[flagged]
Everything is political, FOSS is political, GitHub is also political.
When people say "We're not political", or "That's not political". What they're actually saying is that it's within my own politics.
The position that everything is political so therefore opinions are mandatory intentionally conflates these things.
> When people say "We're not political", or "That's not political". What they're actually saying is that it's within my own politics.
That assertion is incorrect. Said incorrect assertion is derived from the conflation I called out.
As written, the rule is a non-exhaustive example of "content that harms codeberg's reputation". Someone asked in the pr whether "cryptocurrency-related" is defined anywhere and it merged without an answer. The responses to wording concerns was essentially they will figure it out later. Moves like this don't fill me with confidence.
What you seem to be arguing for is seat-of-the-pants reactive mob governance. Functional communities and societies don’t work that way.
Such indkvidualized contact is only possible because Codeberg is relatively small, and not a garbage dump for every code file or spam project.
What are you talking about? Whether something is allowed to be challenged has nothing to do with whether it's political. Actually, what even is not allowed to be challenged? I struggle to come up with a single example.
If you ban a project because its CI pipeline mines crypto and that ia a drain on your server, it is an apolitical argument.
If you ban a project because it drains recources because an AI agent is commutting multiple times a second, that is apolitical.
If you ban a project, because it hosts content that doesn't align with your ideals since it uses cryptocurrencies, that is clearly political.
Sure, there may be a small grey zone. But there are swaths of decicions that are clearly political/apolitical.
Some practical questions have an obvious political dimension, in which case it’s fair to consider that component, but people will often argue over whether the question is “political enough” to justify debate. To deal with this, you need processes to ensure that debate is contained but not overly restricted on this kind of issue.
Making every question political is a trick right out of the OSS Simple Sabotage Field Manual. Whether to pay the hosting bill shouldn’t be a political question. Whether to change hosts may or may not be, depending on the reasoning.
>Yes, in communities that try to claim that certain things are "political" and certain things are "not political", "banning cryptocurrency" could be rejected on the basis that it is "political". The point is that saying something like "we don't do politics" is absurd.
I don't understand what you're saying. You switched tracked halfway through the thought from talking about communities that distinguish between things that are or aren't political to rejection of taking political stances.
What is usually meant by "we don't do politics" is that an institution or organization will avoid picking sides on political issues. This is not merely not absurd, but pretty much necessary for any organization that doesn't have ideological goals and doesn't want to foster internal factions.
Like the sibling comment said, just banning cryptocurrency might be political or it might not, depending on the reason for it. Rejecting reasons such as "crypto bad" is a tenable position if an organization seeks to maintain a neutral stance.
But just for the sake of argument I'll grant it and amend my statement: What is usually meant by "we don't do politics" is that an institution or organization will avoid picking sides on irrelevant political issues. A cat shelter doesn't need to have an official position on abortion to function, and in all likelihood having one would be counter to its purposes.
How does Codeberg handle the diverse mix of politics within it and manage its influences? If we give the organization a character by calling it political, we create an obligation to explain further.
Overall, again I feel this is a self-own to project idealogue this hard since you flavor it in a specific way that is not inclusive.
They don't have to.
> Overall, again I feel this is a self-own to project idealogue this hard since you flavor it in a specific way that is not inclusive.
D.E.I. is out right now. Fortunately, Codeberg helpfully funds Forgejo, so all the non-eligible projects can benefit from self-hosting.
But which questions are apolitical questions, is itself a political question.
The notion that "everything is political" is an indicator that someone has an extremely toxic relationship with politics. Basically you're projecting your unhealthy level of political engagement onto everyone else, and insisting that we all have that manner of thinking (but are just denying it to score political points). Well that isn't true, and for your own sake I encourage you to stop that. You'll be much happier when you stop making life about politics.
What do you eat and what do you refuse to eat? Which restaurants would you go to or not? Which companies do you buy from and why/why not?
Who do you meet with and who do you avoid? What do you talk about and which topics do you avoid?
Where is your cocoa grown, which brand do you buy and who ends up making money on your purchase?
If you eat meat, you are okay with the effects it has on climate change, and that’s political. If you do the opposite and don’t eat meat, that’s also political.
If you consume food from non-organic agriculture, you are okay with species extinction, especially insects.
If you buy the cheapest foods, you are okay with the working conditions and low pay necessary to reach the price. If you buy a more expensive option, who in the value chain benefits from the increased price and who doesn’t?
Almost everything that you do is political in some way.
I agree that everything is political, and it's good to make choices as ethically as you can, but sometimes it simply isn't possible to be perfect. You can't even know about all the problems without studying them like a full time job. Ain't got time for that. Gotta eat.
The "agonize over every purchase and vote with your dollar" paradigm gives the most votes to billionaires.
Should people think about ethics when buying stuff: yes.
Does failing to recycle a bottle properly, or buying a cheap chocolate bar that may have involved underpaid or even slave labor somewhere in its supply chain, mean someone is evil? Nope.
I wish people would spend less time agonizing or moralizing over what individuals do (even though an individual is easier to influence quickly) and more time going after the broken systems, stupid laws, and malignant CEOs that actually lie at the root of the problems.
> When I enjoy a meal
What food do you eat, and where do you eat it? How much does it cost? Culturally, where does it come from? Who works the kitchens? Who cleans the place?
> When I hang out with my family and friends, that isn't political.
Where do you hang out? Who else goes there? Who even are your friends?
> When I sit down to read a nice book with a cup of cocoa, that isn't political.
What book are you reading? Does the country you live produce the cocoa you are drinking? Do you know where it comes from?
Everything is political to an extent, even the reason we have this discussion in English when English is not my native language.
I am not saying you have to think about those things all the time; that would be exhausting. But ignoring it and pretend everything is separated into its own nice little happy vacuum is too naive.
I understand "everything is political" more in a sense that we as a society have the burden to shape our own rules, and saying "I only live in the society, but ignore the burden of making rules" is not really possible. In that case you actively decide to let someone else decide for you.
How is that political? It's just a decision based on competing priorities. By this interpretation an animal's decision to either sleep or eat is also political.
If they didn't do this, they'd have to accept the consequences of those people not buzzing off, or potentially a different segment of people buzzing off.
Doing nothing isn't an apolitical option either. That's a choice too.