It's worse than that. It's people generating a moral panic so they can retroactively declare something to be crimethink and then use that as a weapon against anyone who disagrees with them by trawling through their history. In which case it's not a matter of standing by it because mobs aren't interested in context or nuance.

Society's defense against this should be that we don't use mobs to punish people for saying things we disagree with and anybody who attempts to do that gets laughed off the stage. Because as soon as that's not what happens, the public discourse gets marred by self-censorship until enough time passes with it not happening that people stop expecting it to and thereby stop worrying that they can't know what's going to be declared an offense tomorrow.

But now that it has happened recently, the only way to get it back in the short term is to have people posting under pseudonyms.

This idea that people are too... what, fragile, to be criticized continues to puzzle me.

Dhh said some stupid stuff and now people are calling him out. Why should dhh be allowed to say whatever wants but no one is allowed to criticize him?

The problem is not people criticizing ideas. The problem is people attacking other people for saying things they don't like, trying to get them fired, etc.

Attack their arguments, not their family, employer, etc.

I mean, you keep repeating the idea that "some people" shouldn't be allowed to use their speech but DHH can use his speech.

You can't have it both ways, either DHH is free to speak his mind on any subject he chooses, and so is everyone else, or nobody is actually free to speak.

No, that's a lie, or at least close enough to one.

People are asking ruby on rails to stop associating with dhh because of his remarks.

That's it.

Or is this one those "free speech but not like that" moments?