Hacker News Reader

If you believe that dealing with homelessness is critical, then you should be willing to take some sacrifices yourself in order to personally house homeless people. If you start making exceptions, then you are saying that dealing with homelessness itself is not inherently good, but only good in _some_ places when it impacts _some_ people.

You can apply this to literally anything. This argument is silly.

View on HN

You can play Mad Libs with any paragraph, but it doesn't mean the argument has been applied correctly.

My point is that any project needs to properly balance the goals of the project with the freedom and autonomy of other people. This is not saying that the goals always triumph, or that autonomy always triumphs, but that there is a balance.

You asked what this has to do with e/acc -- if e/acc is claiming progress at all costs, build at all costs, but then imposes carve outs for the freedom/autonomy of only certain people (particularly it's adherents), it's a contradiction in the project.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com