No, not taking sides is just not taking sides. There's no need to turn such a position into a shortcut to something else. It's as stupid as the kids saying "if you are not with us you are against us". Typical populist bullshit.
How hard is it to just say "I think Russia is wrong for invading Ukraine and killing people"? That's all you have to do. Just write it.
If you can't do that, but still want to engage in the discussion on the topic, your standpoint is clear. You're not some holier person not taking a stand. You have taken one, you just don't dare to spell it out.
> If you can't do that, but still want to engage in the discussion on the topic, your standpoint is clear.
That's not the topic at hand. The topic is, you don't need to pollute every thing you work on out there with your preachy opinions on every single topic, especially when you are whole-fully ignorant about what's actually happening, the in-and-outs of the conflict, because you are in a state of constant propaganda, whether you are in Russia or in the West.
And this is not just about the conflict at hand, it's about this disgusting habit these days of bringing politics in all walks of life where it was not before.
You can't blame people for doing whatever they can when they are literally being bombed. Same with BLM mentioned in another subthread, it's easy to don't care when the issues don't affect you, but for other's it's their daily life. Of course it colors what people do.
People who claim there were no politics before, were just oblivious to others' struggle. Which is ok, but it still happened, you were just sheltered or privileged.
> You can't blame people for doing whatever they can when they are literally being bombed.
Are the authors of the change in question actually in Ukraine? And I'm pretty sure that technical minded people there could find better uses for their talents, rather than petty vandalism
> You can't blame people for doing whatever they can when they are literally being bombed.
I can't remember when people cared about the bombs falling everyday in Yemen. How absurd is it for people to suddenly care and cry publicly about one country's conflict while another much bloodier one, not too far away, is being completely ignored. Is their blood less red? Are their children worth less? Systemic racism maybe, since these are not white people?
Mass media (including social media nowadays) is what shapes what people care and feel concerned about. It's not about people's values, this goes on to say a lot more about how easy people can be manipulated to project violence onto anything they had no clue about 5 minutes ago, as long as you repeat it all day long.
Because if I spend my time writing down everything I think is wrong with the world, I literally will not have time to do anything else.
Your cause is not more important than thousands of other causes, and my refusal to spend my time amplifying your viewpoint does not in any sense imply I agree with the opposing view.
That's a fair point, but not when one intentionally enters a discussion about a conflict. Can't both claim no side and simultaneously pretend the aggressor is just as bad as the protester.
If I'm not mistaken, though, the discussion here isn't about the Russia versus Ukraine conflict itself, but about appropriate ways to show support for a political cause in general, and whether it's even appropriate to do so in particular contexts. On that meta-issue, I think it's possible to state an opinion, without implying any position on the conflict of the moment. And if I'm not mistaken, some people are saying that it's obligatory to state an opinion on the conflict of the moment; that's what some of us are disagreeing with.
I can still say that Russia is wrong for invading Ukraine and say that the protestware we're talking about in the thread is wrong too (a different, lesser wrong, though)
Of course. What I take issue with is the "don't choose sides"-people often say both are wrong, as if they are equally wrong. In these issues, it's one part killing or denying others their way of living, and others protesting the oppressors.
People with a contrarian streak are never going to performatively denounce something on command if they want to make a point which is unrelated to that denounciation.
No one said that. I'm saying that if you cannot answer which "side" you're on, but still engage in the discussion (and thus have knowledge / interest in the subject), it's obvious for everyone to see.
That's not what we were talking about though? In the context of this thread, we we talking about the behavior of open source projects, not people engaging in political debates.
Are there limits to this, or do you think ”not taking sides” is a morally defensible position to have regarding everything? Is it ethical to be neutral when it comes to the holocaust?
I think it's OK to refrain from taking sides about anything that we don't have firsthand knowledge about. There's no shortage of political and moral busybodies in the world, especially now that we have the Internet. I'm sure I've been one at times. So I think it's not so bad if we start going in the other direction, just minding our own business and sticking to things we can actually do something about. I should get back to that.
It's perfectly ethical to not be loudly and publicly performing an anti-holocaust view 24/7/365, and failing to do that does not make one "pro-holocaust".
The list of Bad Things is endless, and failing to address any one of them does not make you in favor of that Bad Thing. It just doesn't.
You're just trying to bully people into spending their time amplifying your particular protest, and bullying in itself is a Bad Thing.
