Software and Politics
jeferson.me
I think we are looking at the wrong part of the mailing list, and the consequences could be very dangerous.

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.

  • Solumbran@lemmy.world
    4·
    26 days ago

    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?

      • Solumbran@lemmy.world
        3·
        26 days ago

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

              • Solumbran@lemmy.world
                3·
                25 days ago

                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.

                  • Solumbran@lemmy.world
                    2·
                    25 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.