4 ms·

>People have their limits. Most people aren’t absolutists, taking their philosophy to the extreme and utterly unable to make exceptions to their rules when egre

by totony 5y ago

>People have their limits. Most people aren’t absolutists, taking their philosophy to the extreme and utterly unable to make exceptions to their rules when egregious examples show up. If your morals don't hold up when pushed to their limits, it's that you have a poor understanding of what your morals are. A lot of people like free software because it's hip, but when faced with the very reason free software exists they turn back on it very fast.

kyralis 5y ago
That's a very simplistic way of looking at the world. It turns out that things are frequently more complicated than absolutist rules allow for, and the world isn't a series of black and white with bright lines between them. Most people are actually very much okay with "Thou shalt not kill" being quite a bit more nuanced in reality, because it turns out most real-world moral questions are a little more complicated than single questions.
- totony 5y ago
  >Most people are actually very much okay with "Thou shalt not kill" I don't think that's true. Most people are very vengeful and do not hold that view. >It turns out that things are frequently more complicated than absolutist rules allow for imo "absolutist" is mostly used pejoratively. It's dissonance to believe both "People should be able to express themselves however they way" and "Racists should be ostracized." The logical consequence of the second is to disallow racists to speak. It might be OK according to your moral compass, but that's antithesis to free speech and more akin to "people should be able to express themselves if what they say is something I allow."
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
guerrilla 5y ago
> If your morals don't hold up when pushed to their limits I think you're missing the point here that their morals aren't your morals and they can be entirely self-consistent and do what they're doing if they don't share your exact priorities. They obviously prioritize other concerns above freedom of speech absolutism and they aren't hiding that, thus remaining entirely consistent within their frame of reference.
- totony 5y ago
  I don't doubt they have their own morals, but these same people say they hold free speech as moral. The whole point of free speech is to allow for speech you find reprehensible. If not, what's the point?
  - CarelessExpert 5y ago
    > The whole point of free speech is to allow for speech you find reprehensible No one is stopping Gab from speaking. FDroid is just refusing to amplify their speech. Since when did "free speech" == "freedom to force other people to publish my speech"? But you know what, here's an idea: I have a sign I want to put on your lawn. I'm afraid it's an incredibly offensive sign and you and your neighbours might not like it. But I wanna put it on your lawn anyway. Judging by your comments here, I assume you're totally cool with that, right? I mean, according to you, denying my request to put my incredibly offensive lawn sign in front of your house would be an abridgement of my freedom of speech, right?
    - totony 5y ago
      But my lawn is not a platform. And even then, FDroid is a small enough platform that they should be allowed to do whatever they want. But then it's OK to point out the perceived hypocrisy in having a free software platform that censors apps they disagree with. Free software is not really about free speech, but usually both philosophies are held together since they are somewhat related.
      - CarelessExpert 5y ago
        > But my lawn is not a platform. Sure it is. It's a platform of one. Or are you now saying these rights kinda depend? If so, what's the threshold? What makes your lawn special? Does it need to be a particularly big lawn? Do you need to have control of a lot of different lawns? I'm really confused. You seemed so certain that free speech was an absolute right, and that I can force others to amplify my speech, but now here you are suggesting there may be caveats... > Free software is not really about free speech, but usually both philosophies are held together since they are somewhat related. According to you. I certainly don't see them as being connected whatsoever. Maybe your real problem is you and FDroid see the purpose of open source and free software differently.
malfist 5y ago
>If your morals don't hold up when pushed to their limits, it's that you have a poor understanding of what your morals are. No, that's not the case. Morals don't have to be black and white because the world isn't black and white. Nuance is the name of the game in morality. The world is shades of gray, everything has more context than you can imagine. Morals isn't mathmatics, you can't put it on an equation and say "X always equals Y in all situations" Here's an example. Stealing is wrong. But what if you're stealing bread because that's the only way you can get food, and you're stealing it from Jeff Bezos who was just going to let it rot. Is that still wrong? Even if it has no value to Jeff B? Even if it means your death if you don't? Context and nuance is what makes us all human.
- totony 5y ago
  >Stealing is wrong. But what if you're stealing bread because that's the only way you can get food, and you're stealing it from Jeff Bezos who was just going to let it rot. Is that still wrong? Even if it has no value to Jeff B? Even if it means your death if you don't? Which is a misunderstanding of what you really mean by "stealing is wrong." In that example, Bezos doesn't care about the sandwish, so perhaps you mean "stealing is wrong if it deprives someone of something they cherish." Or maybe you hold your life above your morals, but then you have to recognize what you're doing is amoral.

by totony 5y ago

kyralis 5y ago

That's a very simplistic way of looking at the world. It turns out that things are frequently more complicated than absolutist rules allow for, and the world isn't a series of black and white with bright lines between them. Most people are actually very much okay with "Thou shalt not kill" being quite a bit more nuanced in reality, because it turns out most real-world moral questions are a little more complicated than single questions.

totony 5y ago
>Most people are actually very much okay with "Thou shalt not kill" I don't think that's true. Most people are very vengeful and do not hold that view. >It turns out that things are frequently more complicated than absolutist rules allow for imo "absolutist" is mostly used pejoratively. It's dissonance to believe both "People should be able to express themselves however they way" and "Racists should be ostracized." The logical consequence of the second is to disallow racists to speak. It might be OK according to your moral compass, but that's antithesis to free speech and more akin to "people should be able to express themselves if what they say is something I allow."

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

guerrilla 5y ago

> If your morals don't hold up when pushed to their limits I think you're missing the point here that their morals aren't your morals and they can be entirely self-consistent and do what they're doing if they don't share your exact priorities. They obviously prioritize other concerns above freedom of speech absolutism and they aren't hiding that, thus remaining entirely consistent within their frame of reference.

totony 5y ago
I don't doubt they have their own morals, but these same people say they hold free speech as moral. The whole point of free speech is to allow for speech you find reprehensible. If not, what's the point?
- CarelessExpert 5y ago
  > The whole point of free speech is to allow for speech you find reprehensible No one is stopping Gab from speaking. FDroid is just refusing to amplify their speech. Since when did "free speech" == "freedom to force other people to publish my speech"? But you know what, here's an idea: I have a sign I want to put on your lawn. I'm afraid it's an incredibly offensive sign and you and your neighbours might not like it. But I wanna put it on your lawn anyway. Judging by your comments here, I assume you're totally cool with that, right? I mean, according to you, denying my request to put my incredibly offensive lawn sign in front of your house would be an abridgement of my freedom of speech, right?
  - totony 5y ago
    But my lawn is not a platform. And even then, FDroid is a small enough platform that they should be allowed to do whatever they want. But then it's OK to point out the perceived hypocrisy in having a free software platform that censors apps they disagree with. Free software is not really about free speech, but usually both philosophies are held together since they are somewhat related.
    - CarelessExpert 5y ago
      > But my lawn is not a platform. Sure it is. It's a platform of one. Or are you now saying these rights kinda depend? If so, what's the threshold? What makes your lawn special? Does it need to be a particularly big lawn? Do you need to have control of a lot of different lawns? I'm really confused. You seemed so certain that free speech was an absolute right, and that I can force others to amplify my speech, but now here you are suggesting there may be caveats... > Free software is not really about free speech, but usually both philosophies are held together since they are somewhat related. According to you. I certainly don't see them as being connected whatsoever. Maybe your real problem is you and FDroid see the purpose of open source and free software differently.

malfist 5y ago

>If your morals don't hold up when pushed to their limits, it's that you have a poor understanding of what your morals are. No, that's not the case. Morals don't have to be black and white because the world isn't black and white. Nuance is the name of the game in morality. The world is shades of gray, everything has more context than you can imagine. Morals isn't mathmatics, you can't put it on an equation and say "X always equals Y in all situations" Here's an example. Stealing is wrong. But what if you're stealing bread because that's the only way you can get food, and you're stealing it from Jeff Bezos who was just going to let it rot. Is that still wrong? Even if it has no value to Jeff B? Even if it means your death if you don't? Context and nuance is what makes us all human.

totony 5y ago
>Stealing is wrong. But what if you're stealing bread because that's the only way you can get food, and you're stealing it from Jeff Bezos who was just going to let it rot. Is that still wrong? Even if it has no value to Jeff B? Even if it means your death if you don't? Which is a misunderstanding of what you really mean by "stealing is wrong." In that example, Bezos doesn't care about the sandwish, so perhaps you mean "stealing is wrong if it deprives someone of something they cherish." Or maybe you hold your life above your morals, but then you have to recognize what you're doing is amoral.