Every line of code is a politial statement : linux@programming.dev

Every line of code is a politial statement (jeferson.me)

submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by Shin@piefed.social 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.

all 34 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] okwhateverdude@lemmy.world 20 points 4 days ago (27 children)

I think this view point is incredibly convenient framing. This opinion is akin to religious arguments that the absence of religion (atheism) is just another religion. It leaves no room for real engagement. Software licenses merely because they restrict behavior does not make them political. Is any given terms of service or fine print also political? Where is the limit to this opinion?

hideshow 27 child comments

[–] Solumbran@lemmy.world 17 points 4 days ago (20 children)

The only times I've seen software (or other places) try to be "no politics" it was from clear fsscists wanting to avoid "woke" subjects.

Everything is political because everything is done through a context of society and the perceptions of the people behind it. When you deny that, you are just trying to shut down conversations about the ethics of things, and generally people with morals don't try to avoid talking about morals.

Also, religion and atheism are two unrelated things, since a religion is a social group and atheism is a personal belief. A proper comparison would be between, let's say, theists and atheists, and both are beliefs.

Moreover, it's quite a bad faith argument to compare beliefs, which are an unprovable, personal opinion, and things like software and politics, which are real world matters.

It's not the same to believe in god or not, or to believe that minorities need to die or not.

Overall, fuck off with your "not political" bulcrap.

parent

hideshow 20 child comments

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it -2 points 4 days ago (9 children)

But tell us how you feel about Ed Sheeran.

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] Solumbran@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago (8 children)

That when you try to play the middle between the nazis and the victims of the nazis, you are just a nazi.

When you are a fucker who says "the suffering and pain on both sides is a tragedy", it's like saying "the suffering on both the nazi side and the people the populations they were genociding during WWII is a tragedy", that's something only a nazi (and a cowardly one) would say.

Is that what you were hoping for?

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it -4 points 3 days ago (7 children)

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

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] Solumbran@lemmy.world 5 points 3 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?

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it -3 points 3 days ago (5 children)

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

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] Solumbran@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (4 children)

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

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it -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.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Solumbran@lemmy.world 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.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 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.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Solumbran@lemmy.world 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.

parent

[–] okwhateverdude@lemmy.world -1 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Everything is political because everything is done through a context of society and the perceptions of the people behind it. When you deny that, you are just trying to shut down conversations about the ethics of things, and generally people with morals don’t try to avoid talking about morals.

Citation needed. When I am writing software I am not making a political statement. When I do FOSS, that isn't because I have a political goal in mind. Frankly, I don't give a shit about the context of society or the perceptions of anyone reading my stuff. It isn't about anyone other than me. Do you write software? Is every bit of your work/hobby political? When I deny those things it isn't because I am trying to shut down conversations about ethics. Nor am I amoral merely because I do not wish to discuss your topics. Did you even bother to ask me why? No, you just assumed. That isn't how you have conversations.

Also, religion and atheism are two unrelated things, since a religion is a social group and atheism is a personal belief. A proper comparison would be between, let’s say, theists and atheists, and both are beliefs.

Moreover, it’s quite a bad faith argument to compare beliefs, which are an unprovable, personal opinion, and things like software and politics, which are real world matters.

Are they both beliefs? As an atheist I've made no claim, or professed any belief. I am not saying there is no god. I am saying the people professing their belief in one have not met the bar of evidence for a god. The agnostic position, imo is pretty weaksauce and gives too much benefit of the doubt to the believers by even entertaining the notion that they might be correct, that we just don't know. It is a cop out to placate the religious that cannot present actual evidence.

It’s not the same to believe in god or not, or to believe that minorities need to die or not.

Why are software and politics so inextricably linked? Why are they considered real world, but religion not? You keep making all of these assertions and providing no evidence. Anything presented without evidence can be easy dismissed.

Overall, fuck off with your “not political” bulcrap.

Please level up your opinions with actual statements of fact before engaging.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Solumbran@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago (2 children)

You might not be an intentional political statement, but your code is colored by politics. You don't give a shit about the perception of people, that is infused in politics. My point is, your stance within society transpires through your actions, and this has an effect on society.

And typically, the stance of refusing to acknowledge the political part of things, whether it is in software or not, is loved by the far-right. In this current sociopolitical context, doing that is picking a side. And also showing that you're privileged enough to afford to "ignore" politics, which is not the case for everyone.

--

Atheism is about believing in the absence of god, what you're describing is indeed agnosticism. God is a belief, which doesn't require any proof or evidence since it's just a belief. You can then disagree with the consequences or implications of such beliefs, but evidence is not really in question since there can be none. The day there is evidence of god, it won't be a belief anymore, but science.

However, hit on religions as much as you want, because those are not beliefs, they're more akin to sects, with a whole set of (bullshit) rules on how reality works that are based on nothing.

As such, religions and software are both real world and are both linked to politics. They are having an effect on how society is structured, and how people live their lives. Also, note that many beliefs are very much political, it's not what I was saying. My point was that believing in god doesn't have as much of an impact as supporting "AI", as believing in god is a personal belief, while LLMs are having a pretty bad impact on the world already.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] towerful@programming.dev 1 point 4 days ago (1 child)

I consider aetheism to be more an absence of belief in gods.
Its not that i believe there arent gods. Its that i have no belief in gods.
The former being anti-god/anti-religion. And the later being anti-belief.
Maybe like "not accidentally cutting yourself" and "not having a knife". Both lead to "not accidentally cutting yourself", but 1 involves a knife.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Solumbran@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago

Generally, atheism is about denying the existence of god, and agnosticism is about not believing or disbelieving. It's just a matter of definition in the end, what actually matters is the meanings behind the words.

It's also not a clear line, you can for example have a slight belief that god doesn't exist, but this belief is superseded by the rational thought that there is no evidence of it nor the opposite, and ending up effectively having an agnostic conclusion. That's why words like that are always clearer when explained further in details.

parent

[–] ravenn@lemmy.blahaj.zone -4 points 4 days ago (2 children)

kirby's adventure for the gameboy is so white washed i cant believe people cant just wake up and tell its about limitless consumerism greed by the white man invading lush green lands and terrorizing the inhabitants.

every call for the a button is a murdered [insert your political scapegoat here]

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Solumbran@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago (1 child)

"I don't have any argument so let me build a strawman, it will make me look smart"

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] ravenn@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 3 days ago

post title: every line of code is political

comment: the game kirby for gameboy has code written for it which polls the registers for the status of the button inputs

reply: its a strawman (not) argument to give and example of very generic code to (not) showcase the absolutism of a statement that is all inclusive (every) to remove nuance from an argument.

rere: nuance and also, how dare you hint that i want "to look smart". i want to look like a comment but now you made me blush

//== ^.^ ==// the above comment is blushing

parent

[–] MagnificentSteiner@lemmy.zip 0 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Read this, learn something.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/jim-macdonald-anarchism-is-a-social-not-a-political-movement

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Solumbran@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago*

I mean that politics is essentially about power. To know how to gain power over others is to practice politics.

Sure, if you start with a nonsensical definition you can conclude what you want.

Politics are about the structure of society, it's not a question of power. Anarchy is political because it aims to change the way society works.

When I say “Hi” to my best friend Aly, and she says “Hi” back, are we engaging in politics? Yes, I identify as male; and she, female. I also have more money, and she has less. However, does she reply to me with a kind hello because I am empowered over her?

And this followup argument is pretty obviously bullshit, but it's easy to conclude bullshit when you define key concepts of the argument in a nonsensical way.

Software is very much political, especially open source software. It is taking a stance on social subjects, whether it wants it or not. I maintain that I never saw arguments refusing to admit the political aspect of things, that weren't built on a fascist basis.

parent

[–] Shin@piefed.social [S] 1 point 4 days ago

That's a good read that I didn't had when I first wrote the post. I think it would change how I would put the words there. But this is a after, the post is now public.

Thanks for sharing,

parent

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 3 points 3 days ago*

I just had a thought that ALL of this radical "you're with us, or you're against us" is the opposite of professionalism.

People who work together are expected to look past differences irrelevant to the tasks at hand. Now, the radicals are going to say their differences aren't irrelevant, and that's fine for them - if they worked in my company they'd be "encouraged to seek other opportunities where their talents are more highly valued."

The relative deluge of "you're with us, or you're against us" inflammatory position staking we're seeing also strikes me as exactly the kind of thing a PsyOps bot master would deploy for undermining and destabilization of target communities.

parent

[–] Shin@piefed.social [S] 8 points 4 days ago

Holy mother,
From all the ~~shite~~ mud I had to digg I finally found this nugget of gold.

I never though from this angle. But using the premise I started in the post, you are right, Atheism would be just another religion. I need to ponder on this this is a very good argument. Thanks for the comment.

parent

[–] degen@midwest.social 3 points 3 days ago

I think the glaring issue in the whole discussion is what politics even encompasses. Though it is practically true, the extreme of "everything is political" comes very close to equating politics with philosophical thought.

Not everything is coupled to speaking on policy. Some things just are, unless you consider politics the fabric of reality. Many do, but I disagree. That doesn't mean I have a single political view that differs from those who do, or that we share any view, for that matter. It's a philosophical distinction.

I'm thinking of it sort of mechanically here: there is what is, there is what we think about what is, and there is how we act on both what is and the thoughts. Only the last part would truly be political, and the crux lies in whether we see ourselves as taking that action at any given moment. (Hint: you're almost always taking some action and thought rarely stands alone)

Now saying anything is free from political association is also bogus, but I think it really all comes down to "ceci (n')est (pas) une pipe" type energy and arguing in circles.

parent

[+] istdaslol@feddit.org -11 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Not to mutter your point but atheism is technically a religion, it’s the belief in there being no godlike figure. Agnostics is the term for absence as it’s more of “I don’t care if there is a god or not”

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] BeelzebubEiNukuKoskaan@piefed.social 13 points 4 days ago

"Religion" does not mean "to have a belief." If that would be true, then having the belief that the healthcare system should be tax payer funded would be a religion. Having the belief that walking instead of cycling is a better way to getting to places would be a religion. Having the belief that you should cut your grass twice per month would be a religion.

parent

[–] YaBoyMax@programming.dev 2 points 3 days ago

Is atheism a philosophy? Sure, technically, though how intentional it is will vary from person to person. Is it a religion? No, and that's a patently absurd thing to say. Atheism is, in effect, a lack of religious beliefs. You're saying that a lack of religious beliefs is in itself a religious belief. The furthest you could really go is to say it's a perspective on religion, but a religion itself it is not.

parent

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 5 points 3 days ago (1 child)

That's not true at all

Let's not divide people more than they already are. Picking arbitrary battles is not the path to happiness

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Shin@piefed.social [S] 3 points 3 days ago

I agree.

But, staying silent when influential figures make extreme statements isn't neutrality, it's acceptance. Passively enduring these shifts in public discourse is exactly how extreme ideas become normalized.

I'm always open to discussing

parent

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 7 points 4 days ago* (1 child)

Tbh, we got lots of people overanalyzing single sentences. Torvalds is one of the select few programmers who changed the entire world with his project. And he ain't stupid. He must be aware of it. Despite him, or other people claiming arbitrary things.

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Shin@piefed.social [S] 6 points 4 days ago

This is what I want to believe, that he is aware.
Yet he decides to use a expression in quotes with a intent, and this is what scares me.

parent

[–] habitualTartare@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (1 child)

helloWorld()

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] somegeek@programming.dev 3 points 3 days ago

How dare you

parent