FailForward @FailForward@social.cleverlibre.org

@wolf480pl While I see where you are probably coming from (philosophically), I rather believe that in terms of social interactions people are free to do whatever they want as far as (at least) 1) it's legal in their jurisdiction; 2) they are not harming other people, and 3) are ready to bear consequences of their decision.

While 1 is clear, to add to 2, I do not see personal refusal to engage with somebody else as harm. At the same time, when a group of people does the same, that is different up to a point of becoming discrimination which is harmful indeed. And somewhere in between lies a thin boundary when a freedom of group of people negatively affects safety of others and that is to be tackled. As for 3, anybody is free to dislike me back, no problem with that. Yes, it hurts sometimes, yet, it is people's right and also their personal responsibility.

@piggo

@wolf480pl That seems to me a bit overreaching. Why would you draw equivalence between A) my personal decision not to engage with somebody and B) my "country" harming their country? No, we certainly don't agree that A equals B here. Nor am I able to understand why would anybody actually take that stance. Those are 2 different things to me.

@piggo

@pony Maybe yt knows something about you what is so deeply buried within your subconscious mind that even you have no clue about it 😄 .

@amytabb Welcome and enjoy!

@girls_can Welcome!

@skrimp24 welcome

@wolf480pl

> We don't just go out and lynch people.

Sure. And that's a good thing, I hope we agree on that. I also don't observe e.g., Czech companies doing it - which was start of this interaction. So where do we disagree?

@piggo

@wolf480pl Well, our conversation started with the question whether it's OK for a company to choose where and with whom it does business with. And there indeed it's anybody's choice - as far as otherwise legal, morality is not an issue, it's a freedom of choice. Here we are sliding into a somewhat different territory.

@piggo

On the complexities of content moderation vs. Twitter + antics of Mr. Musk saga:

https://nitter.it/yishan/status/1586955288061452289

I find this thread really interesting and enlightening.

@wolf480pl And yet we agreed not to sell alcohol to under-18s, or weapons to members of societies we don't like. See, it's not all black or white. I guess we both agree what is going on and why it is so. Where we perhaps differ is where we stand on the spectrum between the reality vs. where we wish the reality were.

@piggo

@wolf480pl Of course you are right, there are limits to a company's and individual's freedom. In the case you cited, it would be unconstitutional in most countries I care about. But it's more subtle than that.

* **freedoms**: A company or an individual are free to do business as they see fit as far as it is 1) legal and 2) they are ready to bear consequences of their decisions. Moral or not. It boils down to a simple thing: I am free to chose my friends and business partners. And I also am not obliged to be friendly to everybody. And on top, nobody has a right to tell me who I shall be friends with. You have that right too. And I am sure you exercise it as well.

* **society in/out dichotomy** In the end, while we agreed as societies that discriminating against our own citizens/fellow society members on the basis of race, religion, etc. is wrong (for good reasons) = non-discrimination against fellow society members; note, nothing stops us (at this point in history) to discriminate against citizens of other societies = discrimination against non-members of our societies. And it is a thing happening every single day: did you notice the last time you flew different queues for "home" passport holders and "alien" passport holders? Or the whole visa, or residency concepts... In other words, discrimination against non-members of a society is at this point in history an accepted thing. And personally, I see the point of it, even if I would wish to live in a society where that were not true.

@piggo

@wolf480pl We are living in a free society. Individuals and companies are free to "apply sanctions" as they see fit, there is nothing wrong about it - as far as they are also wiling and prepared to bear the consequences of those decisions. I am not obliged to do business with people I don't like, or don't want to do business with. Is it stupid from somebody's perspective? Maybe. Silly? Perhaps too, but that is how freedom works. I don't need to coordinate with my government on that.

Whether I am interested in not alienating ordinary Russians is also besides the point. They do the job better than I ever could (c.f., e.g., https://nitter.it/JuliaDavisNews, or francis_scarr's feed).

@piggo

@wolf480pl I agree. But either way, it's on us, the civic society to check on them too - after all, money tends to trump morale, so relying on the govt only is probably naive.

@piggo

@piggo That's a great shame indeed. For now there is a significant push in the country to "move something" about this, but I wouldn't have high hopes for it to go anywhere. We'll see. Ostrich politics at work in this little land of innocent and ignorant.

But let's not pretend it's all rosy elsewhere. I recommend reading kamilkazani's twitter - it is very instructive - the guy is stirring the pot on German, Czech and other military exports to Russia quite a bit (especially Rheinmetal et al). For instance this thread (and related ones from September) are a good start: https://nitter.it/kamilkazani/status/1567882093585203200#m

And his findings lead to news stories later picked up - for instance that Czech stuff ended in October in mainstream press in CZ and the German connection findings too.

@wolf480pl

@piggo you miss him, right?