Let's have our words mean something Mon, 24 Nov 2025 Response, Opinion =================================== I recently read a post by Drew DeVault titled ``Cloudflare bankrolls fascists''[1]. ``Quite a provocative title'' I thought, though after reading it felt rather disappointed. It seemed to me that Drew was throwing around the term fascist rather lightly. This post will discuss my opinions on this matter. So, let us have a look at the two accused fascists and the points Drew makes about them. Obviously, I will not claim to have detailed insights into the philosophical beliefs of the individuals under consideration -- and thus will not claim that they are definitively NOT fascists -- instead, I will look JUST at the points made by Drew in his post. Drew's post concerns Cloudflare sponsoring two open-source projects: Ladybird (a up-and-comming browser engine) and Omarchy (a customized Linux installation). Drew has the following to say: > Ladybird makes some sense, given that it’s aligned in > principle with Cloudflare’s stated objective to “support the > open web”, though I remain bearish that new web browser > engines are even possible to make. Omarchy is a bizarre > choice, though – do we really need another pre-customized > Arch Linux distribution? And if we do, do we really need a > big corporation like Cloudflare to bankroll it? I completely agree with Drew on this point. There has been a lot of `hype' around both Ladybrid and Omarchy lately, and while I understand excitement around the former, the latter not so much. Drew correctly points out that the sponsorship given to Omarchy might better be spent on the people actually writing the software, rather than the Omarchy developer who is just customizing said software. I think this investment decision (and yes I o believe it is an investment from Cloudflare's perspective) makes sense as they try and buy-in on the hype, but yes from a "supporting the open web" ideological position, it makes little sense. Drew then gets to his main point > Omarchy and Ladybird are both run by fascists. Let's look firstly at Omarchy, Drew has the following to say about is maintainer David Heinemeier Hansson: 1. Dog-whistling allegiance to Elon Musk 2. Racist views on Immigration 3. Fat-shaming & objections to diversity 4. Anti-feminist, homophobic & `rapey' views on consent 5. Tone-policing anti-fascists Now, all of these matters might be quite damming for an individual, but are they fascist? I will no the that guy who uses a dictionary-definition of fascism and then says ``clearly this is different'': words change over time. However, if we change the meaning of a word too-much too-quickly it loses its meaning and especially its shock-value. Going over these points one-by-one -- taking Drew's analysis at-face-value -- indicating allegiance to Musk can be seen as fascist, racist views on immigration CAN as well. Though fascism was not racist -- in the sense we use the word today -- from its onset, obviously Nazism (arguably the most famous form of fascism) was. Fat shaming and objecting to diverse representation COULD fit I suppose, certainly fascist ideology placed great emphasis on being as fit-as-possible for the purposes of the state, with physical fitness being an aspect of that. That goes in addition to the erasure of individuality (diversity) which was a core tenant of fascism from its conception. Weird views on consent... Honestly I do not see how these fit into fascism specifically, but I concur that these might be adjacent views which are often seen in company of each other. Lastly there is tone-policing. The only way I can make this fit is through censorship, but fascist censorship comes from the sate, not some random guy with opinions, actually: ESPECIALLY NOT some random guy with opinions. So, at face-value Drew's points succeed 3.5 to 5. Now let's look at his references. Musk ---- Allegiance to Elon Musk is signaled by using ``Super Grok'' a product of X-ai which is owned by X which is owned by Musk. I find this a BIT of a stretch, but overall I am okay with the argument. One could say that -- by-extension -- everyone using twitter is signaling allegiance, to Musk. I would argue that twitter became popular well-before Musk having some people stuck in its systems, and that there is very little reason to use Grok over other ai systems OTHER THAN political motivations. Now, this is an INDICATION at best, but Drew does call this a ``dog whistle'' (a form of signaling allegiance characterized by plausible deniability), so the point is acceptable. Immigration ----------- Related to Immigration, David argues that if his home-city of Copenhagen was made up of only ⅓ Danes, that it would feel like a non-Danish city. He then mentioned a bunch of disputed statistics concerning crime in Britain committed by foreigners. Now Drew calls this post `racist', but I am not sure whether this label is accurate. David mostly mentions crime problems, and only mentions another race once. One could argue that `crime' is a dog-whistle for racism, but this is not what Drew does (and I would find such an argument unconvincing). A more convincing argument would be pointing out that the Article which David linked[3] -- which he heralds as predicting the `catastrophe' that ``Danes would be a minority in their own country by 2096'' -- indicates that immigrants AND THEIR CHILDREN would make up 71% of the Danish population by 2096. Now THIS seems to be a matter of race, since even second-or-third-generation descendants of migrants are apparently a problem ENTIRELY SEPARATE from crime. Fat-shaming and diversity ------------------------- When it comes to the fat-shaming, I have to be honest and say that I do not see the article linked by Drew[2] as fat-shaming directly. As far as I can tell, David's point is that we should have idealized people in advertising because ideals are something to strive-for (not a `standard' to be reached), that the advertisement in question adds nothing to the `representation' of people in Copenhagen (where the it was located), and that advertisements like this are patronizing ``however little you try, you're perfect just the way you are''. Now, granted, David does compare the advertisement to the ``loser culture of the 90's'' (paraphrase), indicating that being fat makes you a loser. And we might infer from the quote above that David believes that being overweight is a problem of effort (``however little you try''), but I don't think these can be classified as fat shaming per-se. As David doesn't seem to want to use shame as a way for people to stop being fat, but the beliefs expressed CAN be classified as fascist (or perhaps fascist-adjacent). Consent ------- On the matter of consent, I find Drew's take the strangest. Anti-feminsist it may be -- David laudes the idea of having children over personal freedom (though he doesn't seem to want to force women back into the home) -- homophobic MIGHT be included by extension (homosexual couples have a harder time having kids I suppose), but `rapey'? As I understand it, David argues that ``consent is not enough''. Just because two rational adults consent to a certain action does not make it morally good. And argues that the state should incentivize ``the good life'' which -- in his option -- induces settling down and having kids. David's main reason for promoting family life as the good life seems to be to keep the birth-rate above 2.1 for the sake of the country. Now THAT can be called fascist. In fact, many fascist regimes actively `encouraged' women (with various degrees of force) to have more children. If anything, Drew should have gone after this. Tone policing ------------- ``Tone policing anti fascists'' is -- quite frankly -- the LEAST charitable interpretation of the blogpost Drew linked[4]. In this post, David expresses his disdain (using the words ``Deeply, profoundly sickening'') for people (the anti-fascists Drew mentions) celebrating the death-by-assassination of Charlie Kirk. NOWHERE in this post does David call on these `anti-fascists' to be made to change their speech. Instead, he calls on ``morally upstanding people'' (paraphrase) to combat this ``Deeply, profoundly sickening''-speech with speech of a moral variety. Which is also exactly what he is doing. Regardless of one's opinion on celebrating death (which I might add is a popular fascist ideal), there is NO WAY this can be viewed as tone-policing, let alone fascism-associated censorship. That leaves David at two-dog whistles, one case of Nietzsche-like strive for excellence, and one case of encouraging reproduction of `fit' individuals for the sake of the state (which went unmentioned in Drew's post). How does this a fascist make? Is a fascist simply a person you dislike who is to the right of you politically? Or is it actually a meaningful term for one of the most destructive-, dehumanizing-, and disgusting- belief-structures in recent history? You cannot have both. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Let's move on to Andreas Kling from the Ladybird project. To him Drew attributes the following believes: 1. A dislike of gender-neutral terminology 2. A call to ``carry on the quest'' of another fascist 3. An objection to punching nazi's 4. Managing open-source projects with a lacking code-of-conduct 5. ``endorsing white replacement theory'' 6. Promoting (the aforementioned) David Now, I really try to make a case for Drew's argument. In the previous section, I believe I did a rather good job of it. But this? This is difficult. Gendered terminology -------------------- So, as far as I am aware, gender-neutral terminology has exactly nothing to do with fascism. But one could argue that it indicates a belief that women, transgender individuals, or non-binary folks are inferior in some way, especially since Andreas prefers the use of male pronouns over neutral ones. Supporting fascist quests ------------------------ The ``carrying on the quest'' of another fasist refers -- once again to Charlie Kirk. Specifically Kling says the following: I hope many more debate nerds carry on his quest to engage young people with words, not fists. Now, I should note that fascism is one of the most violent ideologies in existence. In fact, it is one of a very select group which glorifies violence and ware for their own sake, while most ideologies are conflict-avoidant. Calling people to `debate' and `engage' without fists seems diametrically opposed to this idea. But one COULD argue that even debating fascist ideas is inherently fascist in itself. Wether or not Charlie Kirk was a fascist is not a discussion I have time for today, but I think that the general maxim of ``saying anything good about any fascist makes you a fascist too'' is an unsustainable one. Here in Italy is is a well-known joke by left-wing people that ``at least Mussolini made the trains run on time'' as a critique of the current fascist government. Punching Nazi's --------------- When it comes to the objection to punching Nazi's Kirk specifically points out that this seems to a care-Blanche to simply label anyone you disagree with as a Nazi and then perform acts of physical violence against them. One might argue that this is because Kirk is in fact a Nazi and does not want to be punched. However, I think a real Nazi would encourage this behaviour. It dilutes the terminology, might put anti-fascists in legal trouble, and makes the fascist position seem like the reasonable and non-violent one. Also did I mention fascism's glorification-, and welcoming- of violence? Code of Conduct --------------- Managing open source projects with a lacking code of conduct. Well Drew is right about one thing, the COC sure is brief. In fact, I can include it here in its entirety[5]: - Participants will be tolerant of opposing views. - Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks. - When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants should always assume good intentions. - Behavior that can be reasonably considered harassment will not be tolerated. I will be blunt here and say that I cannot find any steelman argument for how this might be fascist. Nothing in the COC itself seems to promote anything of the sort, and I don't think a term as strong as `fascist' is one which can be applied through omission. White replacement theory ------------------------ Endorsing ``white replacement theory'' comes in the form of arguing that ``corporate diversity targets'' discriminate against white men. I will give this to Drew. Doomsday talk of how the insert-race was being replaced was common practice for fascist regimes, usually to defame the other races and geta casus-belli against them. I would however also point out that truth is an absolute defence against a defamation claim, making this an argument about facts (and I tend to find such arguments entirely boring and -- ultimately -- pointless). Being friendly with David ------------------------- Lastly, there is Andrea's proposition of David. Now, since we already discussed David, I will not go into the question of whether this point is valid, but I will make a more general point here. Namely that -- by Drew's playbook -- you can take a single person, declare them (possibly for very good reasons) to be a fascist, and then declare anyone associated with them as well. Indeed, this was exactly what Drew did in point 1 for David, arguing that using Grok made one Musk-friendly and therefore fascist by association. Furthermore, you massively thin out the definition one you include fascism-by-association. ----------------------------------------------------------------- All-in-all I find the kind of thought-patterns visible in Drew's post rather worrying. I would very much like for the term `fascist' to mean something other than ``guy i don't like''. If someone I respect (which includes Drew (most of the time)) makes a claim like ``xyz is a fascist'' I would like to react immediately with shock. This is -- after-all -- a serious accusation which must be taken seriously. As-it-stands however my initial reaction is one of scepticism: ``Do you mean REALLY fascist or just kinda dumb and right-wing?'' This is exactly the reason why we have different terms for acts like murder and manslaughter. One provokes an immediate-, visceral- reaction, one provokes a reaction dependent on circumstance. We distinguish rape from sexual assault with a similar effect (which is why it is especially silly when countries define a non-consensual french-kiss as rape: this is not what people react strongly to when one says `rape'). If we take fascist to sometimes mean ``dumb and rightwing'', then people's reaction to the term will be calibrated to that definition. To conclude, given my best-faith reading of Drew's post, he is giving a very bad-faith reading of David and Andreas' posts. My worst-faith reading of Drew's post is that he is helping fascists hide by labeling as-many people as possible such. I won't promote this bad-faith reading though, because I would like the term ``fascist collaborator'' to continue to mean something substantial. ----------------------------------------------------------------- [1]: https://drewdevault.com/2025/09/24/2025-09-24-Cloudflare-and-fascists.html [2]: https://world.hey.com/dhh/the-beauty-of-ideals-b3dccf72 [3]: https://politiken.dk/danmark/art10414206/I-2096-kan-flertallet-i-Danmark-v%C3%A6re-indvandrere-eller-efterkommere [4]: https://world.hey.com/dhh/words-are-not-violence-c751f14f [5]: https://github.com/LadybirdBrowser/ladybird/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md ================================================================= All of my writing and software projects are available free of charge under CC-BY unless stated otherwise. I do not accept monetary donations, but if my work has brought you value I ask you to donate to a charitable cause or high-impact fund, organisation, business, institute, or individual driving moral progress.