[ajscanlan]

> It's basically a complete support of the status quo.

I've seen many people spout this off as if it's self-evident, and I can't for the life of me understand why.

The status quo isn't some neutral, natural resting state that will continue on until otherwise affected, it needs to be _constantly_ maintained.

Being non-political doesn't maintain the status quo, because maintaining the status quo is an _active_ endeavour, in the same way a plane doesn't keep flying forever just because its engines turn off.

[Lutger]

You are mostly right, except that the actions of gitlab _are_ an active endeavour in various respects:

- putting a stop on political discussion at the workplace

- making it clear in the handbook as a matter of policy that gitlab will sell to whomever they legally can

- sending a clear signal that any time spend on considering not to do so and expressing an alternative opinion is seen as a violation of the values of gitlab and waste of time

- engaging in commercial activity with anybody, assuming you don't rip them off and they actually benefit from it, can also be seen as support in a very weak sense

However, 'support' also has the meaning of condoning. It's like a bystander not taking action when somebody is sexually harassed. You don't say he actively caused the harassment but his lack of action betrays an implicit support.

[wpietri]

This is true but misleading. The status quo is much less of an active endeavor than changing the status quo.

As an obvious examples, the American Revolution was clearly more active. And surely the revolutionaries were seen as more "political" than people who just wanted to go about their lives. Said lives of course including a variety of actions that directly or indirectly supported British rule.

[Nasrudith]

It fits as a "total war" mentality essentially. Delivering food to a city is supporting a siege. So is paying protection money supporting an armed group of criminals. Technically right but a matter of nuance. It may be effective in some cases but like nearly anything assuming automatic morality is a way to leap off the slippery slope.

Even the advocates don't take it literally usually because of how barking mad that would be in a "strangle infants for not supporting the cause" way. But that isn't special because any philsophy can be twisted into something horrific.

I suspect its popularity is more for the memetic effectiveness than a deep philosophy - regardless if it is right.