> The debate about Linux desktop or bitcoin need not be political.
I agree, but that doesn't mean we should silence people who bring up political issues.
> But I'd like to offer an indicator for when things inevitably become 'political'; when there's no provably correct answer and the use of force is involved.
That's a good indicator that pretty much everyone would agree.
However, what constitutes "use of force", however, changes from people to people. Some people believe that merely having a state is "use of force". Other people believe that having a billion dollars to bargain is "use of force". It gets crazier: other people believe it's neither. Or both. Etcetera.
I believe most people don't realize that to support Bitcoin you either have to adhere to extremely polarizing political beliefs or be completely neutral about it (because you don't care or you don't know). (IMO, of course)
People who are neutral might fail to realize the political implications of Bitcoin and immediately jump to "those people are mental, why do they hate us?"
That applies pretty much to any political discussion ever.
I agree, but that doesn't mean we should silence people who bring up political issues.
> But I'd like to offer an indicator for when things inevitably become 'political'; when there's no provably correct answer and the use of force is involved.
That's a good indicator that pretty much everyone would agree.
However, what constitutes "use of force", however, changes from people to people. Some people believe that merely having a state is "use of force". Other people believe that having a billion dollars to bargain is "use of force". It gets crazier: other people believe it's neither. Or both. Etcetera.