So you're saying his response to those people is "your feelings are valid, I understand why you are offended by my comments" or is it closer to "your feelings are dumb--you're only mad because you didn't think about what I said?"
(Note also the other comment where I said I think he's right. I don't really talk about feelings being "valid" that much, but I don't think his critics' feelings are "valid" with regard to the Beavan joke).
He's got a valid complaint mixed in with emotion and opinion. The valid complaint means you can't dismiss it out of hand, but the emotion and opinion mean that the comments get out hand.
> Emil said what he said, this article even confirms that.
Here's my big problem with all this: nobody defending this guy is saying "no, he didn't say that," or "no, he was joking," or even, "no, it was taken out of context." They're saying, essentially, that he wouldn't have disclosed his internal thought process if he knew it would be made public. I definitely wouldn't want one of my jokes or hypotheticals to be quoted out of context. But what I don't get is staying stuff you actually mean and then getting upset that people call you an asshole for thinking and believing the things you actually think and believe.
@batarski,
"you cannot say that there should be no outrage "
That isn't what I said. Anyone can choose to be offended and base their actions on their outrage (including leaving Rails, forking Rails , whatever).. That doesn't mean (a) they are right and the "offender" is wrong (b) even if they are offended, the offender should "apologize sincerely".
"The reaction from DHH is in exact opposition to that of those who felt offended. Let me repeat that, exact opposition. "
Why is that wrong? It is just an opinion he (like all of us) has. If he genuinely feels that he is right it doesn't matter what the degree of opposition is. He should live by his notion of what is right and stick to his view point and suffer any consequences. He has done exactly that.
Of course that forces the rest of the rails "community" to decide what to do.
" Would he have said the same if the presentation contained racially offensive terminology?"
This is a hypothetical situation. When it happens we can deal with it. Till then let us react to what did happen and give everyone the freedom to think how he wants to think .
It is the blanket condemnation of an opinion for being politically incorrect that I oppose.
EDIT : to respond to batarski's edit
"His reaction, at least to me, wasn't one of "I don't care what people think" as much as it was a big "Fuck you and your beliefs" to those who didn't feel how he felt about the slides."
Sure, that s one way to interpret his reaction and probably valid.
My point is that DHH has always been like that. He does what he thinks is right and if a community forms around his code that is great but he couldn't care less if there weren't a community. He has always said that he writes Rails for himself.
In other words DHH is consistent. You may not agree with his opinions (I don't always) but I am surprised at why people find his reaction so surprising? He has never played the political correctness game and has revelled in thinking for himself and acting on his convictions. So? Way are people so surprised and horrified now? I predicted his reaction the moment I saw the original post. And I am not sure it is wrong.
As to what I expect other people to do, I listed those options above. Rails is Open Source code. MIT licensed I believe. you can do whatever you want with it, including forking it.
> To me, it sounds like people wanted to "hold him accountable" for upsetting them. You clearly think otherwise
No this is exactly what I think. I think it is valid for people to air the grievances. I think the difference here is that you are skeptical of the validity if their complaints. If I am right, this is a pretty fundamental difference in world view that I doubt can be reconciled on a HN thread at this point unless you disagree
He is not an exclusionary person, and labeling him as such, based on an impulsive reaction to an abstract word, with multiple contextual interpretations, is a misguided interpretation of recent events.
His frustration at irrational demands for unnecessary effort is understandable.
You know what? You're right, and I apologize. You have a fair point.
What made me react the way I did was the tone of your reply. I understand now that you were responding with a real and constructive solution, but the hate it was couched in made me read it as hate responding to hate.
I guess my question is: if you really believe he's just a hater, why respond at all? Do you imagine you'll change his position or behavior?
I’m not sure which is more bitter, the original article or its response. If you’re going to disagree with someone, actually address the points he makes. Attacking him personally is petty and isn’t conducive to real discussion. Peter's feelings aren't necessarily without merit--why not discuss them?
But... if he's not wrong and it is actually relevant to the discussion why are you upset about it? Is he supposed to refrain from mentioning it because... it's been popular for the past few weeks and so you're tired of hearing about it?
I did not have the negative reaction to the same degree when watching, but did find the comment a little strange as well. He does not need to dig that deep.
No, he's got a complaint, verifying the "valid" part requires digging into what he wrote and really thinking about it. The emotion and opinion part makes readers not want to do that. But yeah, it doesn't help the comments either. :(
(Note also the other comment where I said I think he's right. I don't really talk about feelings being "valid" that much, but I don't think his critics' feelings are "valid" with regard to the Beavan joke).
reply