this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
1095 points (100.0% liked)

196

16459 readers
2281 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] drathvedro@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Eh... both are questionable. Morally superior, maybe, but definitely not right.

[–] Kase@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Could you explain the difference?

[–] drathvedro@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

Both aren't really sustainable. Open source doesn't pay live-able wages without some kind of proprietary component and going full vegan is very detrimental to the health and sometimes even the cause itself. I'm not a dictionary and english isn't my first language, but in my understanding, the "right" thing should at least be viable, without taking compromises from the other side.

To clarify, I'm not saying that open-source and veganism are bad or we shouldn't aim towards those. What I'm saying is that, while half-opensource like redhat and half-veganism (on supplements) is viable, so is all-meat diet and all-proprietary software, but not going full RMS opensource-only and getting rid of all animal-based products without causing even more damage to the ecosystem with the alternatives. Maybe we're missing some puzzle pieces (like properly implemented communism) or the end-goal is a bit off, or, maybe, going half-way is actually the "right" thing all along.