The "Hypothesis" of Omarchy -- invented through cope and seething
Proof by Contradiction
Theorem
The Omarchy Hypothesis is false. That is, it is not the case that for all people x, y ∈ S and every artifact z ∈ A, if y created z and x uses z, then x supports y's political views.
Definition.
Let S be the set of all people, A the set of all software artifacts, and V a set of political positions. Every position v ∈ V has an opposite position opp(v) ∈ V.
We use the following predicates:
- C(y, z) means person y created artifact z.
- U(x, z) means person x uses artifact z.
- H(y, v) means person y has publicly stated position v.
- E(x, v) means person x has publicly endorsed position v.
The core positions of a person y, denoted K(y), are the positions v with H(y, v) that critics cite as objectionable. So K(y) ⊆ {v | H(y, v)}.
Person x supports the political views of person y if x endorses every core position of y:
P(x, y) := ∀v ∈ K(y) : E(x, v)
The Omarchy Hypothesis is the following statement:
∀x ∈ S, ∀y ∈ S, ∀z ∈ A : (C(y, z) ∧ U(x, z)) → P(x, y)
We name the elements dhh, eugen ∈ S and rails ∈ A. We also let a ∈ V be the position "DHH's published political writing is not racist."
Axioms.
We take the following as given. A1, A2, A4, A5, and A6 are facts about the world with sources, and A3 is a logical axiom.
- A1. C(dhh, rails). DHH created Ruby on Rails.
Sources: DHH's own author bio; 37signals history.
- A2. U(eugen, rails). Eugen Rochko uses Rails, since Mastodon is a Rails application.
Sources: Mastodon developer docs; Eugen's own post about Rails.
- A3. ∀x ∈ S, ∀v ∈ V : E(x, v) → ¬E(x, opp(v)). Nobody endorses a position and its opposite.
- A4. E(eugen, opp(a)). Eugen signed the Plan Vert open letter, which says DHH's published writings show racist and transphobic views and asks Rails to cut ties with him.
Sources: news report; the letter and its signatory table; corroboration.
- A5. H(dhh, a). DHH publicly maintains that his views are not racist. In "As I remember London" (September 15, 2025) he writes that it is not racist or xenophobic to say a country is primarily for its natives.
Source: world.hey.com.
- A6. a ∈ K(dhh). Critics object to DHH's writing precisely because they say it is racist.
Sources: Tekin Süleyman; The Verge, as excerpted on Privacy Guides.
Lemma.
Eugen does not support DHH's political views, i.e., ¬P(eugen, dhh).
Proof Idea.
We want to prove the Omarchy Hypothesis is false, so by proof by contradiction we should suppose it is true and find some false consequence.
Whenever you start a proof by contradiction, you must start with "Suppose to the contrary" verbatim. The steps are:
1. Suppose to the contrary that the Omarchy Hypothesis is true.
2. Invoke it on a specific person, creator, and artifact.
3. Find a case where the conclusion P(x, y) fails.
4. Contradiction! The Hypothesis cannot be true.
The Hypothesis talks about every person, so it also talks about Eugen Rochko. He uses Rails (A2), which DHH created (A1), so the Hypothesis says Eugen supports DHH's political views. Our job is to show this is false, and that is exactly the Lemma.
The Lemma is also a proof by contradiction. If Eugen supported DHH's views, he would endorse every core position of DHH, including a. But Eugen endorses the opposite of a (A4), and nobody endorses a position and its opposite (A3).
Proof of Lemma.
Suppose to the contrary that P(eugen, dhh).
By the definition of P, we have E(eugen, v) for every v ∈ K(dhh). By A6, a ∈ K(dhh), so E(eugen, a).
Applying A3 with x = eugen and v = a yields ¬E(eugen, opp(a)).
But A4 states E(eugen, opp(a)), a contradiction. Therefore ¬P(eugen, dhh). ∎
Proof.
Suppose to the contrary that the Omarchy Hypothesis is true.
Instantiate it with x = eugen, y = dhh, and z = rails. By A1 and A2, both C(dhh, rails) and U(eugen, rails) hold, so the Hypothesis yields P(eugen, dhh).
But the Lemma states ¬P(eugen, dhh), a contradiction. So the Omarchy Hypothesis must be false. ∎
Consequence
Using a creator's software does not by itself imply supporting the creator's politics. Eugen is a direct user of Rails, and he publicly repudiates DHH's views. In particular, using Omarchy or Mastodon implies nothing about supporting DHH.
This refutes the universal rule only. A narrower rule, such as "choosing a creator's own end-user product signals support," is not addressed by this proof.
83 comments
Mentions
✅ I've signed off on: Plan-Vert/open-letter rails creator is enabling the spread of dangerous and harmful political ideologies that will continue to result in further violence and death. never too late to boycott some fascism. ✨ #ruby #devlife
The "Hypothesis" of Omarchy -- invented through cope and seething Proof by Contradiction Theorem The Omarchy Hypothesis is false. That is, it is not the case that for all people x, y ∈ S and every artifact z ∈ A, if y created z and x uses z, then x supports y's political views. Definition. Let S be the set of all people, A the set of all software artifacts, and V a set of political positions. Every position v ∈ V has an opposite position opp(v) ∈ V. We use the following predicates: - C(y, z) means person y created artifact z. - U(x, z) means person x uses artifact z. - H(y, v) means person y has publicly stated position v. - E(x, v) means person x has publicly endorsed position v. The core positions of a person y, denoted K(y), are the positions v with H(y, v) that critics cite as objectionable. So K(y) ⊆ {v | H(y, v)}. Person x supports the political views of person y if x endorses every core position of y: P(x, y) := ∀v ∈ K(y) : E(x, v) The Omarchy Hypothesis is the following statement: ∀x ∈ S, ∀y ∈ S, ∀z ∈ A : (C(y, z) ∧ U(x, z)) → P(x, y) We name the elements dhh, eugen ∈ S and rails ∈ A. We also let a ∈ V be the position "DHH's published political writing is not racist." Axioms. We take the following as given. A1, A2, A4, A5, and A6 are facts about the world with sources, and A3 is a logical axiom. - A1. C(dhh, rails). DHH created Ruby on Rails. Sources: DHH's own author bio; 37signals history. - A2. U(eugen, rails). Eugen Rochko uses Rails, since Mastodon is a Rails application. Sources: Mastodon developer docs; Eugen's own post about Rails. - A3. ∀x ∈ S, ∀v ∈ V : E(x, v) → ¬E(x, opp(v)). Nobody endorses a position and its opposite. - A4. E(eugen, opp(a)). Eugen signed the Plan Vert open letter, which says DHH's published writings show racist and transphobic views and asks Rails to cut ties with him. Sources: news report; the letter and its signatory table; corroboration. - A5. H(dhh, a). DHH publicly maintains that his views are not racist. In "As I remember London" (September 15, 2025) he writes that it is not racist or xenophobic to say a country is primarily for its natives. Source: world.hey.com. - A6. a ∈ K(dhh). Critics object to DHH's writing precisely because they say it is racist. Sources: Tekin Süleyman; The Verge, as excerpted on Privacy Guides. Lemma. Eugen does not support DHH's political views, i.e., ¬P(eugen, dhh). Proof Idea. We want to prove the Omarchy Hypothesis is false, so by proof by contradiction we should suppose it is true and find some false consequence. Whenever you start a proof by contradiction, you must start with "Suppose to the contrary" verbatim. The steps are: 1. Suppose to the contrary that the Omarchy Hypothesis is true. 2. Invoke it on a specific person, creator, and artifact. 3. Find a case where the conclusion P(x, y) fails. 4. Contradiction! The Hypothesis cannot be true. The Hypothesis talks about every person, so it also talks about Eugen Rochko. He uses Rails (A2), which DHH created (A1), so the Hypothesis says Eugen supports DHH's political views. Our job is to show this is false, and that is exactly the Lemma. The Lemma is also a proof by contradiction. If Eugen supported DHH's views, he would endorse every core position of DHH, including a. But Eugen endorses the opposite of a (A4), and nobody endorses a position and its opposite (A3). Proof of Lemma. Suppose to the contrary that P(eugen, dhh). By the definition of P, we have E(eugen, v) for every v ∈ K(dhh). By A6, a ∈ K(dhh), so E(eugen, a). Applying A3 with x = eugen and v = a yields ¬E(eugen, opp(a)). But A4 states E(eugen, opp(a)), a contradiction. Therefore ¬P(eugen, dhh). ∎ Proof. Suppose to the contrary that the Omarchy Hypothesis is true. Instantiate it with x = eugen, y = dhh, and z = rails. By A1 and A2, both C(dhh, rails) and U(eugen, rails) hold, so the Hypothesis yields P(eugen, dhh). But the Lemma states ¬P(eugen, dhh), a contradiction. So the Omarchy Hypothesis must be false. ∎ Consequence Using a creator's software does not by itself imply supporting the creator's politics. Eugen is a direct user of Rails, and he publicly repudiates DHH's views. In particular, using Omarchy or Mastodon implies nothing about supporting DHH. This refutes the universal rule only. A narrower rule, such as "choosing a creator's own end-user product signals support," is not addressed by this proof.