don't agree with with any of the points in DHH's linked article. But like, DHH acknowledging Tommy Robinson's march existed probably shouldn't subject him to every criticism of Tommy Robinson.
He is not vague about it.
> DHH acknowledging Tommy Robinson's march existed
He did more than just acknowledge it.
As for Tommy, if you are not familiar with it's worth looking at his Wikipedia entry. He is a violent thug and career criminal. He has been convicted of: fraud, possession intent to supply drugs, assaulting a police officer (whom he kicked in the head while on the floor), entering the US on a false passport, stalking and harassing journalists, contempt of court on multiple occasions (one of which he seriously jeopardised the court trial of some paedophiles) This is not an exhaustive list. And without getting into his foul politics. Lending any credence whatsoever to this man is very telling
Listen - you don't have to sell me on not liking Robinson. But plenty of people participate in political moments without fulling endorsing their progenitors (plenty of iconic activists have problematic pasts), so it seems fair to at least give DHH the benefit of the doubt when it comes to associations. Lest we all be judged by the same standard.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45332860
774 points | 496 comments | 10 days ago
mustaphah•1h ago
sibartlett•1h ago
petercooper•35m ago