> Most secular and democratic societies has agreed to a standard that I defend.
Cool. But that’s your politics, and not necessarily everybody’s, and to have a different political position from you is not inherently morally wrong. We could argue about whether or not the status quo is fine, but that’s not the point - the point is simply that taking the status quo as acceptable is a political position which you’re subjecting others to, and your defence of it to the point of refusing to use software that does not back the status quo doubly so.
Or, in other words, you’re not for getting politics out of software - you’re for getting politics that you don’t agree with out of software.
> Or, in other words, you’re not for getting politics out of software - you’re for getting politics that you don’t agree with out of software.
Well yes, but I would be okay with the same being applied against me. Of course some basic level of politics is necessary (like licenses) if you want to count that as politics.
I won't go and put taxation politics, immigration politics or any other specific politic matters into my code or EULA. I expect this of other software as well. I don't want any unnecessary politics in the software when there clearly is no reason for it.
Cool. But that’s your politics, and not necessarily everybody’s, and to have a different political position from you is not inherently morally wrong. We could argue about whether or not the status quo is fine, but that’s not the point - the point is simply that taking the status quo as acceptable is a political position which you’re subjecting others to, and your defence of it to the point of refusing to use software that does not back the status quo doubly so.
Or, in other words, you’re not for getting politics out of software - you’re for getting politics that you don’t agree with out of software.