It's not weird to be upset by a button which is entirely useless to the functionality of the product, and exists only to add politicization where there needs to be none. In fact, it's shameful that Microsoft did this.

Let's put it this way: if the button was for something you didn't agree with - say, it was a button for "show your support for the sanctity of marriage", would you blithely say "there are lots of buttons in the preferences so it's weird to get mad about it"? I suspect not. I suspect that you would, in fact, be outraged even though that'd be an equally hidden expression of political opinions. We can't, with any fairness, take a stance that political expression is ok but only if it is for the ideas we agree with. So we should (and we used to) agree that things shouldn't have politics forcibly shoved in people's faces, and that we must live and let live. That's a far better way to coexist.

I don't think it is weird. This button really has nothing to do with the product and it's use case as far as I can see.

That is what GP is pointing out as far as I can see.

“it’s weird that you would pick that to get upset about” feels like the kind of spineless jab that I hear a lot from people with a certain political slant, which is fucking annoying because I have the same political slant, and you just make people dislike us with terrible takes like this.

Having checkboxes for fully cosmetic nothings while simultaneously releasing features that cannot be disabled feels strange given they are clearly able to put the required effort in for a hollow, mealy mouthed, capitalistic pandering effort.