But what is neutral to someone is not inherently neutral to others. Or even if it’s neutral to them, it’s still a form of political expression.
I think the lack of this distinction has led to much, and very painful and bitter online discussion, whereas people in a tribalist political mindset try to pigeonhole others based on a throwaway statement into either a friendly or enemy camp.
I broadly agree with the value that competence is more important in politeness or vibes, especially in people who build critical infrastructure - in fact it is a very very welcome property of these people that they care about things on a level that seems unreasonable to me.
This is true basically of everything critically important in life. One example is security. Everyone enjoys the privilege of using a web browser to visit any website and not have their PC compromised thanks to a variety of measures created by people who care intensely about these things.
If the crash testing on my car was done by people who sought out some amicable middle ground so as to not upset engineers who have to redo the frame of the car after a test gone horribly wrong, and accounting, who gets the bill for it, I would be sweating bullets every time I had to drive anywhere.
Politics imo is the worst sort of tribalism - the idea that people must be sorted into totally disjunct groups who are the bitter enemies of each other - thankfully doesn't translate into practice. Two people might root for sports teams that are eternal rivals, one person's favorite food might be hated by the other, they might disagree on what the important issues are, or what should be done about them, but thankfully that doesn't necessarily stop them from being the best of friends.
That's why there's a blanket ban on discussing politics in every place where people are expected to maintain amicable civility towards each other - family dinners, the workplace, gatherings with friends and acquaintances etc., with everyone usually getting antsy whenever 'politics' is brought up.
Other people have proven he does.
So either you must concede that your initial rebuke was based on insufficient information, in which case why try and act like he has said nothing of concern.
Or his world views fit within your own view and are thus deemed neutral.
His comments are not a matter of opinion. And opinion that extends to affecting the lives of others , including supporting those who affect the lives of others, is very much politics.
So your favourite food is not politics but if you try and affect change that affects someone else’s favourite food, it is inherently political. If you support someone who starts affecting my favourite food, that too is political.
No it's not. Politics is the negotiation between two or more people who want conflicting outcomes.
> they might disagree on what the important issues are, or what should be done about them, but thankfully that doesn't necessarily stop them from being the best of friends.
The Republicans are led by white supremacists and they hate me for being transgender. Please stop carrying water for them. Politics matters and shouldn't be dismissed as "sports" or "tribalism"
> competence is more important in politeness or vibes,
I've been a professional programmer for about fifteen years. You could stand to be more polite.
I apologize if I come across as impolite, but I assure you that has not been my intention. Please understand that that there is no hidden meaning behind my posts.
In fact I enjoy the fact that Blow can talk shop about things he disagrees with (such as enterprise software with call stacks 50 levels deep).
The implication was pretty clear to me, in that by reducing politics down to being things reasonable people can always disagree over, you're giving actual bad actors in the space too much credit.
This is utterly false. At best you can claim you’ve heard of a few homophobic racists who happen to be republican . I’ve met just as many who happen to be democrat
Just to easily refute one of your 2 claims. Non-white republicans demographics is growing, not shrinking
Simple example: They want ot fund the police
Their POV: make everyone safer
Another POV: fund bad people
Their POV isn't wrong, it's just different.
I don’t know which of the two happened here, maybe both, but if we’re mentioning one let’s also mention the other.
Edit: just read some tweets and I think I know which one it is XD you were underselling it.
That is 2021 mentality, and the world is over it.