4 ms·

Honestly I think military is just a scapegoat for these people, their real mission (like many before them) seems to be using the lack of CoC acceptance as their

Honestly I think military is just a scapegoat for these people, their real mission (like many before them) seems to be using the lack of CoC acceptance as their own weapon to justify bullying them for having opinions they don't like. That has always been the MO. They want the CoC to be able to silence undesired speech in the first place, and if they refuse, it becomes their strawman to allow them to keep arguing the same thing all over again. To me this reeks of the "paradox of intolerance" e.g. "you cannot be inclusive without allowing people to say things you don't like".

4gotunameagain 3y ago
While the phenomenon you describe certainly exists, it is vital to separate it from the phenomenon of not wanting to support the US "defense" sector. I do not identify as a leftist, and would not be considered one, but as an aerospace engineer I would never work for something that aids the US war machine. Those weapons are never used in "defense". Do they defend an unsustainable way of life ? Sure.
- yakshaving_jgt 3y ago
  The last time I saw one of these weapons in use was when I was standing in my kitchen in Ukraine and through the window I could see a missile take down a russian suicide drone. How is that not defence?
  - 4gotunameagain 3y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States#21st-century_wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Uni... Ukraine is the only case. And let's not forget that the US is indirectly responsible for the Russian invasion. I know that it is very hard for you to see things objectively, and I am sorry for what you and your country is experiencing.
    - jagger27 3y ago
      The objectives of a land grabbing tyrant are what’s objective. You can’t be serious.
      - 4gotunameagain 3y ago
        As you might be aware, which I cannot be certain of given your insubstantial reply, international geopolitics are usually a bit more nuanced than an aggressive "land grabbing tyrant".
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        matthewmacleod 3y ago
        And as you might be aware, sometimes they aren’t.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        Are you asking what the nuance is in this case? Ukraine is a strategically important region to Russia. They don't have to invade as long as they can threaten to invade, and thereby get concessions without armed conflict. If Ukraine joins NATO then Russia could no longer credibly threaten to invade because it would put Russia at war with NATO. Ukraine about to join NATO is thereby destabilizing, because then Russia has to choose between invading immediately before they join, or doing nothing and permanently losing their leverage. This does not make the invasion justified but it makes it expected. US diplomats knew this perfectly well and pushed for Ukraine to join NATO anyway. It's like telling your friend to corner a vicious dog. The dog is not innocent, the dog is going to bite them and you knew that and told them to do it anyway.
        actionfromafar 3y ago
        It would be nice if this story more often were told from the perspective that the friend also has agency. Maybe the friend eyed the odds and thought: Yep, better deal with this damn dog once and for all. Can't live in uncertainty like this, never knowing when the dog will break in to the back yard and bite the kids Ukraine is stuck between a rock and hard place, but they also have agency.
- ranger_danger 3y ago
  > not wanting to support the US "defense" sector. Better stop using computers and the internet then.
matthewmacleod 3y ago
I think it’s entirely valid for a community to decide they don’t want participation and funding from a defence contractor. That isn’t a scapegoat - it’s the actual goal. You may or may not agree with this stance and that is totally fine. You’re still free to use the software for whatever you want; you can also go ahead and fork it, or create a new community endorsing this use. If enough people agree then it will thrive. That’s the beauty of it! A specific community has the freedom—within the bounds of legality—to decide who is welcome to participate.
- mongol 3y ago
  The problem is, there is not a community that is in agreement about this. There is a subset of the community, that like to pretend they are and speak for "the community", and when they get pushback from those that disagree they call it concern-trolling.
  - matthewmacleod 3y ago
    I'm confused about what the problem is then – why are you paying attention to those people?
    - mongol 3y ago
      How could I not? They are incredibly loud.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- ranger_danger 3y ago
  > I think it’s entirely valid for a community to decide they don’t want participation and funding from a defence contractor. Be that as it may, we wouldn't have computers or the internet if everyone acted like that.

4gotunameagain 3y ago

While the phenomenon you describe certainly exists, it is vital to separate it from the phenomenon of not wanting to support the US "defense" sector. I do not identify as a leftist, and would not be considered one, but as an aerospace engineer I would never work for something that aids the US war machine. Those weapons are never used in "defense". Do they defend an unsustainable way of life ? Sure.

yakshaving_jgt 3y ago
The last time I saw one of these weapons in use was when I was standing in my kitchen in Ukraine and through the window I could see a missile take down a russian suicide drone. How is that not defence?
- 4gotunameagain 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States#21st-century_wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Uni... Ukraine is the only case. And let's not forget that the US is indirectly responsible for the Russian invasion. I know that it is very hard for you to see things objectively, and I am sorry for what you and your country is experiencing.
  - jagger27 3y ago
    The objectives of a land grabbing tyrant are what’s objective. You can’t be serious.
    - 4gotunameagain 3y ago
      As you might be aware, which I cannot be certain of given your insubstantial reply, international geopolitics are usually a bit more nuanced than an aggressive "land grabbing tyrant".
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - matthewmacleod 3y ago
        And as you might be aware, sometimes they aren’t.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        Are you asking what the nuance is in this case? Ukraine is a strategically important region to Russia. They don't have to invade as long as they can threaten to invade, and thereby get concessions without armed conflict. If Ukraine joins NATO then Russia could no longer credibly threaten to invade because it would put Russia at war with NATO. Ukraine about to join NATO is thereby destabilizing, because then Russia has to choose between invading immediately before they join, or doing nothing and permanently losing their leverage. This does not make the invasion justified but it makes it expected. US diplomats knew this perfectly well and pushed for Ukraine to join NATO anyway. It's like telling your friend to corner a vicious dog. The dog is not innocent, the dog is going to bite them and you knew that and told them to do it anyway.
        actionfromafar 3y ago
        It would be nice if this story more often were told from the perspective that the friend also has agency. Maybe the friend eyed the odds and thought: Yep, better deal with this damn dog once and for all. Can't live in uncertainty like this, never knowing when the dog will break in to the back yard and bite the kids Ukraine is stuck between a rock and hard place, but they also have agency.
ranger_danger 3y ago
> not wanting to support the US "defense" sector. Better stop using computers and the internet then.

matthewmacleod 3y ago

I think it’s entirely valid for a community to decide they don’t want participation and funding from a defence contractor. That isn’t a scapegoat - it’s the actual goal. You may or may not agree with this stance and that is totally fine. You’re still free to use the software for whatever you want; you can also go ahead and fork it, or create a new community endorsing this use. If enough people agree then it will thrive. That’s the beauty of it! A specific community has the freedom—within the bounds of legality—to decide who is welcome to participate.

mongol 3y ago
The problem is, there is not a community that is in agreement about this. There is a subset of the community, that like to pretend they are and speak for "the community", and when they get pushback from those that disagree they call it concern-trolling.
- matthewmacleod 3y ago
  I'm confused about what the problem is then – why are you paying attention to those people?
  - mongol 3y ago
    How could I not? They are incredibly loud.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
ranger_danger 3y ago
> I think it’s entirely valid for a community to decide they don’t want participation and funding from a defence contractor. Be that as it may, we wouldn't have computers or the internet if everyone acted like that.