I went through a phase of deeply researching topics in an attempt to communicate the realities and facets of many issues. After a year of nothing but frustration (and worse) I stopped caring. People take sides on these issues like picking colors. It’s crazy. It’s amazing to see just how attached they are to their chosen perspective while knowing so little and making no effort at all to research and understand.
One of my favorites is Climate Change. Both deniers and supporters are engulfed and fully invested in their respective delusions. This means the reality of the matter is in the hands of a minority with no voice.
The same brain that allowed us to survive in the wild is now driving mass delusion. We are still cavemen.
It's a human rights act.
Like... I agree with the sentiment of your comment, 100%. Standing against discrimination is something everyone should (and should feel the right to) do. But.. it is a political act. Which is good.
I understand the context and reasons behind "politics" becoming a taboo word (there is, by definition, "bad"[0] politics). But that doesn't invalidate the "good"[1] politics.
[0][1] Yes, "good" and "bad" are of course subjective.
Basic human rights for everyone should be the common ground that everyone agrees upon. Everything else we can debate in the appropriate contexts.
Most of them are simply pushing specific candidates, without even a mention of any human rights issue at all.
That includes having the right to discriminate. While it may be unkind, it is a greater evil to force someone to interact with someone they don’t want to, even if it’s for reasons of race, sex, living gay, or just being ugly, mean, old or young, or any other reason.
Only in an unfree world there is no discrimination.
I’m reminded of a tattoo I once saw written in runes: “free men are not equal; equal men are not free”.
The same principle holds for borders and other forms of property.
Issues of right and wrong often are issues or greater vs lesser evil.
When was that? In the US you can go back as far (at least) as Mark Twain and Harriet Beecher Stowe for popular figures getting involved in politics. In terms of actors and singers, you can go back to Bert Willams in the 1910s to numerous outspoken figures in the 1950's and beyond.
But saying that we "let politics be politics" is a privilege. If you are in a minority, either by choice or by birth, it's not that simple. Standing up against discrimination and making that one of our core beliefs should not be as controversial as you make it out to be. And it's great for you that you can just keep politics in "political space", go home and live in peace. But others can't turn racism they experience off. I would highly suggest watching this video of a psycho-social experiment [0].
When people complain about "politics", what they are complaining about is often a perceived failure within a system. Chesterton's Fence[0] is a parable that describes the need to understand where the system came from before making changes to reform it.
For example, in a large corporation, we might say that the yearly review system is "political", but getting rid of it completely would be removing the one (albeit, flawed) means that the organization has to evaluate employee performance. In its absence, a new system would have to be created to replace it. Any system that would replace it would also be prone to being perceived as "political" to some people.
What does that have to do with software? We write software to be used by and for the benefit of people. There is no point to it, otherwise. Writing software is fundamentally a political process.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_...
This seems like an odd expectation since so few of them have functional relationships and are an endless source of scandal.
Also, literally nothing about their profession makes them an authority on any political, social, or human rights issue.
But the more prevalent issue is that using their platform politically results more in tribalism than the genuine changing of minds.
What was commenting on here was a wider remark that celebrities should just avoid making political comments in general. "He's a football player, he should just play football. Keep politics out of sports."
This is the part I find unfair. If Kanye West has an opinion on global warming, we shouldn't reject it by default. If it's harmful, we should criticize it proportionaly to the reach of his platform (so... A lot). And if the negative effects get out of hand, we should be educating people on getting their environmental information from reliable sources, not limiting Kanye's freedom of speech.
These things aren't changing minds, they're just dividing people. People who agree with the messages feel good about it, and people who disagree turn away. Right-leaning people, who would otherwise hold Kaepernick in high regard as representing their city, now see him as an enemy, and he holds them in the same regard. This sort of thing is happening everywhere now, and it is what it is, but no one should be surprised when the country becomes increasingly polarized and uninterested in any sort of unity.
> Those are even worse.
What? Music and acting are and have always been involved with politics and society at large. As a modern example, see One by Metallica.
Is that not political?
I think your opinion here is a commonly held one, which I find increasingly frustrating and bizarre.
I personally feel that work and politics are by definition inextricably linked, and attempting to separate them as some sanctimonious attempt at taking moral highground is naïve (at best, insincere at worst). Which makes the use of the epithet "immature" here particularly ironic.
To be clear, I'm talking about office talk.
If a co-worker does it, it implies to me he or she are uncivilized, and cause themselves and other people embarrassment. When co-workers do it, I secretly think of it as farting in public, or vomiting your ideas on my shirt, or drooling your ideas. Political thought is important for me, and I have my opinions, but I do not want to force them on other people, not in direct conversation.
From experience, most people I know hold deep political convictions and couldn't be persuaded to see differently in a short office conversation, so it's short of pointless, a waste of words and a waste of my time and everyone else's, just so someone could farting his ideas in my general direction, and feel a bit better about himself / herself. Note that this is regardless of whether I agree with their ideas or not.
I do enjoy reading other people opinions, whether they are the same as mine or different, in forums such as NH. But the key thing here is that this is a thing I do of my own volition, in my own free time, not subjected to it. To contradict myself a bit: while I find Notepad++ author making a political statement with his software releases just a bit odd, it's not as disturbing as someone doing it in a direct conversation, and he also does it a pretty non-intrusive way, which I'm fine with. In a way I almost like it, it's sort of refreshing.
But that's just me. I'm not a very social person, though, so I guess my outlook might seem very bizarre to other, more social people.
If nobody ever settled the Vi vs Emacs debate there's absolutely 0 chances we're going to settle more complexes debates with real life implications so it's better for everyone's enjoyment of our global community if we could agree to keep politics were they belong and not everywhere.
Sure, I get (as sibling commenters point out) that this can be tiresome, but just because something bores you doesn't mean pretending it doesn't exist is productive or progressive.
Between free software itself being highly political, with plenty of zealots writing code, and the progressivism (and anti-progressivism) in SV and the tech community at large, I don't see much evidence that holding political views creates more bugs or degrades software quality. When that happens, the culprit tends to be deadlines or negligence.
The closest thing to an example I can come up with of this happening is the developer who pulled left-pad from NPM for essentially political reasons, but that was an act of deliberate sabotage rather than the result of distraction.
I agree that in general, waving your personal politics around for petty matters is not a good look.
He's not waving his around for petty reasons.
Supporters of (in this case) the NF may thinks so, since "petty" is entirely subjective.
Would you write software needed to support a genocide? Would you consider someone complicit if they did? I'm assuming no and yes, but where do we draw the line? How much bad stuff can I do in the name of professionalism before I should start worrying about moral aspects?
I really meant anything where you are fully aware that your work will directly cause people to suffer. Like someone asking you to run a simulation to determine where to drop a bomb for the highest death count.
...as someone not involved in that political fight, I slightly worry that this will serve as a distraction for him in future project development, maybe lead to a broken release or a dev path and force me to look for a new tool - zeal often crowds out focus.
...but hey, it's a free tool and he has the right to express his political views.
I persoanlly feel that publicly mixing work and politics is immature and bad for your resume, but to each his own.