7
Every line of code is a politial statement (jeferson.me)
submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by to c/linux@programming.dev
34 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

From my view, all software is political in some sense. And if a software claims that isn't political is a political statement in itself. And with the recent dubious statement from Linus in the Kernel of Linux. I think we should either think about it or discuss about it.

What is the political intention that is happening in this.

All feedback is welcomed.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -4 points 4 days ago (7 children)

I thought you had more in you than that. Tepid repetition of the worn rhetoric. Try again.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 4 days ago (6 children)

    What is it, you just have nothing to say? You were hoping for an attack surface but didn't find one?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 4 days ago (5 children)

    It's not about attacking, it's about what you reveal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 4 days ago (4 children)

    And what are you trying to make me reveal, then?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    Well, I'm not trying to make you do anything, what you have voluntarily revealed is the most boring response possible, following the most common noise around the internet, swimming in the main stream, and acting a bit either defensive or passive aggressive offensive as if having a different opinion than what you posted is somehow an attackable offense.

    In short, you have offered nothing of interest, congratulations: you're officially homogenized.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    Well please share with us your extremely unique, interesting and enlightening opinion on Ed Sheeran then. Because you're trying very hard to sound clever but you're just saying meaningless sentences.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    My position is that "you're with us, or you are against us" says nothing about me, only about your simplistic binary convictions.

    I do not support Israel.

    I do not condone violence against Palestine.

    I do not condone the performance venue's ownership/management stifling free speech among their performers, but then, neither should we stifle the venue ownership's right to make an ass of themselves by doing things like they did.

    I do not see a reason to villify Ed Sheeran, other than he's a spineless wuss of a commercial sellout whose music I never particularly cared for, but that doesn't mean he should be beat up for failing to make a stronger stand on this, or any, issue. He is entirely within his rights to be a waffly wuss. Just because he won't go around throwing labels like Nazi, Fascist, Genocidal, etc. isn't a reason to force him to make public statements one way or another. If his position is that he has no position, then that too is a position. Judge him as you will, but don't put words in his, or anybody else's mouth.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago

    Ok so we'll have to go over a few points then.

    • If you consider that calling Israel fascists or genocidal is "throwing labels", then eitther you have no clue what these words mean, or you are supporting Israel. They are, factually, fascists currently committing genocide. Calling them nazis is just a quick and dirty way to point it out, because in the end there is little difference in the ideologies and methods.

    • If a venue is obstructing free speech in an illicit way, then Ed Sheeran could have sued them. He didn't, followed along, and then made a statement that plays in the hands of the fascist genocidal government. Which makes him guilty by association.

    • Supporting criminal things is not free speech. Just like he wouldn't (in theory) be allowed to say that hitler was right, he shouldn't be able to defend Israel. That's out of the bounds of free speech.

    • Not making a strong stand on some things is, definitely and without a doubt, something that can deserve getting "beat up for". If I ask you what your stand of rape is, and your answer is "I think it's hard for both sides", then you are a piece of shit. The idea that everyone can just have whatever opinion they want is already not a good one ; the idea that everyone should be able to say whatever they want is absurdely stupid.

    You dared criticize my stance, but yours is just a wishy-washy "we should let everyone do whatever they want" which totally has been working in the world up this point, considering what the world became.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent