this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2026
4 points (53.3% liked)
Linux
15239 readers
664 users here now
A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)
Also, check out:
Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
But tell us how you feel about Ed Sheeran.
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?
I thought you had more in you than that. Tepid repetition of the worn rhetoric. Try again.
What is it, you just have nothing to say? You were hoping for an attack surface but didn't find one?
It's not about attacking, it's about what you reveal.
And what are you trying to make me reveal, then?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Please level up your opinions with actual statements of fact before engaging.
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.
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.
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.
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]
"I don't have any argument so let me build a strawman, it will make me look smart"
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
Read this, learn something.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/jim-macdonald-anarchism-is-a-social-not-a-political-movement
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.
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.
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,