Don't be nice - Daniel Roe Skip to main content Daniel Roe is currently in Scotland 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿TalksProjectsUsesBlog Loading Open mobile navigation menu Close mobile navigation menu HomeTalksProjectsUsesBlogDon't be nice Published September 19, 2026 Tags open sourcevaluescommunityDon't be nice.Not many people know that the word 'nice' comes from the Latin 'nescius,' meaning 'unaware.' Words don't necessarily mean the same thing they did originally, but somehow, I think that is a little bit of what it is to be nice. You pull your own opinion back – to make space for other people.But sometimes you shouldn't be nice.Yesterday, I kicked someone from the Nuxt Discord who had chosen an avatar (for the second time!) of a man in a Nazi uniform.I was not nice.They accused me of being 'political' – the very thing an open source project shouldn't be, I'm told. It only divides people. Let's just focus on the technology. Surely we can all get behind building amazing, fast, cool websites!No.To be perfectly candid, I picked the Nazi example because I think we'll all agree on that – whatever your political persuasion.1Sometimes a political party or a person decides to oppose shared human values like the importance of care, kindness, inclusion, or the simple value of welcoming people who are different from you. Maybe they oppose the equality of all people. Maybe they think some people do not deserve human rights.When that happens, please, don't be nice. There's no 'both sides have a point.'So I'm not going to be nice.Let me say something else, seemingly more controversial.DHH, you're not welcome in the Nuxt community, because you say that Black people aren't 'native Brits' and call for the mass deportation of 'gypsies'.Now, I doubt he cares what I think. I'm not very important, and he doesn't really want to join.But I mention it because the kinds of things that he's saying are being normalised. If you hear enough people say something it somehow becomes 'just another opinion.' And, because he's built a cool-looking Linux distribution (I love Arch, and those Omarchy screenshots are beautiful, by the way!) a lot of people seem to be thinking that the man himself (and his opinions) must be okay. Or at least, not worth making a fuss over.I'm sorry. I'm not willing to be nice about this.Check out this helpful article, DHH Is Way Worse Than I Thought. Jake said it better than I can:DHH’s politics are not normal. Maybe they used to be, I don’t know, but as of right now the dude is way the fuck outside of what most people would consider moral or acceptable.I would also like to see 1Password, DigitalOcean and others retract their support of DHH's pet project. I wouldn't judge someone who simply uses Omarchy. But can I ask you to think about it? It leaves a pretty bad taste in my mouth even to imagine using the product of someone who's suggested that Black and Asian Londoners make Britain worse.Nice?It's better to be good.An aside: I don't talk about party politics online. I talk about my values instead. And honestly, if someone positions themselves against those values I really feel that's on them – in much the same way as a scientist doesn't become 'political' just because a political party chooses to deny accepted science.  ​ © 2019-2026 Daniel Roe. CC BY-SA 4.0

The author, Daniel Roe, explores the concept of 'niceness' by suggesting it stems from a desire to be unaware and make space for others' opinions. However, Roe contends that there are situations where being nice is inappropriate, particularly when opposing views violate fundamental shared human values such as care, kindness, inclusion, and the welcoming of different people, or the equality of all individuals. He posits that when political parties or individuals oppose these shared human values or the importance of human rights, there is no equivalence between opposing sides, and therefore, the obligation to be nice should be suspended.

Roe uses an example to illustrate this point, noting that he made a choice regarding an avatar in a Nuxt Discord server, implicitly rejecting a politically charged symbol to focus solely on technology and the shared goal of building cool websites. He argues that focusing on technological achievement should prevail over political division.

The author then moves to a more controversial discussion concerning DHH, criticizing his views regarding race and nationality, specifically referencing statements that suggest Black people are not 'native Brits' and advocating for the deportation of 'gypsies.' Roe suggests that if these kinds of statements are allowed to be normalized, they become accepted as mere opinions, leading to the implication that the speaker, DHH, and their views are acceptable. Roe stresses that this normalization is problematic, questioning the support for projects associated with DHH, such as 1Password and DigitalOcean, given the perceived negative stance on specific groups.

Finally, Roe draws a distinction between discussing party politics and discussing personal values. He asserts that he focuses on personal values rather than political party lines, arguing that if someone positions themselves against these core values, that opposition is valid. He compares this to the scientific method, suggesting that just as a scientist does not become political simply because a political party denies accepted science, individuals should be free to hold differing views on fundamental values.