3 ms·
"principled stands don't win." Fighting against bad actors is definitely a 'principled decision'. Ignoring the situation and not taking action is an 'unprinci
by jollybean 5y ago
"principled stands don't win."
Fighting against bad actors is definitely a 'principled decision'.
Ignoring the situation and not taking action is an 'unprincipled decision'. Though it might disguised as principled action, on the basis of supporting some other principle, such 'open source', but ignoring one at the expense of another implies serious lack of self awareness.
This war, plus COVID, and the recently released documents indicating a planned invasion of Taiwan (though we don't know for sure) - represent major geopolitical shift of the order of WW1/WW2/End of Cold War, the stakes and consequences are enormous.
- ajross 5y agoThat's sort of a semantic argument. To be clear: I was contrasting "choosing a side" (in this case by senselessly pranking your npm customers) as being a "practical" choice, vs. the "principled" stand taken to avoid the conflict out of a general sense of open source decorum. Obviously in some sense all decisions are based on "principle". And the point is that it's a war. We've crossed the "bad things are going to happen" Rubicon already. You can't make principled arguments like that against people who have chosen to engage in a war out of the hope or desire for one side to win. They already did that moral calculus. It's like telling someone they shouldn't defend their home because pacifism is more important. You might be right, but you won't change anyone's mind.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]