[snth]

No, it isn't. The comment we're replying to here is about someone adding a message to their code repo that's shown to Russian viewers. Are you saying that if people don't do this, they support the Russian invasion? It seems pretty obvious when you get specific. It's simpleminded to divide people into two groups and say that anyone who doesn't agree with a _particular action_ is the enemy.

[jacquesm]

No, that's obviously not what I'm saying.

[snth]

I'm glad, and I shouldn't try to pigeonhole you here either, I just think these types of conversations lose specificity quickly.

Person A: I'm doing <this thing> to support <cause> Person B: You shouldn't do <that thing> Person A (or more often, C): Inaction is equal to support / silence is violence

I think there is almost always more than one possible action, even in support of <cause>. Also, some well intentioned actions can hurt a cause, so inaction is obviously preferable. Or, there may be a third outcome that I like better than <cause> or <not cause>.

Let me get specific, to avoid my own criticism.

I don't know if what the original commenter is doing is worth the effort, in terms of supporting Ukraine in this conflict. There's obviously a cost, in terms of dev time and false positives (showing the message to an unintended audience). I do think it is usually annoying, distracting, and unnecessarily polarizing to add politics to technical projects, so I would lean against doing this, even if I agree with the politics. Good technical work is hard enough on its own.

I'm not terribly offended by this action, and I wouldn't criticize it on its own; but I definitely think that "inaction supports the Russian invasion" is out of line here.