I despise random politics injections as well, but this is rather tame and very much in line with the ironic spirit of how Python release notes are written. I don't think it's offensive to anybody who doesn't go out of their way to become offended by things.
Both-sides-ism is not some kind of "free points" move in an argument. It's entirely consistent to believe (a) that a "tame" political statement supporting immigrants is acceptable in release notes, while also believing (b) that a cutesy poem defaming immigrants would be abhorrent and unacceptable. No one has an obligation to think that all political messages are acceptable just because they think that some political messages are sometimes acceptable.
Just to take an extreme example, imagine someone put in a note expressing empathy for the families of the victims of a natural disaster in their release notes. The following conversation takes place on Hacker News:
A: I don't really think these sorts of statements have a place in release notes. They don't ultimately accomplish anything or help anyone.
B: I think there's no problem with expressing compassion like this. It's not particularly obtrusive and isn't harming anyone.
You: How would you feel if the release notes had expressed glee at the disaster instead? You would oppose that, right? That means you must also oppose empathetic messages in release notes, to be consistent.
> It's entirely consistent to believe (a) that a "tame" political statement supporting immigrants is acceptable in release notes, while also believing (b) that a cutesy poem defaming immigrants would be abhorrent and unacceptable.
The opposing cutesy poem wouldn't be defaming immigrants!
It would be acknowledging a nation can't exist without borders, sovereignty matters, and unchecked migration is not universally good.
That so many commenters here are missing a key factor here (that the opposing view is presented as a disingenuous straw-man in the release notes) is quite illustrative of why it's not being seen as an issue.
I think you've missed the entire point of the structure of the poem - the backward reading (ie, immigrants may share my home and food) is as "tame" as the forward reading.
>That means you must also oppose empathetic messages in release notes, to be consistent.
Yes. It will be interesting reading these cultural artifacts after 50 further years of geo-political development.
Could you articulate what that opposing view is in this case?
It's also worth pointing out that Python (and it's ecosystem) is developed by an international team of people, most of whom volunteer their time out of good will and sense of shared purpose across diverse cultures.
The "both sides" logic seems to miss the point that world without mutual aid and international, cross-cultural cooperation would be one that would not have Python and it's ecosystem. It's not political for the Python developers to support such a view, such a view is foundational for the existence of Python.
One can be supportive of mutual aid and international, cross-cultural cooperation while also acknowledging that a nation doesn't exist without borders, sovereignty matters, and that unchecked migration is not universally good.
When you include the contemporary context of illegal US border crossings at record numbers [1], it's clearly making a political statement. Pretending the development of a programming language is inexorably linked to unchecked immigration is disingenuous.
Could you point out where they are supporting "unchecked migration"?
The statement there only reads to me as a call to have compassion for those caught up in what will be a perpetually escalating migration crisis (and will likely soon make migrants of those who are currently protecting their borders).
> Pretending the development of a programming language is inexorably linked to unchecked immigration is disingenuous.
Where am I (or anyone else) making that claim? I'm claiming cross-cultural/international cooperation and mutual aid are unquestionably tied to the development of not just a programming language, but all open source software. Anyone who has worked in this space at all can likely list someone they have worked with on nearly every continent.
The fact that you view calls for compassion and empathy as calls for "unchecked migration" is a bit concerning.
Putting aside the fairly explicit lines in the poem: it's the context. It is not the case that the western world currently has no immigration and the poem makes the case to allow at least some.
More immigrants than ever are pouring over the US / Mexico border. The mayor of NYC (a self-proclaimed "sanctuary city") is now warning of the city's destruction as a result of the overwhelming influx [1]. This mayor is politically aligned with the party of our President, who presumably has no political interest in embarrassments like this, yet it's still happening.
"Unchecked migration" is essentially what is already happening, at least in the US. A cutesy poem in the release notes of software (??) that paints the side opposing it as mouth-breathing bigots and the supportive side as empathetic truth-tellers is unnecessary at best.
One of the two opinions, which are all that exists. All reasonable people have the one opinion, and all other people are all idiots who all have the other opinion.
I don't think this is a political advocacy. It's just a personal expression about a social issue. I found the way it was written quite thoughtful, actually, which I respect (though I don't like in its entirety).
But I upvoted your comment because I don't think there's a reason for people to downvote your comment.
It's absolutely acceptable that someone dislikes the poem and wants to express it here.
People confuse the purpose of "downvote". It's not for disagreement. Downvoting buries a comment. We shouldn't bury something just because we disagree with it. That's against one of the most basic human freedom value. If it's just a disagreement, reply to it expressing your view.
I do feel like it can help to break the herd mentality thing of "if it's already downvoted, downvote it more" by making people think about why they've done it
I don't particularly care what the venture capitalists who own this website want me to do. Nor is it surprising that they don't want politics here. Political consciousness can only be bad news for the uber-wealthy.
There needs to be a separate mechanism for disagreement versus quality (affecting ranking). Both of these should be separate from flagging for moderation.
There is. Replying. If there already is a disagreeing reply, you can upvote that. Downvoting a constructive and well-written post just because you disagree is not justified.
Those weathered by enough time and strife in this forum could predict this comment and ensuing thread a mile away after reading the announcement. After enough iterations, it all feels like a dance or ritual. Like watching birds mingle and bicker out your window. Just another day, the universe humming along. Things are as they should be :)
Wait until you have to use something like npm or yarn... and try to read the hidden log messages between the emojis, the "support X or Y" messages, the jobs search, and more.
If you'd like to see another viewpoint (or no viewpoint) espoused, volunteer to help Python with their releases and you'll have a chance to provide input to their release process.
For people who downvote Bostonian for his comment, how would you like it if that announcement, say, contained an abortion-related proclamation that you don't agree with?
"Share our food, Share our homes and Share our countries" is quite a big demand on everyone else. I am certainly not willing to do so without limit and without regard to context (e.g. the Muslim gang war that flared up in Sweden).
It's a statement about immigrants being people, that the hateful stories we tell about them are false that we have responsibility to them as fellow humans. It advocates for no specific political action, you can hold these beliefs and still be against immigration for whatever reason.
It's also a statement against rational thinking and discussions because it portrays both sides to an almost satirical level: "no borders" vs "all migrants are thieves/murderer/bombers"
There is 8 billion people in the world, with the number increasing still. You will always have to choose whom you feel responsibility towards, because all 8 billion are beyond anyone's capability.
I feel like you're applying programmer brain to statements that aren't actually commitments but north stars pointing us in the direction of how we should try and do better. Or phrased differently, "We might be the greatest country on earth, but an even greater country would ___"
And in this case to me the blank is "take on the world's tired huddled masses and set them up to be just as self-sufficient and successful as their native born." And I think that's pretty actionable, just about anyone could probably think of more than a few things that would push us closer to this.
>"Share our food, Share our homes and Share our countries" is quite a big demand on everyone else. I am certainly not willing to do so without limit and without regard to context
Neither are a lot of the people who initially advocated for the policies, ie NYC, as we're finding out.
Immigration is great. Unfettered illegal immigration is not. It puts pressure on social infrastructure and causes social strife. Look at us here in Canada. Most of our immigration is legal, and yet our wealth-per-person is shrinking because we can't build infrastructure fast enough to keep up with population growth.
There certainly is an equivalent of NIMBY in Western asylum politics.
A lot of Green/Progressive voters in Western Europe live in affluent neighbourhoods where practical effects of current migration waves are very limited, and often positive (e.g. cheap workforce for your household, but your kids' school does not suffer from any gang activity).
Voting patterns across income groups tend to reflect that discrepancy.
That seems to misrepresent reality. Generally speaking in all elections that I am aware off, rural regions are leaning right while urban regions are leaning left. In fact in general it seems anti-immigration/foreigner stances are almost anti-proportional to the number of immigrants/foreigners a person might encounter during their day.
Just 2 counter examples (anecdotes but I'm sure a bit of searching will reveal numbers to back this up): the first electorate that directly voted a green candidate Was the Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg electorate in 2002, likely one of the places in Germany with the highest proportion of immigrants (when it was still not gentrified like it is today.).
Another anecdote, this map of the French elections
https://img.lemde.fr/2022/04/11/0/0/1051/1674/800/0/75/0/869...
Showing that the anti immigration party of le pen is mainly winning in rural areas, and the urban centre of Paris is in fact voting the most left candidate
"In fact in general it seems anti-immigration/foreigner stances are almost anti-proportional to the number of immigrants/foreigners a person might encounter during their day."
That is an egg-and-chicken question. "White flight" is a thing and people who moved away from ghettoizing cities/neigbourhoods into the surrounding suburbia will likely vote against further immigration.
But that's typically not happening either. I fact usually the opposite happens, the urban areas with lots of immigrants get gentrified, because everyone wants to live there.
On top of that, we are now seeing that outer suburbs which were guaranteed winning electorates for right parties are now becoming more and more left leaning because young urban dwellers are moving there because they can't afford the cities.
Show me the evidence for "white flight" it certainly doesn't happen in most European metropolitan areas (the map of the French elections certainly didn't show that any of the areas surrounding the big cities were right leaning, in fact like e.g. Sachsen and Thüringen, the regions in Germany with the highest support for right wing parties, experience lots of people leaving, not moving there). That's one of the reasons why cities have become increasingly unaffordable.
> In fact in general it seems anti-immigration/foreigner stances are almost anti-proportional to the number of immigrants/foreigners a person might encounter during their day.
Maybe rurals are well aware of what's happening in urban regions and don't want it ? Maybe these people like their environment as it is and see no point in change ? I don't know, just guessing. :-)
The intention of the text is quite clear. It looks down upon people opposing immigration. The arguments from top-to-bottom and from bottom-to-top are quite different in tone.
IMHO there is nothing "fortunate" about dragging politics into programming, regardless of your or mine views.
I would find it fortunate and valuable if at least certain human activites stayed out of political culture wars entirely. If, instead of "my side, your side", there simply wasn't any need to think of a side for a moment.
I already deleted my FB and TW account to get rid of incessant political flamewars and I feel aghast that they are now following me to Python release notes of all places.
I’ve always considered the no-politics at work rule to be a neutral zone in an armistice. It’s been in effect for so long people have forgotten why it existed and see nothing wrong with resuming agitations. The ‘politics is personal’ and ‘bring your whole self to work’ shift is an intentional reinsertion of politics back into work and like the Chesterton’s fence parable I think we’ll rediscover why that rule was there in the first place.
The people advocating for bringing politics to work forget that people with opposing views will also do the same, and then you end up with a hostile, polarized and distracting work environment.
So the only choices are "let's abolish borders and live happily ever after" or "all migrants are killers/thieves/bombers we should build a wall". How diverse and subtile! If you frame problems like that it's easy to think you're in the "good guys" camp
In context of Python 3.12, neither fits my needs. Wouldn't it be nice if culture wars didn't infect every single attribute of our everyday lives? What this guy did was to spread useless political flamewar from the hell that calls itself social networks to a random professional webpage. Why exactly? Isn't there enough of flamewar out there?
It is positively totalitarian to drag politics into everything. The very meaning of "totalitarian" is that nothing is allowed to remain non-political.
So then we're making this about freedom as the central moral aspect. Then what about the freedom of the Python maintainers to post what they want? Why the selective defense?
False equivalency. The equivalent would be someone commenting saying they shouldn't publish release notes because of Reasons, and I would defend their right to publish release notes.
