4 ms·
Is this a moral decision, or a legal decision? If it's a legal decision, one can understand that, but it also brings up questions about the project's independe
by dumbledoren 2y ago
Is this a moral decision, or a legal decision?
If it's a legal decision, one can understand that, but it also brings up questions about the project's independence and neutrality. Any country and organization can now deem the project a security risk as it would be considered an extension of US foreign policy.
But if it's the former, the hypocrisy is nauseating:
Numerous war criminals who killed millions are called 'elder statesmen' in the US and are venerated today. Even as of this moment, a massacre is going on in the Middle East with US government support. But, American contributors are not removed from the project for that. Neither Torvalds seems to be saying anything about the past and ongoing crimes of such actors as the US, but instead vilifying Russia and Russians.
Disgusting however you look at it.
Note: "Whataboutism!!!":
If one makes moral comparisons, and even further, accusations, he has to provide an objective framework for comparison. If it's not provided or the framework just applies to others, the accusations become mere smears and have no weight. It becomes precisely what Chomsky labels "Only talking about the crimes of others". Hypocritically vilifying and targeting others while the 'side you are on' commits bigger crimes than those targeted.
"But Americans oppose their government"
Few do. Most support it. Otherwise, the US government wouldn't be able to kill 1 million Iraqis, then an unknown number of Libyans, Syrians, and so on. Without even going back to cases like Vietnam etc. And the few Americans who oppose their government haven't been able to change anything. Whereas the government always had, and still has enough majority support behind it no matter what atrocity or genocide it commits or abets. With the moral logic proposed by those like Torvalds, all Americans should be expelled from the project as well. Note that this also applies to the people of all US-satellite countries that aided and abetted all those atrocities and genocides, including but not limited to the Iraq war.
- hulitu 2y ago> Is this a moral decision, or a legal decision? It is, unfortunately, both. For me it was a shock to see Linus acting like a 18 years old, but, i think, propaganda has reached its aim. However, i underestand a bit his position. He is caught between (global) politics so he cannot get out clean of this situation.
- ciupicri 2y agoWhile his answer was phrased in an odd and unusual way, Linus acted like someone who knows first hand how nasty Russia is. Just ask any European from the Eastern side of Europe how much they love or hate Russia.
- dumbledoren 2y agoYeah. Lets ask... https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/homesick-for-a-dictatorship-majority-of-eastern-germans-feel-life-better-under-communism-a-634122.html https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/homesick-for-a-...
- ciupicri 2y agoI don't see Russia, I see communism.
- protomolecule 2y agoThe results of the INSCOP poll: "In 2013, 36.8% of respondents had a positive perception of Russia" [0] [0] https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/11/15/7428852/ https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/11/15/7428852/
- ciupicri 2y agoNot your friendly neighbor, but nevertheless Russia was on a more decent path in 2013, so people were a bit more neutral. In 2023 only 18.3% had a positive perception.
- protomolecule 2y agoSo you think 36% is not a lot and I agree. What do you think about whopping 34% that in 2008 supported the bid to join NATO submitted by the Ukrainian president, who came to power after the so called Orange Revolution? Or 'it is different'? "The Institute for Strategic Research poll asked the following question: “The Russian leadership has put forward the condition that in order for Russia to have good neighborly relations with Ukraine, Ukraine must renounce its intent to join NATO. What do you think, should Ukraine agree to this?” While 45.4 percent supported renouncing the goal of NATO membership, 33.6 percent replied negatively and 21 percent were unable to answer." [0] [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20080912143617/http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373355 https://web.archive.org/web/20080912143617/http://www.jamest...
- ciupicri 2y ago> the US government wouldn't be able to kill 1 million Iraqis, then an unknown number of Libyans, Syrians, and so on Source?
- dumbledoren 2y agoThe UN rapporteurs who were tasked with overseeing the sanctions that the US effected against Iraq for the first one. And that was before the war. For the rest, use your imagination. ... Its 20 years after the war. There are still people who think that those who read their comments are dumb enough to get gaslighted on this topic.
- ciupicri 2y agoAre you talking about the United States of America or the United Nations? Because from what I see there's the United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and 661. Isn't Russia a member of this council? Anyway while I'm not a fan of sanctions, why should the US be forced to deal/trade with Iraq?
- worik 2y agoExactly this. Illustrates the point Yes. We are talking about the USA Been practicing mass murder (including genocide) since its inception