Mardy (Articoli su philosophia)http://mardy.it/it/categories/philosophia.atom2024-02-02T20:11:02ZAlberto MardeganNikolaLeaving Canonical, againhttp://mardy.it/it/blog/2022/12/leaving-canonical-again.html2022-12-03T10:03:58+03:002022-12-03T10:03:58+03:00Alberto Mardegan<p>For the <a href="http://mardy.it/it/blog/2017/04/looking-for-new-adventures.html">second time</a>, I'm being shown
the door at Canonical. Well, technically, this time it was me who handed over my
resignation, but that was only after I was told in very clear terms that I
would eventually be fired. No timeframe was given, but since I don't
particularly enjoy the feeling of checking my e-mail every morning to find out
whether this is the day when I'm being fired, I decided to take the initiative
and leave myself.</p>
<p>The reason? Those who know me well might suspect that it's related to some
complications with that fact that I'm living in Russia, or maybe with some
remarks I might have made about the war in Ukraine or about other current
events, since <a href="http://mardy.it/it/blog/2019/09/principles-and-privileges.html">I tent to be quite outspoken and
provocative</a>. Nothing of all that: it's about my
<strong>refusal to get vaccinated</strong> against COVID-19; unfortunately, it has now
become apparent that I'm not the only one leaving, and other employees who have
refused either to get vaccinated or to disclose their vaccination status are
also being shown the door (including people who have been in the company for
more than 10 years). This has sparked some internal discussions in the company, and
several different point of views have been voiced: from those who welcome this
policy and would like to see it extended to flu vaccinations (which makes a lot
of sense, since once you've accepted to renounce your freedom in order to
protect the weak, you should accept it for all transmissible diseases), to
those who voiced concerns about the legality of this move, or would have found
this reasonable one year ago but not in the current situation as restrictions
are getting lifted and the current variants are less scary than the previous
ones; those who pointed out that being vaccinated has little impact on
transmissibility of the virus; that we are mostly a remote company and we could
instead have exceptions to allow unvaccinated people (or people with a weak
immune system) to remotely attend the few in-person meetings we have;
that as long as there are no vaccination mandates for plane flights and other
guests attending the same hotel premises where we meet, mandating employees to
get vaccinated might not help a lot; and whether this is a decision that a
company should make, or shouldn't it rather lobby the politics to have it
mandated at state level. I think there's merit to all these arguments, but I'm
personally not particularly interested in discussing any of them, since my
point is another.</p>
<p>Before talking about that, though, let me clearly set one thing straight: I
hate lies, and <strong>Canonical's management is lying</strong> about this matter. The
vaccination mandate measure is being justified on the grounds that it allows
employees to travel (something that I've been able to do as unvaccinated
throughout the last two years, even when restrictions were at their peak) and,
most importantly, to protect our weaker colleagues. This is what I find most
disgusting: using genuine feelings like love and compassion to justify
repressive measures. No, dear Canonical, this has nothing to do with protecting
the weak; not only because a vaccinated person can still spread the virus (and
our employees know this from first-hand experience), but also because, if this
was the real reason, then you'd accept people who have recently recovered from
COVID-19, since <a href="https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/75/1/e545/6563799">immunisation after recovery is not worse than that of
vaccination</a>; but you
don't, as I was explicitly told by HR that any previous infection is irrelevant.
It's also significant that you didn't establish clear rules about how often
one needs to get vaccinated, since all recent scientific literature on vaccine
efficacy shows that this is not a minor detail. Why not just be honest with
ourselves, and admit it's <a href="https://www.enr.com/articles/52481-us-announces-revised-vaccine-mandate-rules-for-federal-contractors">just for
business</a>?
Being open about the fact that having a fully vaccinated workforce can grant us
access to more business deals would not change a lot in the practical life of
the (ex-)employees, but at least we won't feel that the company is treating us
as fools while embellishing its image with fake care and compassion. Or, if
there are other reasons, state them, because these ones don't stand up to logic
scrutiny.</p>
<p>Another thing that doesn't match (though maybe this is a timing issue, so I
cannot for sure call it out as a lie) is the fact that HR claims to have an
exemption process through which one could opt-out of the vaccination for
religious beliefs. Well, I was explicitly told in very clear terms by HR that
no exceptions would be made on either moral or religious grounds. But maybe
this has changed since the time I was told this (mid October) and now?</p>
<p>Here, finally, let me state why I believe that such a mandate is wrong. The
first thing I want to put on the table is that even though I see very little
reason for this mandate (given all what we know about the virus mutability and
infectiousness, the shortcomings of the vaccines, etc. — by the way, if you are
into science I suggest reading <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9062939/">this
article</a> which raises
some questions you won't hear in mainstream media and has a comprehensive
bibliography for further study), I recognize that in principle there are very
solid reasons for vaccination mandates, for example in the case where a virus
is extremely lethal, its symptoms otherwise uncurable and the vaccine is 100%
safe and highly effective. But even in that case, while getting vaccinated
myself, I would still oppose a mandate. Why? Because of freedom, which trumps
everything. The choice is never between a healthy life and freedom: if there's
no freedom, there's no life worth living. Even if some decision has very solid
reasons behind it, this doesn't automatically make it a good decision.</p>
<p>Let me make a few examples: if a company (I'm talking about companies here, but
the reasoning could be extended to states as well) decided that smokers will be
fired, or that those who drink alcoholics will be fired, or that you cannot eat
meat, or that you must take a pill whenever your head aches, or that
transgender people must undergo gender reassignment surgery, or that
everyone should wear a black band on their arm whenever a relative of a
colleague dies, or that employees' households must use the product made by the
employer, or that they have to excercise sports for at least two hours per
week, etc.; I would be categorically opposed to every single of these
impositions, despite recognising that there are reasons behind each of them,
and that I even dream of a world in which some of their goals are attained
(could we just all be fit and healthy?!). Because I think that personal freedom
is more important. You can always find good reasons to justify this or that
action; surely, if we think back at the fascist and totalitarian regimes of the
first half of last century, we must acknowledge that they were supported by the
(overwhelming?) majority of the population. An effective propaganda machine
could convince the population on this and that matter, but ultimately it's the
population who <em>reasoned</em> and accepted that storytelling. Nowadays the
situation is different, but the mechanisms are the same, except that propaganda
has become way more effective (<a href="http://mardy.it/it/blog/2022/11/the-idiotism-of-software-developers.html">or have we become
dumber?</a>) and aligned over the
same direction, thanks to the globalisation process.</p>
<p>I'm well aware that societies are made of rules and therefore inevitably
restrict personal freedom: Western societies, for example, forbid nudity in
public places, and that's something I accept because it's part of my culture;
it's a rule deeply entrenched in our history, and I don't feel it as a burden.
I'm convinced, however, that the evolution of human society should be that, as
we become more conscious, we should be moving towards more free societies, with
fewer rules and more tolerant for diversity.</p><p>For the <a href="http://mardy.it/it/blog/2017/04/looking-for-new-adventures.html">second time</a>, I'm being shown
the door at Canonical. Well, technically, this time it was me who handed over my
resignation, but that was only after I was told in very clear terms that I
would eventually be fired. No timeframe was given, but since I don't
particularly enjoy the feeling of checking my e-mail every morning to find out
whether this is the day when I'm being fired, I decided to take the initiative
and leave myself.</p>
<p>The reason? Those who know me well might suspect that it's related to some
complications with that fact that I'm living in Russia, or maybe with some
remarks I might have made about the war in Ukraine or about other current
events, since <a href="http://mardy.it/it/blog/2019/09/principles-and-privileges.html">I tent to be quite outspoken and
provocative</a>. Nothing of all that: it's about my
<strong>refusal to get vaccinated</strong> against COVID-19; unfortunately, it has now
become apparent that I'm not the only one leaving, and other employees who have
refused either to get vaccinated or to disclose their vaccination status are
also being shown the door (including people who have been in the company for
more than 10 years). This has sparked some internal discussions in the company, and
several different point of views have been voiced: from those who welcome this
policy and would like to see it extended to flu vaccinations (which makes a lot
of sense, since once you've accepted to renounce your freedom in order to
protect the weak, you should accept it for all transmissible diseases), to
those who voiced concerns about the legality of this move, or would have found
this reasonable one year ago but not in the current situation as restrictions
are getting lifted and the current variants are less scary than the previous
ones; those who pointed out that being vaccinated has little impact on
transmissibility of the virus; that we are mostly a remote company and we could
instead have exceptions to allow unvaccinated people (or people with a weak
immune system) to remotely attend the few in-person meetings we have;
that as long as there are no vaccination mandates for plane flights and other
guests attending the same hotel premises where we meet, mandating employees to
get vaccinated might not help a lot; and whether this is a decision that a
company should make, or shouldn't it rather lobby the politics to have it
mandated at state level. I think there's merit to all these arguments, but I'm
personally not particularly interested in discussing any of them, since my
point is another.</p>
<p>Before talking about that, though, let me clearly set one thing straight: I
hate lies, and <strong>Canonical's management is lying</strong> about this matter. The
vaccination mandate measure is being justified on the grounds that it allows
employees to travel (something that I've been able to do as unvaccinated
throughout the last two years, even when restrictions were at their peak) and,
most importantly, to protect our weaker colleagues. This is what I find most
disgusting: using genuine feelings like love and compassion to justify
repressive measures. No, dear Canonical, this has nothing to do with protecting
the weak; not only because a vaccinated person can still spread the virus (and
our employees know this from first-hand experience), but also because, if this
was the real reason, then you'd accept people who have recently recovered from
COVID-19, since <a href="https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/75/1/e545/6563799">immunisation after recovery is not worse than that of
vaccination</a>; but you
don't, as I was explicitly told by HR that any previous infection is irrelevant.
It's also significant that you didn't establish clear rules about how often
one needs to get vaccinated, since all recent scientific literature on vaccine
efficacy shows that this is not a minor detail. Why not just be honest with
ourselves, and admit it's <a href="https://www.enr.com/articles/52481-us-announces-revised-vaccine-mandate-rules-for-federal-contractors">just for
business</a>?
Being open about the fact that having a fully vaccinated workforce can grant us
access to more business deals would not change a lot in the practical life of
the (ex-)employees, but at least we won't feel that the company is treating us
as fools while embellishing its image with fake care and compassion. Or, if
there are other reasons, state them, because these ones don't stand up to logic
scrutiny.</p>
<p>Another thing that doesn't match (though maybe this is a timing issue, so I
cannot for sure call it out as a lie) is the fact that HR claims to have an
exemption process through which one could opt-out of the vaccination for
religious beliefs. Well, I was explicitly told in very clear terms by HR that
no exceptions would be made on either moral or religious grounds. But maybe
this has changed since the time I was told this (mid October) and now?</p>
<p>Here, finally, let me state why I believe that such a mandate is wrong. The
first thing I want to put on the table is that even though I see very little
reason for this mandate (given all what we know about the virus mutability and
infectiousness, the shortcomings of the vaccines, etc. — by the way, if you are
into science I suggest reading <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9062939/">this
article</a> which raises
some questions you won't hear in mainstream media and has a comprehensive
bibliography for further study), I recognize that in principle there are very
solid reasons for vaccination mandates, for example in the case where a virus
is extremely lethal, its symptoms otherwise uncurable and the vaccine is 100%
safe and highly effective. But even in that case, while getting vaccinated
myself, I would still oppose a mandate. Why? Because of freedom, which trumps
everything. The choice is never between a healthy life and freedom: if there's
no freedom, there's no life worth living. Even if some decision has very solid
reasons behind it, this doesn't automatically make it a good decision.</p>
<p>Let me make a few examples: if a company (I'm talking about companies here, but
the reasoning could be extended to states as well) decided that smokers will be
fired, or that those who drink alcoholics will be fired, or that you cannot eat
meat, or that you must take a pill whenever your head aches, or that
transgender people must undergo gender reassignment surgery, or that
everyone should wear a black band on their arm whenever a relative of a
colleague dies, or that employees' households must use the product made by the
employer, or that they have to excercise sports for at least two hours per
week, etc.; I would be categorically opposed to every single of these
impositions, despite recognising that there are reasons behind each of them,
and that I even dream of a world in which some of their goals are attained
(could we just all be fit and healthy?!). Because I think that personal freedom
is more important. You can always find good reasons to justify this or that
action; surely, if we think back at the fascist and totalitarian regimes of the
first half of last century, we must acknowledge that they were supported by the
(overwhelming?) majority of the population. An effective propaganda machine
could convince the population on this and that matter, but ultimately it's the
population who <em>reasoned</em> and accepted that storytelling. Nowadays the
situation is different, but the mechanisms are the same, except that propaganda
has become way more effective (<a href="http://mardy.it/it/blog/2022/11/the-idiotism-of-software-developers.html">or have we become
dumber?</a>) and aligned over the
same direction, thanks to the globalisation process.</p>
<p>I'm well aware that societies are made of rules and therefore inevitably
restrict personal freedom: Western societies, for example, forbid nudity in
public places, and that's something I accept because it's part of my culture;
it's a rule deeply entrenched in our history, and I don't feel it as a burden.
I'm convinced, however, that the evolution of human society should be that, as
we become more conscious, we should be moving towards more free societies, with
fewer rules and more tolerant for diversity.</p>The “idiotism” of software developershttp://mardy.it/it/blog/2022/11/the-idiotism-of-software-developers.html2022-11-08T20:11:55+03:002022-11-08T20:11:55+03:00Alberto Mardegan<p>Before you get angry at me for this title, please let me state that I count
myself in the number of the “idiots” and, secondly, that what I mean by
“idiotism” here is not to be intended as an offence, but as some traits of
mindset which are typical of very logical brains.</p>
<p>Some months ago I finished reading Dostoevskiy's “The Idiot”, a book about an
exceedingly good-hearted man, prince Lev Mishkin, whose behaviour was puzzling
the people around him so much that they thought of him as an idiot. Sure, the
fact that he was suffering from epilepsy didn't help, but it was far from being
the primary reason for their thinking, since his epileptic seizures were very
rare (if I remember correctly, only two occurred during the time of the story)
and everybody's opinion had already formed well ahead of witnessing him in such
a state.</p>
<p>He was an idiot because he was open, trustful, and especially because he could
not “read between the lines” of what was been said to him: his social conduct
was straight, and although he was following at his best the customs that he had
been taught, he was supposedly awkward and unable to perceive and parse all the
messages that are implicitly conveyed by social behaviours and human
interactions. I added the word “supposedly” because, as a matter of fact, his
behaviours were all perfectly normal for me: I only noticed their awkwardness
when it was pointed out by the other characters, at which point I couldn't help
smiling and acknowledging that, indeed, that thing he did was weird.</p>
<p>However, he was a good and caring person, and not without talents: he had an
interest in calligraphy, and everybody liked to listen to him, as his speech
was insightful and his thoughts were original. I wonder how many of my readers
can identify themselves in such a character?</p>
<p>I definitely can. I won't get into the details, but I've felt many times on me
the amused or puzzled glance of people (like that time in high school when I
could not open a door in front of dozens of people, and I heard them say “So,
that guy is the genius of mathematics?” — I'll never forget that!), often
without understanding the reason for their reactions. Still, generally people
seem to like my company and be genuinely interested in talking to me.</p>
<p>So, what's wrong with prince Lev Mishkin, me, and maybe with you too? Well, a few
things, I would say. I'm not going to claim any scientific truth on what I'm
going to say, these are just my own impressions and deductions, which seem
to be shared by other people in the interwebs too, judging from a quick search
I did; take them for what they are.</p>
<p>The first thing I notice is some common traits between us and autistic people:
we tend to work better with things, rather than with people; we can to focus on
a certain thing (work, a mathematical problem, a game) and forget about the
world around us; we have our unique hobbies, like solving puzzles, arguing
about a specific and very narrow topic, learning artificial (both human and
programming) languages; it's as if we needed to build a small, better world
where we would feel safe and at ease.</p>
<p>The other thing, which I actually consider harmful and which I put efforts to
change in my own life, is the fact that it's extremely easy to get us
interested into a specific aspect of a problem, and make us forget (or just not
notice) the big picture. That small part that we are looking at is stimulating
and challenging, and we are led to think that it's core of the issue, and maybe
of all the issues that affect our world. What is often missing is the ability
to take one step back and try to look at the issue from a different angle, and
especially the ability to listen for counter arguments; I mean, we do listen to
them, but since we have, in a way, “gamified” the issue, even when we think
that we are open to listen for the other side, we are in reality trying to win
the counter-arguments, rather than genuinely trying to understanding them.</p>
<p>Another thing which we have, is faith. Yes, you read it right: even though the
IT world is probably the one with the highest percentage of atheists, men
always need something to believe in. We just don't realize it, but we do hold a
blind trust in certain persons and authorities. This does not mean that this
trust lives forever and cannot be broken, but this generally does not occur
because of a conscious realization of ours. Much more often than we'd like to
admit, the reason why we lose faith in a certain person or authority is because
<em>the rest of the persons and authorities that we trust has told us so</em>. In
other words, even if there's undoubtedly a reasoning of our own, the full
realisation and conviction occurs after having collected and compared the
opinions (or statements) of those we trust. The net result is that the IT
population is the one most trustful of the mainstream media, because it's the
mainstream media who has more “voice”: that's where the most <em>reputable</em>
journalists, scientists, activists are (and “reputable” is the key word here,
since this reputation is recursively created by the mainstream media
themselves or by their sponsors).</p>
<p>I might be biased by my own experience here, but it seems to me that there
isn't a group of people more homogenous in their political (and generally,
world) views than that of IT workers. When, in 2018, I saw the leaked video of
Google's co-founder Sergei Brin and other executives' reaction at Trump's
presidential victory, what I found most surprising was not the contents of the
speech, as they were mostly mainstream opinions, but rather the fact that all
this could be said in a company meeting. Something like this, I though, could
never happen in an European company, as political matters are a conventional
tabu in the work environment. But the point is that Brin and others could say
those words only because <em>they knew</em> that the overwhelming majority of the
audience shared the same opinion. I don't think you could find the same
homogeneity of thought among shop assistants or philosophy professors.</p>
<p>Assuming that you have followed me this far into my rambling, and that you
recognize that there might be some truth in what I wrote, you might now be
wondering if there's a way to counterbalance our “idiotic” traits.
Unfortunately I don't have a full answer, as myself am only halfway there (but
maybe I'm too optimistic here? and does this road even ever end?), but there
are a few things that I think are absolutely worth trying:</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p>Talk with people. Better if face to face, or at least in a video call; just
1-on-1, avoid groups, or you'll get on the defensive and try to defend your
position for the sake of not losing the argument in front of an audience. But
it's not a fight. Your goal when talking should not be that of convincing or
getting convinced, but rather just to <em>understand</em> the other points of view.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Read both sides of the narrative. Try to see the other party's argument as
they themselves present it, and not how it is presented in the media you
usually read. Media often use this trick, to either invite “clown
representatives” of the other point of view just to ridicule it, or they give them
too little time, or extrapolate their answer out of context, just to make
them appear unsensible.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Always assume that other people are smart, and that no one is bad.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Whatever the argument, try to answer the key question: “Cui bono?” (who
profits?) to be at least aware of all the hidden interests behind this and
that. They don't necessarily invalidate a position, but they must be
considered.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Lose faith. The only faith you are allowed to keep is the faith in God (or
Gods), if you have it: but men, theories, institutions, authorities
(including religious ones!), these must always be assumed to be imperfect and
not blindly trusted. People serve their interests or can be manipulated. Try
always to start from a clean table and an empty mind, and see if they have
enough arguments to convince you. </p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Do never assume “They can not <em>all</em> be wrong” or “If this were wrong, at
least some media would report it”. It just doesn't work this way, this is
again a matter of having faith in the majority. Think of how many times in
(recent) history you were presented an unambiguous truth, which later came
out to be a scam (Iraq war being a famous one).</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Defocus. You might be spending a lot of energy into something that's not
worth it. I mean, feel free to pursue whatever hobbies you like, as long as
they make you feel better. But if you think you have a <em>mission</em>, think twice
about it. Think about the world you'd like to live in, and whether/how this
mission contributes to it.<sup id="fnref:saudi"><a class="footnote-ref" href="http://mardy.it/it/blog/2022/11/the-idiotism-of-software-developers.html#fn:saudi">2</a></sup></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Ask questions. Be curious. Be challenging. For any topic, there are questions
that have not been answered in mainstream media<sup id="fnref:refugees"><a class="footnote-ref" href="http://mardy.it/it/blog/2022/11/the-idiotism-of-software-developers.html#fn:refugees">1</a></sup>. Find the answer,
then find explanations, never stopping at the first satisfactory one, but
always get at least two competing answers. From here, ask more questions,
rinse and repeat. And at every step ask yourself this: why didn't I know
about this? Is someone trying to hide the truth from me?</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Aim at improving. Whenever you read something or talk to people, keep a
humble attitude and try to be challenged. Your goal should be that every
reading and every dialog should make you wiser, even if what you initially
read and heard sounded like garbage. There are always reasons for all these
thoughts you disagree with.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Reach out to the people nearby. Try not just to be sympathetic to the needs of
some population living far away from you, which the media has singled out as
being those needing your compassion, and try instead (or in addition to that)
to be sympathetic and helpful to the people around you. To your neighbours,
to those you see in the public transport and, first and foremost, to your
relatives.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Summing up, what I want you to realize is that we IT workers are easily
exploitable. All those thought manipulation techniques represent a problem to
everyone, but it's particularly with us that they tend to be especially
effective; as a matter of fact, I've found that awareness of how the power
controls us is higher among uneducated people, because they are more
distrustful of the media and just tend to consume less of it. We, on the other
hand, are not only well educated to respect the authority (see <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv6TyJ1AbRM">Noam Chomsky on
education</a>), but our logical,
detail-focused mind can be easily externally controlled by continuously
stimulating it to focus on specific things and not others.</p>
<p>How would Dostoevskiy call us?</p>
<div class="footnote">
<hr>
<ol>
<li id="fn:refugees">
<p>My favourite one is: which country hosts more refugees from Ukraine? <a class="footnote-backref" href="http://mardy.it/it/blog/2022/11/the-idiotism-of-software-developers.html#fnref:refugees" title="Jump back to footnote 1 in the text">↩</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn:saudi">
<p>I was recently surprised when I read people in a forum who were
discussing avoiding doing business with Saudi Arabia because of their human
rights record. Seriously? We are talking about a government who has indirectly
caused the death of more than 300 thousands people in Yemen, and your main
reason to criticize them is human rights? It's like asking the police to arrest
a killer because before the assassination he misgendered his victim! Yet the
elephant in the room continues to go unseen. <a class="footnote-backref" href="http://mardy.it/it/blog/2022/11/the-idiotism-of-software-developers.html#fnref:saudi" title="Jump back to footnote 2 in the text">↩</a></p>
</li>
</ol>
</div><p>Before you get angry at me for this title, please let me state that I count
myself in the number of the “idiots” and, secondly, that what I mean by
“idiotism” here is not to be intended as an offence, but as some traits of
mindset which are typical of very logical brains.</p>
<p>Some months ago I finished reading Dostoevskiy's “The Idiot”, a book about an
exceedingly good-hearted man, prince Lev Mishkin, whose behaviour was puzzling
the people around him so much that they thought of him as an idiot. Sure, the
fact that he was suffering from epilepsy didn't help, but it was far from being
the primary reason for their thinking, since his epileptic seizures were very
rare (if I remember correctly, only two occurred during the time of the story)
and everybody's opinion had already formed well ahead of witnessing him in such
a state.</p>
<p>He was an idiot because he was open, trustful, and especially because he could
not “read between the lines” of what was been said to him: his social conduct
was straight, and although he was following at his best the customs that he had
been taught, he was supposedly awkward and unable to perceive and parse all the
messages that are implicitly conveyed by social behaviours and human
interactions. I added the word “supposedly” because, as a matter of fact, his
behaviours were all perfectly normal for me: I only noticed their awkwardness
when it was pointed out by the other characters, at which point I couldn't help
smiling and acknowledging that, indeed, that thing he did was weird.</p>
<p>However, he was a good and caring person, and not without talents: he had an
interest in calligraphy, and everybody liked to listen to him, as his speech
was insightful and his thoughts were original. I wonder how many of my readers
can identify themselves in such a character?</p>
<p>I definitely can. I won't get into the details, but I've felt many times on me
the amused or puzzled glance of people (like that time in high school when I
could not open a door in front of dozens of people, and I heard them say “So,
that guy is the genius of mathematics?” — I'll never forget that!), often
without understanding the reason for their reactions. Still, generally people
seem to like my company and be genuinely interested in talking to me.</p>
<p>So, what's wrong with prince Lev Mishkin, me, and maybe with you too? Well, a few
things, I would say. I'm not going to claim any scientific truth on what I'm
going to say, these are just my own impressions and deductions, which seem
to be shared by other people in the interwebs too, judging from a quick search
I did; take them for what they are.</p>
<p>The first thing I notice is some common traits between us and autistic people:
we tend to work better with things, rather than with people; we can to focus on
a certain thing (work, a mathematical problem, a game) and forget about the
world around us; we have our unique hobbies, like solving puzzles, arguing
about a specific and very narrow topic, learning artificial (both human and
programming) languages; it's as if we needed to build a small, better world
where we would feel safe and at ease.</p>
<p>The other thing, which I actually consider harmful and which I put efforts to
change in my own life, is the fact that it's extremely easy to get us
interested into a specific aspect of a problem, and make us forget (or just not
notice) the big picture. That small part that we are looking at is stimulating
and challenging, and we are led to think that it's core of the issue, and maybe
of all the issues that affect our world. What is often missing is the ability
to take one step back and try to look at the issue from a different angle, and
especially the ability to listen for counter arguments; I mean, we do listen to
them, but since we have, in a way, “gamified” the issue, even when we think
that we are open to listen for the other side, we are in reality trying to win
the counter-arguments, rather than genuinely trying to understanding them.</p>
<p>Another thing which we have, is faith. Yes, you read it right: even though the
IT world is probably the one with the highest percentage of atheists, men
always need something to believe in. We just don't realize it, but we do hold a
blind trust in certain persons and authorities. This does not mean that this
trust lives forever and cannot be broken, but this generally does not occur
because of a conscious realization of ours. Much more often than we'd like to
admit, the reason why we lose faith in a certain person or authority is because
<em>the rest of the persons and authorities that we trust has told us so</em>. In
other words, even if there's undoubtedly a reasoning of our own, the full
realisation and conviction occurs after having collected and compared the
opinions (or statements) of those we trust. The net result is that the IT
population is the one most trustful of the mainstream media, because it's the
mainstream media who has more “voice”: that's where the most <em>reputable</em>
journalists, scientists, activists are (and “reputable” is the key word here,
since this reputation is recursively created by the mainstream media
themselves or by their sponsors).</p>
<p>I might be biased by my own experience here, but it seems to me that there
isn't a group of people more homogenous in their political (and generally,
world) views than that of IT workers. When, in 2018, I saw the leaked video of
Google's co-founder Sergei Brin and other executives' reaction at Trump's
presidential victory, what I found most surprising was not the contents of the
speech, as they were mostly mainstream opinions, but rather the fact that all
this could be said in a company meeting. Something like this, I though, could
never happen in an European company, as political matters are a conventional
tabu in the work environment. But the point is that Brin and others could say
those words only because <em>they knew</em> that the overwhelming majority of the
audience shared the same opinion. I don't think you could find the same
homogeneity of thought among shop assistants or philosophy professors.</p>
<p>Assuming that you have followed me this far into my rambling, and that you
recognize that there might be some truth in what I wrote, you might now be
wondering if there's a way to counterbalance our “idiotic” traits.
Unfortunately I don't have a full answer, as myself am only halfway there (but
maybe I'm too optimistic here? and does this road even ever end?), but there
are a few things that I think are absolutely worth trying:</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p>Talk with people. Better if face to face, or at least in a video call; just
1-on-1, avoid groups, or you'll get on the defensive and try to defend your
position for the sake of not losing the argument in front of an audience. But
it's not a fight. Your goal when talking should not be that of convincing or
getting convinced, but rather just to <em>understand</em> the other points of view.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Read both sides of the narrative. Try to see the other party's argument as
they themselves present it, and not how it is presented in the media you
usually read. Media often use this trick, to either invite “clown
representatives” of the other point of view just to ridicule it, or they give them
too little time, or extrapolate their answer out of context, just to make
them appear unsensible.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Always assume that other people are smart, and that no one is bad.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Whatever the argument, try to answer the key question: “Cui bono?” (who
profits?) to be at least aware of all the hidden interests behind this and
that. They don't necessarily invalidate a position, but they must be
considered.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Lose faith. The only faith you are allowed to keep is the faith in God (or
Gods), if you have it: but men, theories, institutions, authorities
(including religious ones!), these must always be assumed to be imperfect and
not blindly trusted. People serve their interests or can be manipulated. Try
always to start from a clean table and an empty mind, and see if they have
enough arguments to convince you. </p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Do never assume “They can not <em>all</em> be wrong” or “If this were wrong, at
least some media would report it”. It just doesn't work this way, this is
again a matter of having faith in the majority. Think of how many times in
(recent) history you were presented an unambiguous truth, which later came
out to be a scam (Iraq war being a famous one).</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Defocus. You might be spending a lot of energy into something that's not
worth it. I mean, feel free to pursue whatever hobbies you like, as long as
they make you feel better. But if you think you have a <em>mission</em>, think twice
about it. Think about the world you'd like to live in, and whether/how this
mission contributes to it.<sup id="fnref:saudi"><a class="footnote-ref" href="http://mardy.it/it/blog/2022/11/the-idiotism-of-software-developers.html#fn:saudi">2</a></sup></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Ask questions. Be curious. Be challenging. For any topic, there are questions
that have not been answered in mainstream media<sup id="fnref:refugees"><a class="footnote-ref" href="http://mardy.it/it/blog/2022/11/the-idiotism-of-software-developers.html#fn:refugees">1</a></sup>. Find the answer,
then find explanations, never stopping at the first satisfactory one, but
always get at least two competing answers. From here, ask more questions,
rinse and repeat. And at every step ask yourself this: why didn't I know
about this? Is someone trying to hide the truth from me?</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Aim at improving. Whenever you read something or talk to people, keep a
humble attitude and try to be challenged. Your goal should be that every
reading and every dialog should make you wiser, even if what you initially
read and heard sounded like garbage. There are always reasons for all these
thoughts you disagree with.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Reach out to the people nearby. Try not just to be sympathetic to the needs of
some population living far away from you, which the media has singled out as
being those needing your compassion, and try instead (or in addition to that)
to be sympathetic and helpful to the people around you. To your neighbours,
to those you see in the public transport and, first and foremost, to your
relatives.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Summing up, what I want you to realize is that we IT workers are easily
exploitable. All those thought manipulation techniques represent a problem to
everyone, but it's particularly with us that they tend to be especially
effective; as a matter of fact, I've found that awareness of how the power
controls us is higher among uneducated people, because they are more
distrustful of the media and just tend to consume less of it. We, on the other
hand, are not only well educated to respect the authority (see <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv6TyJ1AbRM">Noam Chomsky on
education</a>), but our logical,
detail-focused mind can be easily externally controlled by continuously
stimulating it to focus on specific things and not others.</p>
<p>How would Dostoevskiy call us?</p>
<div class="footnote">
<hr>
<ol>
<li id="fn:refugees">
<p>My favourite one is: which country hosts more refugees from Ukraine? <a class="footnote-backref" href="http://mardy.it/it/blog/2022/11/the-idiotism-of-software-developers.html#fnref:refugees" title="Jump back to footnote 1 in the text">↩</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn:saudi">
<p>I was recently surprised when I read people in a forum who were
discussing avoiding doing business with Saudi Arabia because of their human
rights record. Seriously? We are talking about a government who has indirectly
caused the death of more than 300 thousands people in Yemen, and your main
reason to criticize them is human rights? It's like asking the police to arrest
a killer because before the assassination he misgendered his victim! Yet the
elephant in the room continues to go unseen. <a class="footnote-backref" href="http://mardy.it/it/blog/2022/11/the-idiotism-of-software-developers.html#fnref:saudi" title="Jump back to footnote 2 in the text">↩</a></p>
</li>
</ol>
</div>L'acqua santa non ritorneràhttp://mardy.it/it/blog/2022/02/lacqua-santa-non-ritornera.html2022-02-03T18:30:13+03:002022-02-03T18:30:13+03:00Alberto Mardegan<p>Forse ciò che mi ha colpito di più la scorsa estate, quando sono ritornato in
Italia in tempo di pandemenza, è stato trovare le acquesantiere vuote. La
sensazione provata in quel gesto abituale, stavolta culminato col tocco della
pietra asciutta con le mie dita, mi ritorna periodicamente alla memoria e mi
infonde un certo senso di incompletezza, decadenza, se non proprio di
sgradevolezza.</p>
<p>Sono tornato a rifletterci più di una volta, e — forse per il fatto di vivere
all'estero e di non aver ascoltato o letto le motivazioni ufficiali della sua
rimozione — la domanda più martellante che il ricordo dell'acqua santa mi
suggerisce è questa: abbiamo tutti perso la fede?</p>
<p>Già, perché se da un punto di vista scientifico sappiamo benissimo che la
benedizione del sacerdote non cambia la composizione chimica dell'acqua e non
le conferisce alcuna proprietà antivirale, sappiamo anche, da fedeli, che
l'acqua in cui intingiamo le dita è acqua <em>santa</em>. E ciò che è santo, per
definizione, ci avvicina a Dio, e non va temuto. L'acqua benedetta non si beve
a tavola, non si getta nel lavandino; al contrario, ci eleva: viene usata nei
battesimi, e negli esorcismi per scacciare i demoni. Nella cerimonia
dell'aspersione si prega con queste parole:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Signore Dio onnipotente, fonte e origine della vita, benedici quest’acqua con
la quale saremo aspersi, fiduciosi di ottenere il perdono dei peccati, <strong>la
difesa da ogni malattia</strong> e dalle insidie del maligno, e la grazia della tua
protezione. Nella tua misericordia donaci, o Signore, una sorgente di acqua
viva che zampilli per la vita eterna, perché, liberi da ogni pericolo
dell’anima e del corpo, possiamo venire a te con cuore puro. Per Cristo
nostro Signore.<sup id="fnref:1"><a class="footnote-ref" href="http://mardy.it/it/blog/2022/02/lacqua-santa-non-ritornera.html#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Altrettanto esplicito è il testo della benedizione in latino, laddove recita
<em>“ut creatura tua, mysteriis tuis serviens, ad abigendos dæmones morbosque
pellendos divinæ gratiæ sumat effectum”</em> (“affinché la tua creatura [l'acqua],
diventi un agente di grazia divina al servizio dei tuoi misteri, per scacciare
gli spiriti maligni e allontanare le malattie”). Fermo restando che va
condannato l'uso superstizioso dell'acqua benedetta così come di tutti gli
altri oggetti santificati e dei rituali, la fede ci impone di riconoscere che
il fedele autenticamente credente nel Signore non potrà corrompersi venendo a
contatto con l'acqua santa, indipendentemente da quanti virus e batteri ne
siano stati versati dentro.</p>
<p>Chi ha un minimo di fede sa benissimo che il Signore non permetterà che chi lo
cerca venga attaccato da una malattia trasmessa proprio da un oggetto
santificato; sa pure che, se una propria futura malattia fosse contemplata nel
disegno divino, questa si abbatterebbe su di lui nonostante vaccinazioni,
mascherine, distanziamenti sociali e aquesantiere vuote. Il che, si badi bene,
non significa non essere artefici della propria vita: significa riconoscere il
ruolo del sacro e il potere del Signore di operare nel nostro quotidiano.
Quindi non rassegnazione, ma ricerca attiva del divino.</p>
<p>È per questo che provo un certo rammarico e un profondo senso di delusione,
soprattutto rivolto alle autorità ecclesiastiche che, obbedendo ciecamente e
convintamente ai diktat del potere politico, vuoi con chiusure dei luoghi di
culto nei periodi del <em>lockdown</em>, vuoi con distanziamenti, mascherine e
rimozione dell'acqua benedetta, hanno dimostrato, nella mia percezione, di
riporre maggior fede nell'Organizzazione Mondiale della Sanità che nella
Provvidenza.</p>
<p>Temo che non sia stata colta appieno la pericolosità di questi cambiamenti per
quanto riguarda gli effetti a lungo termine sulla fede delle comunità. Comunità
che un tempo si meravigliavano per l'avventatezza dei religiosi che prestavano
le loro cure ai lebbrosi e ai malati di peste, incuranti della propria
incolumità e desiderosi soltanto di servire Dio e le sue creature. Non solo
oggi mancano esempi simili, ma anche la sola menzione del concetto di
"Provvidenza" non viene accettata, se non nei contesti più astratti.</p>
<p>La rimozione dell'acqua benedetta o, forse peggio ancora, il suo ritorno in
forma di un pratico dispenser, relega Dio nei piani più alti dell'iperuranio,
dove vivono le belle idee che mai, tuttavia, potranno influenzare la vita
terrena.</p>
<p>Io, senza vergognarmene, continuerò a credere che l'acqua santa non possa
contagiare il fedele.</p>
<div class="footnote">
<hr>
<ol>
<li id="fn:1">
<p>Dal Messale Romano, edizione 2020, pagina 990. <a class="footnote-backref" href="http://mardy.it/it/blog/2022/02/lacqua-santa-non-ritornera.html#fnref:1" title="Jump back to footnote 1 in the text">↩</a></p>
</li>
</ol>
</div><p>Forse ciò che mi ha colpito di più la scorsa estate, quando sono ritornato in
Italia in tempo di pandemenza, è stato trovare le acquesantiere vuote. La
sensazione provata in quel gesto abituale, stavolta culminato col tocco della
pietra asciutta con le mie dita, mi ritorna periodicamente alla memoria e mi
infonde un certo senso di incompletezza, decadenza, se non proprio di
sgradevolezza.</p>
<p>Sono tornato a rifletterci più di una volta, e — forse per il fatto di vivere
all'estero e di non aver ascoltato o letto le motivazioni ufficiali della sua
rimozione — la domanda più martellante che il ricordo dell'acqua santa mi
suggerisce è questa: abbiamo tutti perso la fede?</p>
<p>Già, perché se da un punto di vista scientifico sappiamo benissimo che la
benedizione del sacerdote non cambia la composizione chimica dell'acqua e non
le conferisce alcuna proprietà antivirale, sappiamo anche, da fedeli, che
l'acqua in cui intingiamo le dita è acqua <em>santa</em>. E ciò che è santo, per
definizione, ci avvicina a Dio, e non va temuto. L'acqua benedetta non si beve
a tavola, non si getta nel lavandino; al contrario, ci eleva: viene usata nei
battesimi, e negli esorcismi per scacciare i demoni. Nella cerimonia
dell'aspersione si prega con queste parole:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Signore Dio onnipotente, fonte e origine della vita, benedici quest’acqua con
la quale saremo aspersi, fiduciosi di ottenere il perdono dei peccati, <strong>la
difesa da ogni malattia</strong> e dalle insidie del maligno, e la grazia della tua
protezione. Nella tua misericordia donaci, o Signore, una sorgente di acqua
viva che zampilli per la vita eterna, perché, liberi da ogni pericolo
dell’anima e del corpo, possiamo venire a te con cuore puro. Per Cristo
nostro Signore.<sup id="fnref:1"><a class="footnote-ref" href="http://mardy.it/it/blog/2022/02/lacqua-santa-non-ritornera.html#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Altrettanto esplicito è il testo della benedizione in latino, laddove recita
<em>“ut creatura tua, mysteriis tuis serviens, ad abigendos dæmones morbosque
pellendos divinæ gratiæ sumat effectum”</em> (“affinché la tua creatura [l'acqua],
diventi un agente di grazia divina al servizio dei tuoi misteri, per scacciare
gli spiriti maligni e allontanare le malattie”). Fermo restando che va
condannato l'uso superstizioso dell'acqua benedetta così come di tutti gli
altri oggetti santificati e dei rituali, la fede ci impone di riconoscere che
il fedele autenticamente credente nel Signore non potrà corrompersi venendo a
contatto con l'acqua santa, indipendentemente da quanti virus e batteri ne
siano stati versati dentro.</p>
<p>Chi ha un minimo di fede sa benissimo che il Signore non permetterà che chi lo
cerca venga attaccato da una malattia trasmessa proprio da un oggetto
santificato; sa pure che, se una propria futura malattia fosse contemplata nel
disegno divino, questa si abbatterebbe su di lui nonostante vaccinazioni,
mascherine, distanziamenti sociali e aquesantiere vuote. Il che, si badi bene,
non significa non essere artefici della propria vita: significa riconoscere il
ruolo del sacro e il potere del Signore di operare nel nostro quotidiano.
Quindi non rassegnazione, ma ricerca attiva del divino.</p>
<p>È per questo che provo un certo rammarico e un profondo senso di delusione,
soprattutto rivolto alle autorità ecclesiastiche che, obbedendo ciecamente e
convintamente ai diktat del potere politico, vuoi con chiusure dei luoghi di
culto nei periodi del <em>lockdown</em>, vuoi con distanziamenti, mascherine e
rimozione dell'acqua benedetta, hanno dimostrato, nella mia percezione, di
riporre maggior fede nell'Organizzazione Mondiale della Sanità che nella
Provvidenza.</p>
<p>Temo che non sia stata colta appieno la pericolosità di questi cambiamenti per
quanto riguarda gli effetti a lungo termine sulla fede delle comunità. Comunità
che un tempo si meravigliavano per l'avventatezza dei religiosi che prestavano
le loro cure ai lebbrosi e ai malati di peste, incuranti della propria
incolumità e desiderosi soltanto di servire Dio e le sue creature. Non solo
oggi mancano esempi simili, ma anche la sola menzione del concetto di
"Provvidenza" non viene accettata, se non nei contesti più astratti.</p>
<p>La rimozione dell'acqua benedetta o, forse peggio ancora, il suo ritorno in
forma di un pratico dispenser, relega Dio nei piani più alti dell'iperuranio,
dove vivono le belle idee che mai, tuttavia, potranno influenzare la vita
terrena.</p>
<p>Io, senza vergognarmene, continuerò a credere che l'acqua santa non possa
contagiare il fedele.</p>
<div class="footnote">
<hr>
<ol>
<li id="fn:1">
<p>Dal Messale Romano, edizione 2020, pagina 990. <a class="footnote-backref" href="http://mardy.it/it/blog/2022/02/lacqua-santa-non-ritornera.html#fnref:1" title="Jump back to footnote 1 in the text">↩</a></p>
</li>
</ol>
</div>Principles and privilegeshttp://mardy.it/it/blog/2019/09/principles-and-privileges.html2019-09-04T21:17:22+03:002019-09-04T21:17:22+03:00Alberto Mardegan<p>I intended to write a reply to <a href="https://blog.jospoortvliet.com/2019/09/principles.html">Jos Poortvliet's blog post
“Principles”</a>, and I
swear I did enter it as a comment to his Google-powered blog, but something
went wrong and when I tried to publish it I lost all what I'd written. So I
decided to let some hours pass, ponder a bit more over the subject, and write a
more exhaustive answer on my own blog.</p>
<figure style="margin: 0 auto; width: 512px">
<img src="http://mardy.it/archivos/imagines/blog/a-morte-il-fascio.jpg" class="shadow-sm">
<figcaption>“A morte il fascio” — <i>death to fascism</i>.</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Before going into the core of the topic, I want to point out that when I start
thinking over the questions posed by Jos my thought can't help jumping to the
Marxist concept of classes: the very fact that you are considering the
possibility of refusing a business because of principles means that you can
<em>afford</em> doing that, while most people just can't. The same applies to similar
questions, such as declining a well paying job because of ethical reasons, or
boycotting some products, eating healthy food, crossing the ocean on a clean
yacht instead of polluting the air by plane, etc.: being able to make these
choices already imply that <em>you are in a privileged position</em> (in some cases,
extremely privileged!).</p>
<p>Why am I saying that? Certainly not to diminish the value of your ethical
choices! By all means, please continue to do your best to change things!
However, while you can proudly look at yourself in the mirror, please <em>don't
look down on people who don't seem to be as responsible as you</em>: they might
simply not have the choice, or not be able to <em>afford</em> it. Or maybe — that's
also possible — they are not aware that they can make this choice.</p>
<p>So, besides being excellent yourself, one thing you could do in order to have a
much bigger impact is to help other people get into a condition such that they
would also be able to afford to take the brave choices you go proud of.</p>
<p>That was a long premise indeed, but it might help to understand the rest of my
answer.</p>
<p>Which is: yes, I would (to a question like “Would you work with a company that
builds rockets and bombs to earn money for Nextcloud development?”). Which
might surprise many, especially those of you who know that I'm a hardcore
pacifist. In reality, my answer would be much more faceted, depending on who
you are and on the weight of your possible refusal. For example, if I were a
superstar with a million followers, then I'd definitely refuse: such a
decision, made public, would have a strong propagandistic effect. But when you
are an ordinary software developer, with a dozen friends (or even a few
hundreds) and no direct channel to the media, what would be the outcome of your
refusal? It might impress a handful of people, maybe, but the evil company
would easily find someone else to replace you and you'd lose a well paying job
(which could help you to <em>afford</em> making more ethical choices). But more
important than that, you would have cut out a communication channel to the
people who might benefit the most from your presence — and from your message.</p>
<p>I would answer “yes” because I'd like to take a chance to know what people on
the other side of the fence think. What are their reasons? Are they aware of
the issues that bother me? It's possible that I'm overestimating myself, but
even if there was a tiny, microscopic chance of instilling a doubt, of
delivering a message or providing a good example, I would leave no stone
unturned to grasp this chance. Of course, I'm not thinking of “converting” the
management of a corporation; but some of my peers inside that company might
start questioning things. And then, of course, you can always leave, when
enough is enough; but joining and then leaving a deal has a higher impact than
no joining at all. Or, if you like metaphores, <em>in order to clean something,
you first have to get your hands dirty</em>.</p>
<p>Before reading Jos's post, I've been considering another question, which is
vaguely related. Suppose that you were the owner of a bakery, and that you knew
that one of your customer is a nazi. Would you still sell bread to him? Suppose
that he's the only nazi in town: here you don't even need to worry about your
business, because even if you lost that customer, it wouldn't have but a very
minor impact on you.</p>
<p>My answer here is along a similar line as the previous one: yes, I would still
sell my bread to him. One reason is that this risks being another rabbit hole:
a nazi might hold the most disgusting opinions and views, but then — if you
think about it — many people do. Maybe they don't hate Jews, but Roms, Muslims,
<a href="https://youtu.be/2ETCM90yHiY?t=81">lawyers, or the French</a>; maybe they don't
want to colonize Africa, but Greece; maybe they don't physically torture
dissidents, but keep them rotting in a jail without charges (or with made-up
charges). Even without going to these extremes, there's simply the fact that we
are all imperfect: both in our opinions and in our actions. Would you refuse
selling bread to a guy holding nazi views, but otherwise honest and
well-behaving, while selling it to someone having well-balances opinions, but
who evades millions in taxes?</p>
<p>But the main reason why I'd sell my bread to a nazi is that, really, I'd like
to get to know him. I would like to learn why he holds those views, because I
think that understanding is the first step towards correction. This is probably
matter for a future post, but I'm convinced that all this censorship in the
social networks (yes, especially on the federated ones!) is detrimental to the
fight against fascism: if we won't even know where and who the fascists are,
how can we have any hopes of winning the fight?</p>
<p>So, let's build bridges, let's talk, let's try to understand each other's
points of view, and find exactly <em>why</em> we see things differently. And this is
much more effective when done at a personal level, one to one, rather than with
public big proclaims — which, more often than not, have the only effect of
polarizing the field even more.</p>
<p>In short — and I guess this is my answer to Jos — try to make a difference with
those who are closer to you. Accept the deal with the evil corporation, and let
everyone of your friends and colleagues know how much you are suffering because
of that. Let your peers in that company know you for what you are worth, but
don't hide your feelings. Maybe, who knows, the day you leave the deal, they
will also decide that it's time to make a big choice in their life?</p><p>I intended to write a reply to <a href="https://blog.jospoortvliet.com/2019/09/principles.html">Jos Poortvliet's blog post
“Principles”</a>, and I
swear I did enter it as a comment to his Google-powered blog, but something
went wrong and when I tried to publish it I lost all what I'd written. So I
decided to let some hours pass, ponder a bit more over the subject, and write a
more exhaustive answer on my own blog.</p>
<figure style="margin: 0 auto; width: 512px">
<img src="http://mardy.it/archivos/imagines/blog/a-morte-il-fascio.jpg" class="shadow-sm">
<figcaption>“A morte il fascio” — <i>death to fascism</i>.</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Before going into the core of the topic, I want to point out that when I start
thinking over the questions posed by Jos my thought can't help jumping to the
Marxist concept of classes: the very fact that you are considering the
possibility of refusing a business because of principles means that you can
<em>afford</em> doing that, while most people just can't. The same applies to similar
questions, such as declining a well paying job because of ethical reasons, or
boycotting some products, eating healthy food, crossing the ocean on a clean
yacht instead of polluting the air by plane, etc.: being able to make these
choices already imply that <em>you are in a privileged position</em> (in some cases,
extremely privileged!).</p>
<p>Why am I saying that? Certainly not to diminish the value of your ethical
choices! By all means, please continue to do your best to change things!
However, while you can proudly look at yourself in the mirror, please <em>don't
look down on people who don't seem to be as responsible as you</em>: they might
simply not have the choice, or not be able to <em>afford</em> it. Or maybe — that's
also possible — they are not aware that they can make this choice.</p>
<p>So, besides being excellent yourself, one thing you could do in order to have a
much bigger impact is to help other people get into a condition such that they
would also be able to afford to take the brave choices you go proud of.</p>
<p>That was a long premise indeed, but it might help to understand the rest of my
answer.</p>
<p>Which is: yes, I would (to a question like “Would you work with a company that
builds rockets and bombs to earn money for Nextcloud development?”). Which
might surprise many, especially those of you who know that I'm a hardcore
pacifist. In reality, my answer would be much more faceted, depending on who
you are and on the weight of your possible refusal. For example, if I were a
superstar with a million followers, then I'd definitely refuse: such a
decision, made public, would have a strong propagandistic effect. But when you
are an ordinary software developer, with a dozen friends (or even a few
hundreds) and no direct channel to the media, what would be the outcome of your
refusal? It might impress a handful of people, maybe, but the evil company
would easily find someone else to replace you and you'd lose a well paying job
(which could help you to <em>afford</em> making more ethical choices). But more
important than that, you would have cut out a communication channel to the
people who might benefit the most from your presence — and from your message.</p>
<p>I would answer “yes” because I'd like to take a chance to know what people on
the other side of the fence think. What are their reasons? Are they aware of
the issues that bother me? It's possible that I'm overestimating myself, but
even if there was a tiny, microscopic chance of instilling a doubt, of
delivering a message or providing a good example, I would leave no stone
unturned to grasp this chance. Of course, I'm not thinking of “converting” the
management of a corporation; but some of my peers inside that company might
start questioning things. And then, of course, you can always leave, when
enough is enough; but joining and then leaving a deal has a higher impact than
no joining at all. Or, if you like metaphores, <em>in order to clean something,
you first have to get your hands dirty</em>.</p>
<p>Before reading Jos's post, I've been considering another question, which is
vaguely related. Suppose that you were the owner of a bakery, and that you knew
that one of your customer is a nazi. Would you still sell bread to him? Suppose
that he's the only nazi in town: here you don't even need to worry about your
business, because even if you lost that customer, it wouldn't have but a very
minor impact on you.</p>
<p>My answer here is along a similar line as the previous one: yes, I would still
sell my bread to him. One reason is that this risks being another rabbit hole:
a nazi might hold the most disgusting opinions and views, but then — if you
think about it — many people do. Maybe they don't hate Jews, but Roms, Muslims,
<a href="https://youtu.be/2ETCM90yHiY?t=81">lawyers, or the French</a>; maybe they don't
want to colonize Africa, but Greece; maybe they don't physically torture
dissidents, but keep them rotting in a jail without charges (or with made-up
charges). Even without going to these extremes, there's simply the fact that we
are all imperfect: both in our opinions and in our actions. Would you refuse
selling bread to a guy holding nazi views, but otherwise honest and
well-behaving, while selling it to someone having well-balances opinions, but
who evades millions in taxes?</p>
<p>But the main reason why I'd sell my bread to a nazi is that, really, I'd like
to get to know him. I would like to learn why he holds those views, because I
think that understanding is the first step towards correction. This is probably
matter for a future post, but I'm convinced that all this censorship in the
social networks (yes, especially on the federated ones!) is detrimental to the
fight against fascism: if we won't even know where and who the fascists are,
how can we have any hopes of winning the fight?</p>
<p>So, let's build bridges, let's talk, let's try to understand each other's
points of view, and find exactly <em>why</em> we see things differently. And this is
much more effective when done at a personal level, one to one, rather than with
public big proclaims — which, more often than not, have the only effect of
polarizing the field even more.</p>
<p>In short — and I guess this is my answer to Jos — try to make a difference with
those who are closer to you. Accept the deal with the evil corporation, and let
everyone of your friends and colleagues know how much you are suffering because
of that. Let your peers in that company know you for what you are worth, but
don't hide your feelings. Maybe, who knows, the day you leave the deal, they
will also decide that it's time to make a big choice in their life?</p>Cammino quindi penso - 2018-10-19 - La manina è marciahttp://mardy.it/it/blog/2018/10/cammino-quindi-penso-2018-10-19-la.html2018-10-19T15:34:00+03:002018-10-19T15:34:00+03:00Alberto Mardegan<center><iframe width="720" height="405" src="//rutube.ru/play/embed/11496808" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen></iframe></center>
<p>Risolto il dilemma sulla "manina" che avrebbe alterato il decreto sulla "pace fiscale", rimane la questione politica del perché in quel testo fosse stata inserita una sorta di scudo fiscale che poco ha a che vedere con il programma concordato nel contratto di governo tra Lega e Movimento 5 stelle.</p><center><iframe width="720" height="405" src="//rutube.ru/play/embed/11496808" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen></iframe></center>
<p>Risolto il dilemma sulla "manina" che avrebbe alterato il decreto sulla "pace fiscale", rimane la questione politica del perché in quel testo fosse stata inserita una sorta di scudo fiscale che poco ha a che vedere con il programma concordato nel contratto di governo tra Lega e Movimento 5 stelle.</p>Cammino quindi penso - 2018-10-08 - Il pericolo della comoditàhttp://mardy.it/it/blog/2018/10/cammino-quindi-penso-2018-10-08-il.html2018-10-08T19:58:00+03:002018-10-08T19:58:00+03:00Alberto Mardegan<div style="text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="344" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oW2WoHeLnFk" width="459"></iframe></div><br><br>
Non sempre tutto quello che è comodo e conveniente deve essere ricercato. La comodità ha un prezzo, oltre a quello immediato che paghiamo col portafoglio, ma il conto finale ci verrà portato soltanto tra molti anni.<div style="text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="344" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oW2WoHeLnFk" width="459"></iframe></div><br><br>
Non sempre tutto quello che è comodo e conveniente deve essere ricercato. La comodità ha un prezzo, oltre a quello immediato che paghiamo col portafoglio, ma il conto finale ci verrà portato soltanto tra molti anni.Cammino quindi penso - 2018-10-03 - Perché chiudere i negozi la domenicahttp://mardy.it/it/blog/2018/10/cammino-quindi-penso-2018-10-03-perche.html2018-10-03T15:29:00+03:002018-10-03T15:29:00+03:00Alberto Mardegan<div style="text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uQNYbyautow" width="480"></iframe></div><br><br>
Nel video precedente consideravo con scetticismo le ragioni economiche che portano alcuni a voler avere i negozi chiusi alla domenica; in questo video illustro perché, pure in mancanza di ragioni economiche, ha comunque senso voler imporre la chiusura domenicale.<div style="text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uQNYbyautow" width="480"></iframe></div><br><br>
Nel video precedente consideravo con scetticismo le ragioni economiche che portano alcuni a voler avere i negozi chiusi alla domenica; in questo video illustro perché, pure in mancanza di ragioni economiche, ha comunque senso voler imporre la chiusura domenicale.Cammino quindi penso - 2017-10-09 - L'allegoria della cavernahttp://mardy.it/it/blog/2017/10/cammino-quindi-penso-2017-10-09.html2017-10-09T15:43:00+03:002017-10-09T15:43:00+03:00Alberto Mardegan<div style="text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="344" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eneZdSdRgb8" width="459"></iframe></div><br><br>
Il "Diego Fusaro de noantri" vi parla dell'allegoria della caverna di Platone, e del perché sarebbe meglio evitarla.<div style="text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="344" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eneZdSdRgb8" width="459"></iframe></div><br><br>
Il "Diego Fusaro de noantri" vi parla dell'allegoria della caverna di Platone, e del perché sarebbe meglio evitarla.Cammino quindi penso - 2017-09-17 - Chi sono oggi i ribelli?http://mardy.it/it/blog/2017/09/cammino-quindi-penso-2017-09-17-chi.html2017-09-17T12:44:00+03:002017-09-17T12:44:00+03:00Alberto Mardegan<div style="text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vOd8dGshRWY" width="480"></iframe></div><br><br>
A chi va il vostro pensiero, quando vi si chiede di individuare un ribelle nella nostra società? Certamente, ribelle è anche chi ostenta il suo anticonformismo mediante l'abbigliamento. Ma qual è la forma di ribellione (civile) più forte?<div style="text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vOd8dGshRWY" width="480"></iframe></div><br><br>
A chi va il vostro pensiero, quando vi si chiede di individuare un ribelle nella nostra società? Certamente, ribelle è anche chi ostenta il suo anticonformismo mediante l'abbigliamento. Ma qual è la forma di ribellione (civile) più forte?