Russian coders removed from Linux maintainers list
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
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.
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.
https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/homesick-for-a-...
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.jamest...
As for Ukraine and NATO, who's Russia to decide what other countries do? I get it, polls are nice for armchair analysis, but in the end Ukrainians should probably organize a referendum and decide for themselves what they want now, not in 2008.
Who was the US in 1962 to decide what Cuba and the USSR do?
>Ukrainians should probably organize a referendum and decide for themselves what they want now, not in 2008
Sadly, the time for that has passed, now it is war that decides what will happen.
Meanwhile, if we were to draw an appropriate analogy to 1962 it would go like this: "Confrontation over missiles, Khrushchev backs down. However, JFK is not satisfied with Khrushchev's assurances that Cuba will not eventually form a NATO-like alliance with Russia, and doesn't like the idea of the countries forming close economic ties, and so decides to invade anyway, seeking regime change and a government in Cuba that is permanently friendly to US interests."
The latter (hypothetical) action would have been neocolonial aggression in the classic mold, of course - on top of being a transparent sham. And in exactly that vein, a much closer analogy to the course of action Putin actually took in Ukraine.
Yeah, it's hard to join NATO even if you want to, while your country is invaded.
>And there was no war for 50+ years.
There is still no war between Russia and the US.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis#Averted_n...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#Kennedy's_escalati...
Kennedy believed another failure to stop communist expansion would irreparably damage US credibility. He was determined to "draw a line in the sand" and prevent a communist victory in Vietnam. He told James Reston of The New York Times after the Vienna summit with Khrushchev, "Now we have a problem making our power credible and Vietnam looks like the place."
As Žižek teaches us: everything happens twice -- first as tragedy, then as farce.That line actually originates from Karl Marx's The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte: "Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice...the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce." Žižek often references this concept, but it’s Marx who coined it in his analysis of historical repetition.
You need to really work on the depth of your historical understanding and get off of Mastodon or Lemmy, which I'm guessing is why I mistook your addledness for Twitter.
But if that's the only defense you have for the current farce -- sure, go ahead and run with it.
Source?
...
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.
Anyway while I'm not a fan of sanctions, why should the US be forced to deal/trade with Iraq?
Illustrates the point
Yes. We are talking about the USA
Been practicing mass murder (including genocide) since its inception