What's Up with FUTO?(drewdevault.com) |
What's Up with FUTO?(drewdevault.com) |
After all the talk about "dark enlightenment" and the connection to Musk and Thiel, I'd have expected Yarvin to already have an office in the White House or at least ministry of state somewhere.
Whether a donor's politics are red or blue, their dollar bills are still green. Turning money down, especially when no strings are attached, is just self sabotage.
Dunno if that puts me on Drew's Pepe Silvia wall but whatever.
So morality doesn't factor into it for you? You'd take anyone's money, regardless of how dirty the source?
Where's the line for you? The Irish Republican Army? Hamas?
> Turning money down, especially when no strings are attached, is just self sabotage.
Reputation is the most valuable currency you have, but it's easy to get it dirty and very hard to clean it up again.
What Eron does is ultimately a form of wealth redistribution. Money is flowing from the pockets of a rich guy into the pockets of open source developers who are not independently wealthy. Unless wealth redistribution is only a good thing when money is taken by force, and not given willingly? That doesn't ring true.
Reputation in this game hinges on your ability to get things done. Money is above all what enables that. There is nothing noble or reputable about turning down funding, going broke, and getting nothing of consequence done.
https://www.computerworld.com/article/1338390/darpa-pulls-fu...
In any case, the examples of donations being given through unconventional channels, then reusing the name/logos as marketing/endorsement for FUTO without obtaining permission, feels very problematic.
Go look him up and then decide whether you want to reconsider your stance on the issue. You have that responsibility if you took their money.
I prefer smarttubenext (tv) and revanced.
I used a fork for a while that did have it but it wasn't updated often enough to keep working reliably.
DeVault apparently considers anything short of complete deplatforming (even spirited debate) as a form of sympathizing, and probably would regard even Robin Hanson (who debated Yarvin) as a kind of cryptofascist--which is funny, since the only effective push-back Yarvin ever gets is from conservatives, who (besides preaching to the same choir), still preferring debate to deplatforming, haven't suffered the atrophy of their rhetorical muscles that afflicts progressives[1]. Meanwhile the man hysterically paranoid about creeping fascism and fascist sympathizing is himself a well-documented lolicon addict[2].
It is cute, however, that he thinks it's still 2015 and not 2025, and that he can write pro-censorship, pearl-clutchy stuff like this:
> and Odysee, the latter a platform controversial for its role in spreading hate speech and misinformation.
and still be taken seriously.
perpetuating the self-serving myth that “open source” software can privilege one party over anyone else and still be called open source.
Here in Germany a similar anti-fascist hacker culture exists, but those people do not pretend that they want any kind of culture of openness, which would extend beyond their political lines.
Nothing can stop it, not because those evil men are too powerful, they're clowns. Nothing can stop it because, as Orwell says, modern man is inadequate for modern times.
> Modern man is rather like a bisected wasp which goes on sucking jam and pretends that the loss of its abdomen does not matter
See, this is why you shouldn't read Ayn Rand books, or at least take them seriously.
But still, I happen to quite enjoy pointless sophistry and I am no stranger to hyperbolic comparisons, so: Wouldn't the logical conclusion of your line of argument be that criminals and reprehensible individuals should be tax exempt, in order to avoid making the government evil by association?
Where do you draw the line? Whose money would you *not* take?