Comment by getnormality
17 days ago
Nah, it doesn't mean they support the status quo. It just means some political tactics are pointless, incompetent, and counterproductive.
Political opinions about how things should be don't automatically dictate the actions that should be taken in support of those opinions. I can be mad about a law or a court decision and still have the good sense to, for example, not throw red paint on a lawmaker or judge.
Some behaviors just aren't helpful, and neither being right nor being upset changes that.
Maybe, but telling people who are speaking to their audience on the platforms that audience is voluntarily visiting that they need to shut up is even more pointless, incompetent, and counterproductive.
Notepad++ is free, open source software for which there are dozens of alternative packages of equivalent quality. The entire cost of using this software and benefiting from the work of the developer, is having to scroll past or close a few political opinions.
If the reaction, if someone vehemently dislikes this sort of thing, is to tell that developer to "just shut up and make your software" rather than to stop using that software? Then I think that's possibly the most entitled and hypocritical position that I think it's possible to have.
Notepad++ maintainers can do whatever they want. I don't care. I'm just taking apart this tedious, superficial, self-serving activist cliche about how not being an activist is supporting the status quo. Some people want change just as much as activists do, but they have different ideas about when and how it's helpful to be an activist.
It's ok for you to have a different opinion. I'm sure both views are well reasoned. Neither one is "wrong".
> and still have the good sense to
The good sense is your judgement. At some point a real, direct, disruptive protest is going to be the right solution for a big enough group of people. Peaceful protests are just a "we're starting to get there" signal. It's not like politicians normally say "gee, lots of people don't like how I abuse power, I guess I'll stop now". It's all about being collectively upset enough about status quo.
It intrinsically does. Whatever stance changes nothing or prefers to change nothing is a vote for the status quo, by definition.
> Whatever stance changes nothing .. is a vote for the status quo, by definition.
As problematic as the assertion "by definition" is aside, it should be noted that endlessly commenting about politics on internet forums effectively changes nothing.
I've been kettled by mounted officers and hit by high pressure hoses on cold evenings, something that also rarely effects change .. but that's a least a fun night out with people and better than wasting bits on the intertubes.
Whether it's a waste is not entirely up to you. There are plenty of people on this forum who are completely naive and live in a bubble. The chance that a comment they see her could make a lightbulb go off is non-zero.
But if I were a nihilist I might agree with you.
2 replies →
No, that isn't remotely true. It means that the alternative you offer isn't compelling, not that your interlocutor likes the status quo.
We're talking about the effect of non-action. To not act against a status quo is to enable it. Your feelings don't matter in that equation.
I wouldn't say that avoiding political discussion yourself because you can't handle it is a vote for the status quo, but telling others not to talk about politics is definitely a vote for the status quo.
Doesn't that depend entirely on the context? Telling the grocery store not to carry dairy products is an anti-dairy stance. Objecting to dairy products in the vegetable section is not anti-dairy it's pro-keeping-things-organized. Debating whether or not dairy ought to be allowed in the vegetable section is also not anti-dairy, at least in the general case.
5 replies →