133
Ladybird web browser now funded by GitHub co-founder, promises ‘no code’ from rivals (devclass.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/foss@beehaw.org
156 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 2 years ago (10 children)

I'm sure a few bad people make a living maintaining it, and all the roads you depend on everyday.

Bad people are everywhere, doing all sorts of jobs you appreciate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    Sure, there is no ethical consumerism under capitalism. But I can do harm reduction. When someone says or does something shitty, I can avoid or stop using their product. In your example, if a road worker came out publically with some transphobic nonsense, I could raise that to my local road authority and they would likely lose their job. Are there more people that have shitty views in this theoretical? Maybe, but they will be less likely to spew them if they know there are consequences.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Is it harm reduction if all the bad people couldn't make an honest living? Would it be better or worse if they were living on the street? Do you think they might resort to criminality also?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago*

    Given that what these people are being criticized for are not intrinsic traits, those people have the option to change their behavior in order to not be ostracized. I am certainty not under any obligation to give anyone my business.

    "What if all the bad people lost their jobs?"

    Well, that certainly might encourage them to rethink whether being bad is working out for them.

    And yes, I'd say that route sounds to me like it will reduce harm in several ways.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I'm not sure of the origin, but that is a fair point. I typically us it in the context of there is no way to find a harm free source of anything in a capitalist society, so you have to find the path with the least amount of harm in it. That is basically what you are saying, but just tweaking the stated definition of ethical.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    something is unethical without stating or at least implying a specific ethical philosophy.

    Which is why I followed it up by saying the best we can do is harm reduction by choosing the less harmful paths when we find them. Nothing you are saying is different to what I said, just a different wording

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent