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?