>When you try and cleave society into things that are and aren't political, what you are doing is creating a normative set of things that aren't allowed to be challenged, on the basis of your claim that they aren't political

What are you talking about? Whether something is allowed to be challenged has nothing to do with whether it's political. Actually, what even is not allowed to be challenged? I struggle to come up with a single example.

▲

tkel an hour ago | parent [-]

Yes, in communities that try to claim that certain things are "political" and certain things are "not political", "banning cryptocurrency" could be rejected on the basis that it is "political". The point is that saying something like "we don't do politics" is absurd. There is always an underlying politics, even if it has been normalized or obfuscated, repressed or unexamined. Reread my above comment.

	▲	TobTobXX 16 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		No, I think both, political and apolitical decisions can exist. If you ban a project because its CI pipeline mines crypto and that ia a drain on your server, it is an apolitical argument. If you ban a project because it drains recources because an AI agent is commutting multiple times a second, that is apolitical. If you ban a project, because it hosts content that doesn't align with your ideals since it uses cryptocurrencies, that is clearly political. Sure, there may be a small grey zone. But there are swaths of decicions that are clearly political/apolitical.