6 ms·

>>Is a single person going to be persuaded to support either cause by seeing this banner on a relatively niche JS library that reduces readability of its docume

>>Is a single person going to be persuaded to support either cause by seeing this banner on a relatively niche JS library that reduces readability of its documentation? The purpose of the banner is not to convert anyone, the purpose is to demonstrate that the author of the package subscribes to the correct opinions.

LunaSea 5y ago
So basically virtue signalling
- BaronVonSteuben 5y ago
  Yes but pointing out that the emperor has no clothes is mean, so we need to pretend not to notice. Despite our modern day knowledge that most human behavior is almost entirely incentive-based (the hard part is identifying the incentive), we're still supposed to pretend that it's altrusim.
  - mrtranscendence 5y ago
    I've experienced too much altruistic, generous, kind behavior to support this cynical view, unless you're defining "incentive" so widely as to be meaningless (sure, some people are incentivized to help others partially because they get good feelings by doing so -- I suppose Ayn Rand was right all along).
    - BaronVonSteuben 5y ago
      I don't think it's cynical at all, I think it's just accepting reality. Our advanced consciousness is just a very thin layer of abstraction on top of the same brain/mind that powers many other animals. Some of the best minds who study this, question if there's even any such thing as "free will" at all. I don't think recognizing that is conflicting at all with a positive outlook, or the choice to be optimistic, or a humanist, etc. You can choose to believe it or choose not to believe it, and still value human life and try to progress humanity forward. Also don't underestimate the value/incentive of following your conscience, acting out your beliefs etc. Cognitive dissonance (which results from not doing so) is deeply uncomfortable and a good motivator for being "altruistic."
  - blueflow 5y ago
    The good news, these people are easy to identify because their signalling is always in a very visible way. They want to be seen. And when you can identify them, you can avoid them.
    - Brotkrumen 5y ago
      Is you public signaling that youre cancelling virtue signalers virtue signaling? "This is virtue signaling" is more of a dog whistle ingratiating yourself with a certain crowd instead of an argument. Don't know what youre trying to achieve besides that.
      - blueflow 5y ago
        > is more of a dog whistle ingratiating yourself with a certain crowd Genius move. Any concept that can be used to criticize you is implicitly outing me as part of your out-group. Now you can judge me not on my own merits, but on the merits of people you associate me with. And my posts can well-formulated and thought-out, you disregard them for factors i cannot possibly control. This is the partisan thinking that i don't want to have business with. This is what i ghost people for. Call it cancelling if you want to, fact is, if you are walking through the world looking for friends, my place is the wrong address.
        leaflets2 5y ago
        Seems you're doing the same thing, when you claim that others who try to do sth about something are just virtue signaling.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        Brotkrumen 5y ago
        You just said "I'm cancelling virtue signalers", you didn't make any arguments I could judge based on their merit. Ergo, you're just whistling for your crowd to cheer you on. Pure virtue signaling.
- kennywinker 5y ago
  The term “virtue signaling” is a pet peeve of mine. Like the word “problematic” it’s too vague and broad to be useful. The implication seems to usually be that it’s all talk and no action. But if we’re talking, as we are now, that’s completely separate from my actions. Like, if I say “pollution is bad” and don’t do anything in my life to reduce pollution that’s virtue signaling, but it’s not if I’ve dedicated my life to reducing global pollution? How are you supposed to know what I have or have not done in real life during this convo. So either virtue signaling applies anytime someone expresses an opinion about something moral, in which case it’s a useless truism. Or it’s meant to express doubt or challenge someone to prove that they take action, in which case who owes you proof? Putting a statement of support for a cause in your open source repo may or may not have any direct impact, but it is personal expression - and in general I am for personal expression.
  - prepend 5y ago
    > general I am for personal expression. I’m for signal, not noise. I don’t want stupid personal expressions, I want meaningful or beautiful or somehow useful. I used to work with a person who would raise their hand in every presentation and say “security is important how is this software secure” even when it wasn’t anywhere remotely relevant. It was counterproductive and distracting and wasted valuable time that we could use to do something better.
    - kennywinker 5y ago
      > I don’t want stupid personal expressions, I want meaningful or beautiful or somehow useful. I guess I feel that improving our world, ending war, making our society more just and fair, these are meaningful, useful, and beautiful things to do. They might be some of the most meaningful things actually. > It was counterproductive and distracting and wasted valuable time that we could use to do something better. This is an argument about context. Security IS important, I imagine we'd both agree, but maybe not in that specific situation. Like if I bring up climate change while we're rushing to the hospital after a car accident. Climate change is a real and important issue, but right now it's a distraction. So is an open source website an inappropriate context to indicate support for movements or disapproval of others? I don't think so, but if you do calling it "virtue signaling" isn't what you mean, and is actually a counterproductive distraction.
- qsdf38100 5y ago
  You can say this whenever someone speaks out about something. You can always dismiss what they say by saying they don’t actually care, it’s just to look good. It tells more about _your_ beliefs and what _you_ stand for than anything. It seems a lot of HNers don’t stand for freedom too much. They stand for not being annoyed by the fallouts of this war.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mrtranscendence 5y ago
This is a bad take. The purpose is, at least partially, that the author of the package subscribes to these opinions rather than others, sure. But this doesn't necessarily have anything to do with them being "right" or not. I don't get a lot of capital at Hacker News by saying that I support Black Lives Matter, but if I do so (and I'm doing so) does that mean I only want to display that I subscribe to the "correct" opinions? Plus, demonstrating what opinions are held is not the whole point. Part of it is telling others who support those causes that they're not alone. And it's also partially a "fuck you" to those who are triggered by mentions of causes like Black Lives Matter.
- gadders 5y ago
  I think the person concerned is taking zero personal risk by displaying a view that is backed up by 99% all of media (even if no 99% of all people). If they had a banner saying "Trump 2024" or "The AZOV Battalion are Nazis" I might not agree with them, but at least they are taking some personal risk of cancellation.
  - noelsusman 5y ago
    Fox News is part of the media, conservatives cancel people too, and calling the Azov Battalion Nazis is not exactly controversial. They're pretty open about that. But mostly I'm wondering why it matters if they're taking a personal risk or not. How is that relevant to anything?
  - Brotkrumen 5y ago
    Criticising the silent majority when they try not to be silent anymore with "youre not taking any risks, so stay silent" is a bad take.
    - gadders 5y ago
      I'm highlighting the emptiness of the moral grandstanding.
      - 5y ago
kdmccormick 5y ago
As a less cynical take: When it comes to Ukraine support, the banner could theoretically have an anti-propoganda effect. Russian and Chinese citizens are cut off or pushed away from world political discourse in a lot of ways, so using open source libraries as a vector for anti-Russia messaging could have a real effect on devs in those countries.
- dunkelheit 5y ago
  Two counterpoints: 1) the kind of people that use open-source libraries are one of the most plugged into the world political discourse parts of the population (BTW I am not sure that this is unequivocally a good thing, this "discourse" is just another brand of propaganda at this point) and 2) If some random open-source maintainer from across the ocean starts lecturing me that I am guilty of not overthrowing Putin or, worse, wipes my hard drive, I'm not going to be moved by this, I'm just going to think that this person is out of touch and be really annoyed.
  - kdmccormick 5y ago

LunaSea 5y ago

So basically virtue signalling

BaronVonSteuben 5y ago
Yes but pointing out that the emperor has no clothes is mean, so we need to pretend not to notice. Despite our modern day knowledge that most human behavior is almost entirely incentive-based (the hard part is identifying the incentive), we're still supposed to pretend that it's altrusim.
- mrtranscendence 5y ago
  I've experienced too much altruistic, generous, kind behavior to support this cynical view, unless you're defining "incentive" so widely as to be meaningless (sure, some people are incentivized to help others partially because they get good feelings by doing so -- I suppose Ayn Rand was right all along).
  - BaronVonSteuben 5y ago
    I don't think it's cynical at all, I think it's just accepting reality. Our advanced consciousness is just a very thin layer of abstraction on top of the same brain/mind that powers many other animals. Some of the best minds who study this, question if there's even any such thing as "free will" at all. I don't think recognizing that is conflicting at all with a positive outlook, or the choice to be optimistic, or a humanist, etc. You can choose to believe it or choose not to believe it, and still value human life and try to progress humanity forward. Also don't underestimate the value/incentive of following your conscience, acting out your beliefs etc. Cognitive dissonance (which results from not doing so) is deeply uncomfortable and a good motivator for being "altruistic."
- blueflow 5y ago
  The good news, these people are easy to identify because their signalling is always in a very visible way. They want to be seen. And when you can identify them, you can avoid them.
  - Brotkrumen 5y ago
    Is you public signaling that youre cancelling virtue signalers virtue signaling? "This is virtue signaling" is more of a dog whistle ingratiating yourself with a certain crowd instead of an argument. Don't know what youre trying to achieve besides that.
    - blueflow 5y ago
      > is more of a dog whistle ingratiating yourself with a certain crowd Genius move. Any concept that can be used to criticize you is implicitly outing me as part of your out-group. Now you can judge me not on my own merits, but on the merits of people you associate me with. And my posts can well-formulated and thought-out, you disregard them for factors i cannot possibly control. This is the partisan thinking that i don't want to have business with. This is what i ghost people for. Call it cancelling if you want to, fact is, if you are walking through the world looking for friends, my place is the wrong address.
      - leaflets2 5y ago
        Seems you're doing the same thing, when you claim that others who try to do sth about something are just virtue signaling.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - Brotkrumen 5y ago
        You just said "I'm cancelling virtue signalers", you didn't make any arguments I could judge based on their merit. Ergo, you're just whistling for your crowd to cheer you on. Pure virtue signaling.
kennywinker 5y ago
The term “virtue signaling” is a pet peeve of mine. Like the word “problematic” it’s too vague and broad to be useful. The implication seems to usually be that it’s all talk and no action. But if we’re talking, as we are now, that’s completely separate from my actions. Like, if I say “pollution is bad” and don’t do anything in my life to reduce pollution that’s virtue signaling, but it’s not if I’ve dedicated my life to reducing global pollution? How are you supposed to know what I have or have not done in real life during this convo. So either virtue signaling applies anytime someone expresses an opinion about something moral, in which case it’s a useless truism. Or it’s meant to express doubt or challenge someone to prove that they take action, in which case who owes you proof? Putting a statement of support for a cause in your open source repo may or may not have any direct impact, but it is personal expression - and in general I am for personal expression.
- prepend 5y ago
  > general I am for personal expression. I’m for signal, not noise. I don’t want stupid personal expressions, I want meaningful or beautiful or somehow useful. I used to work with a person who would raise their hand in every presentation and say “security is important how is this software secure” even when it wasn’t anywhere remotely relevant. It was counterproductive and distracting and wasted valuable time that we could use to do something better.
  - kennywinker 5y ago
    > I don’t want stupid personal expressions, I want meaningful or beautiful or somehow useful. I guess I feel that improving our world, ending war, making our society more just and fair, these are meaningful, useful, and beautiful things to do. They might be some of the most meaningful things actually. > It was counterproductive and distracting and wasted valuable time that we could use to do something better. This is an argument about context. Security IS important, I imagine we'd both agree, but maybe not in that specific situation. Like if I bring up climate change while we're rushing to the hospital after a car accident. Climate change is a real and important issue, but right now it's a distraction. So is an open source website an inappropriate context to indicate support for movements or disapproval of others? I don't think so, but if you do calling it "virtue signaling" isn't what you mean, and is actually a counterproductive distraction.
qsdf38100 5y ago
You can say this whenever someone speaks out about something. You can always dismiss what they say by saying they don’t actually care, it’s just to look good. It tells more about _your_ beliefs and what _you_ stand for than anything. It seems a lot of HNers don’t stand for freedom too much. They stand for not being annoyed by the fallouts of this war.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

mrtranscendence 5y ago

This is a bad take. The purpose is, at least partially, that the author of the package subscribes to these opinions rather than others, sure. But this doesn't necessarily have anything to do with them being "right" or not. I don't get a lot of capital at Hacker News by saying that I support Black Lives Matter, but if I do so (and I'm doing so) does that mean I only want to display that I subscribe to the "correct" opinions? Plus, demonstrating what opinions are held is not the whole point. Part of it is telling others who support those causes that they're not alone. And it's also partially a "fuck you" to those who are triggered by mentions of causes like Black Lives Matter.

gadders 5y ago
I think the person concerned is taking zero personal risk by displaying a view that is backed up by 99% all of media (even if no 99% of all people). If they had a banner saying "Trump 2024" or "The AZOV Battalion are Nazis" I might not agree with them, but at least they are taking some personal risk of cancellation.
- noelsusman 5y ago
  Fox News is part of the media, conservatives cancel people too, and calling the Azov Battalion Nazis is not exactly controversial. They're pretty open about that. But mostly I'm wondering why it matters if they're taking a personal risk or not. How is that relevant to anything?
- Brotkrumen 5y ago
  Criticising the silent majority when they try not to be silent anymore with "youre not taking any risks, so stay silent" is a bad take.
  - gadders 5y ago
    I'm highlighting the emptiness of the moral grandstanding.
    - 5y ago

kdmccormick 5y ago

As a less cynical take: When it comes to Ukraine support, the banner could theoretically have an anti-propoganda effect. Russian and Chinese citizens are cut off or pushed away from world political discourse in a lot of ways, so using open source libraries as a vector for anti-Russia messaging could have a real effect on devs in those countries.

dunkelheit 5y ago
Two counterpoints: 1) the kind of people that use open-source libraries are one of the most plugged into the world political discourse parts of the population (BTW I am not sure that this is unequivocally a good thing, this "discourse" is just another brand of propaganda at this point) and 2) If some random open-source maintainer from across the ocean starts lecturing me that I am guilty of not overthrowing Putin or, worse, wipes my hard drive, I'm not going to be moved by this, I'm just going to think that this person is out of touch and be really annoyed.
- kdmccormick 5y ago