It's not really an angle, but mostly a response to the content of your comment and certain other comments to be found in this thread, and my own general observations (which are hardly scientific of course).
At any rate, you've not really addressed my comment (the one you're replying to) - but I do feel as though your reply is meant to mock me, which, to my thinking, reinforces said observations. Excuse me if mockery wasn't your intention.
If Crake has such as a shallow understanding of the subject, as you say, perhaps you could enlighten all of us with your deep understanding of the subject? Merely asserting that someone's incorrect doesn't carry much weight by itself. This might lead one to think that you're unable to demonstrate the validity of your assertion by argument - i.e., that your statement is invalid.
Perhaps you should elaborate on your own deep understanding of the subject rather than simply alluding to it.
Why is it that SJW types are so quick to insult and demean anyone who disagrees with them? It's very unpleasant. Your beliefs are not the forgone conclusion you treat them as.
How incredibly rude and condescending. Is there some good reason you chose not to include his whole statement in your quote?
If you have to misrepresent the views of those you disagree with in order to argue your own point, it might be the case that your own argument has no value.
I prefer not to be forced to use correct indentation. I do so as a matter of course. And on the odd occasion I have some reason to use odd indentation, I want to be able to do that too. I like to write my code according to my own judgement. I don't feel that indentation ought to be part of a language, just part of the code.
That said, I do sometimes write in Python and I have nothing against the language. This isn't meant to be an attack on Python.
Edit: also, the indentation in the first example is obviously just a means of illustrating that whitespace is non-significant with this project. I don't think they're suggesting code ought to be written without correct indentation.
There may be a culture, but Python is simply a tool. One doesn't need to be a "Pythonic thinker" to use that tool. I'm not saying this is the most /sensible/ idea/project, but I see nothing in particular wrong with it. Your conception of culture here sounds oppressive and stifling to me.
Another commenter suggests the only reason to do something like this would be "emotional attachment"; all the huffing and puffing in these comments strikes me as exactly that, but in reverse.
How so? No one is being deceived. Everyone who participates does so of their own volition. Is individual volition repulsive?
Are they really dumb? Is the guy in the middle of the scheme who makes out with a profit dumb? There's known risk - some will decide they'll risk it. It may not be wise (I wouldn't participate, myself), but I wouldn't be so bold as to assume they're dumb.
> But those who participate are still morally complicit.
Who are these morally complicit participants if not the "obviously dumb" persons whom you just described? Are they victims with "serious issues" or are they morally corrupt enablers?
You may mean that the morally-corrupt-enabler(s) are whomever set this up, but that's not really what's suggested by such a broad phrase as "those who participate".
> That Russia has a reasonable political platform regarding its LGBT citizens?
Are you saying that this position can simply be disregarded out of hand? That strikes me as disrespectful and self-important. If nothing else it is non-conducive to any actual discussion on the matter - unless all you want is an echo chamber to reaffirm your preexisting positions on the matter.
> The topic was the Google Doodle showing support for LGBT people
Specifically in relation to the LGBT issues surrounding the Olympics, i.e., Russia's "anti-gay" laws. The Russian laws are very much a part of this topic. You're being disingenuous.
> one-sided use of the site to promote specific political views
How do you mean? I've not encountered any similar community which isn't also a political echo chamber - unless you're talking about something more specific that I'm unaware of.
Good god, the comments on this article. You'd think the author went deliberately out of her way to not photograph women, and that she did so as a personal affront to the commenters.
> the article's credibility is killed by the use of the word dead
How? The author clearly doesn't mean "out of business" when he says "dead". He means that what Microsoft once was, or what it represented, is dead. The idea once conveyed by the word "Microsoft" is dead. It's not sensationalist clickbait, it's a metaphor.
Are you implying that every single passenger aboard a normal commercial flight is there for some absolutely necessary, useful purpose? I'd wager not, in which case a large quantity of the fuel used in the normal course of operations is also 'wasted' - or, at least, used sub-optimally - the passengers being the only reason the flights are undertaken in the first place.
At any rate, you've not really addressed my comment (the one you're replying to) - but I do feel as though your reply is meant to mock me, which, to my thinking, reinforces said observations. Excuse me if mockery wasn't your intention.
If Crake has such as a shallow understanding of the subject, as you say, perhaps you could enlighten all of us with your deep understanding of the subject? Merely asserting that someone's incorrect doesn't carry much weight by itself. This might lead one to think that you're unable to demonstrate the validity of your assertion by argument - i.e., that your statement is invalid.