I guess that’s true when you’re a company trying to sell a product. For an open source project more popularity might just mean more hassle. Sure, it may increase your employment opportunities somewhat, but seeing how entitled and demanding users of os-software can be, I’m sure some devs wish their projects were less popular.
I refuse to believe there exist two pieces of software that are truly for all intents and purposes identical, unless one is a very recent fork of the other.
Both Lemmy and Ladybird are very pointedly not forks of anything.
Sure, there is no ethical consumerism under capitalism. But I can do harm reduction. When someone says or does something shitty, I can avoid or stop using their product. In your example, if a road worker came out publically with some transphobic nonsense, I could raise that to my local road authority and they would likely lose their job. Are there more people that have shitty views in this theoretical? Maybe, but they will be less likely to spew them if they know there are consequences.
What is the source for this quote? I most often hear it used to argue in a fatalistic way in favour of continuing to do whatever harmful thing it is a person wants to continue doing. I don’t think it is true, certainly not for those who are struggling for survival. Ethical doesn’t necessarily mean that there is no harm. It means that the harms have been considered and a meaningful attempt at balancing those harms according to some ethical framework has been made.
I’m not sure of the origin, but that is a fair point. I typically us it in the context of there is no way to find a harm free source of anything in a capitalist society, so you have to find the path with the least amount of harm in it. That is basically what you are saying, but just tweaking the stated definition of ethical.
“Ethical” does not mean “good”, “moral”, or “right”, it means something more like, “consistent with an explicit set of ethical axioms.” It’s meaningless to say something is unethical without stating or at least implying a specific ethical philosophy.
Carnism says that it is sometimes acceptable or even good to be cruel and violent to animals. Veganism says that it only is in cases of absolute necessity. A researcher or scientist for a cosmetics company might follow all the ethical requirements of their profession, and yet by any other standard, do unforgivable harm both to animals they experiment on and to the humans they mean to exploit with their research.
something is unethical without stating or at least implying a specific ethical philosophy.
Which is why I followed it up by saying the best we can do is harm reduction by choosing the less harmful paths when we find them. Nothing you are saying is different to what I said, just a different wording
Is it harm reduction if all the bad people couldn’t make an honest living? Would it be better or worse if they were living on the street? Do you think they might resort to criminality also?
Given that what these people are being criticized for are not intrinsic traits, those people have the option to change their behavior in order to not be ostracized. I am certainty not under any obligation to give anyone my business.
“What if all the bad people lost their jobs?”
Well, that certainly might encourage them to rethink whether being bad is working out for them.
And yes, I’d say that route sounds to me like it will reduce harm in several ways.
It’s not my opinion, it’s an objective flaw with the analogy where the comparison doesn’t entirely work. It’s not a big deal, by their nature analogies tend to be imperfect.
Hitler building the (first) Autobahn is a myth constructed by nazi propaganda. Repeating it is just falling for their lies.
That being said of course it is a very important piece of infrastructure today, but that is due to decades of car industry lobbying and the lack of funding for other transportation and transit infrastructure projects. Especially trains would be able to transport more people and goods faster if build properly.
Sometimes terrible people can do good things.
Those good things should be supported.
Judge a project on it own merits.
The thing here is that Ladybird and SerenityOS are both the community and the code. One cannot live without the other because the code will always need its community to develop it. And in this case, it is not possible to support them without supporting the people who, y’know receive the money. I think nobody is arguing against an independent browser engine - the argument is against the implementation of it.
Do you think they’d stop being bad people if they couldn’t make an honest living? Would it be better or worse if they were on the street? Do you think they might resort to criminality also?
Do you feel better knowing they aren’t getting your money? Even at the cost of them ever doing anything good for anyone?
Do you think they’d stop being bad people if they couldn’t make an honest living? Would it be better or worse if they were on the street? Do you think they might resort to criminality also?
I don’t think anyone deserves living in the street. I don’t think they will stop being bad people whether or not I support them. It seems you’re trying to move the goal post.
Do you feel better knowing they aren’t getting your money? Even at the cost of them ever doing anything good for anyone?
I feel better that they aren’t getting my money because they cannot be empowered to hurt the people I care about. I think they can do good things without my support. This seems like a weird thing to say.
Also, this is clearly sealioning. It’s really not a good way to make conversation.
Sometimes terrible people can do good things.
Those good things should be supported.
Judge a project on it own merits.
People still use the Autobahn.
“What about the good things Hitler did?” Is not the flex you think it is. Also, using the Autobahn does not send support to Nazis
Using Lemmy without donating to the developers does not send support to them. Same goes for Ladybird, does it not?
Adding to popularity does support them.
I guess that’s true when you’re a company trying to sell a product. For an open source project more popularity might just mean more hassle. Sure, it may increase your employment opportunities somewhat, but seeing how entitled and demanding users of os-software can be, I’m sure some devs wish their projects were less popular.
you’re kidding, right?
If you see two pieces of identical software, one with 1000 downloads and one with 100,000, which would you choose?
That would depend on the feature set
Read it again…
I refuse to believe there exist two pieces of software that are truly for all intents and purposes identical, unless one is a very recent fork of the other.
Both Lemmy and Ladybird are very pointedly not forks of anything.
Yeah, it EMOTIONALLY supports them. Dude. It’s okay. It also supports the users who get value out of it in actual material ways.
A. Not a “dude”
B. I’ll pose the same rhetorical as I did to the other person that didn’t think popularity was support:
If you see two pieces of identical software, one with 1000 downloads and one with 100,000, which would you choose?
Removed by mod
I’m sure a few bad people make a living maintaining it, and all the roads you depend on everyday.
Bad people are everywhere, doing all sorts of jobs you appreciate.
Sure, there is no ethical consumerism under capitalism. But I can do harm reduction. When someone says or does something shitty, I can avoid or stop using their product. In your example, if a road worker came out publically with some transphobic nonsense, I could raise that to my local road authority and they would likely lose their job. Are there more people that have shitty views in this theoretical? Maybe, but they will be less likely to spew them if they know there are consequences.
What is the source for this quote? I most often hear it used to argue in a fatalistic way in favour of continuing to do whatever harmful thing it is a person wants to continue doing. I don’t think it is true, certainly not for those who are struggling for survival. Ethical doesn’t necessarily mean that there is no harm. It means that the harms have been considered and a meaningful attempt at balancing those harms according to some ethical framework has been made.
I’m not sure of the origin, but that is a fair point. I typically us it in the context of there is no way to find a harm free source of anything in a capitalist society, so you have to find the path with the least amount of harm in it. That is basically what you are saying, but just tweaking the stated definition of ethical.
“Ethical” does not mean “good”, “moral”, or “right”, it means something more like, “consistent with an explicit set of ethical axioms.” It’s meaningless to say something is unethical without stating or at least implying a specific ethical philosophy.
Carnism says that it is sometimes acceptable or even good to be cruel and violent to animals. Veganism says that it only is in cases of absolute necessity. A researcher or scientist for a cosmetics company might follow all the ethical requirements of their profession, and yet by any other standard, do unforgivable harm both to animals they experiment on and to the humans they mean to exploit with their research.
Which is why I followed it up by saying the best we can do is harm reduction by choosing the less harmful paths when we find them. Nothing you are saying is different to what I said, just a different wording
Is it harm reduction if all the bad people couldn’t make an honest living? Would it be better or worse if they were living on the street? Do you think they might resort to criminality also?
Given that what these people are being criticized for are not intrinsic traits, those people have the option to change their behavior in order to not be ostracized. I am certainty not under any obligation to give anyone my business.
“What if all the bad people lost their jobs?”
Well, that certainly might encourage them to rethink whether being bad is working out for them.
And yes, I’d say that route sounds to me like it will reduce harm in several ways.
Wow, what a slippery slope you’ve made.
It’s your idea.
All I did is assume all good people agree with you.
What? It was your hypothetical
Great analogy and perspective.
It’s not that great an analogy because the autobahn isn’t still maintained by Nazis.
That’s your opinion on what is and isn’t a great analogy.
Hopefully the maintainers of the project will be more considerate in the future.
It’s not my opinion, it’s an objective flaw with the analogy where the comparison doesn’t entirely work. It’s not a big deal, by their nature analogies tend to be imperfect.
I don’t understand the analogy, can you tell me what the deal with the Autobahn is? We don’t have an Autobahn where I’m from.
The Autobahn is a very well engineered German highway system. It is well known but was also was constructed during Nazi Germany.
While it was built by evil people, it still is a fantastic highway system that is used today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn
!fuckcars@lemmy.world
Time and place, phneutral. Time and place.
Perhaps I should have posted this link first.
Hitler building the (first) Autobahn is a myth constructed by nazi propaganda. Repeating it is just falling for their lies.
That being said of course it is a very important piece of infrastructure today, but that is due to decades of car industry lobbying and the lack of funding for other transportation and transit infrastructure projects. Especially trains would be able to transport more people and goods faster if build properly.
The thing here is that Ladybird and SerenityOS are both the community and the code. One cannot live without the other because the code will always need its community to develop it. And in this case, it is not possible to support them without supporting the people who, y’know receive the money. I think nobody is arguing against an independent browser engine - the argument is against the implementation of it.
It sounds like you’re arguing that bad people shouldn’t be paid to anything good.
I don’t support bad people. Those bad people can change and become good people. Until then, why would I support and pay those that hurt my friends?
Do you think they’d stop being bad people if they couldn’t make an honest living? Would it be better or worse if they were on the street? Do you think they might resort to criminality also?
Do you feel better knowing they aren’t getting your money? Even at the cost of them ever doing anything good for anyone?
I don’t think anyone deserves living in the street. I don’t think they will stop being bad people whether or not I support them. It seems you’re trying to move the goal post.
I feel better that they aren’t getting my money because they cannot be empowered to hurt the people I care about. I think they can do good things without my support. This seems like a weird thing to say.
Also, this is clearly sealioning. It’s really not a good way to make conversation.
This is known as a “false dichotomy” and is very lame.
Is it?
Are you saying you would support bad people under the right circumstances?
Enjoy this excellent web page:
https://www.logical-fallacy.com/articles/false-dilemma/