In my world we often say things like "X is the moral equivalent of Y" where X and Y are just technologies and, clearly, are morally-neutral things.
Why do we do this? Well, because it adds emphasis, and a dash of humor.
Clearly fork() is neither Good nor Evil. It's morally neutral. It has no moral value whatsoever. But to say "fork() is evil" is to cause the audience to raise their eyebrows -"what, why would you say fork() is evil?!"- and maybe pay attention.
Yes, there is the risk that the audience might react dismissively because fork() obviously is morally-neutral, so any claim that it is "evil" must be vacuous or hyperbolic. It's a risk I chose to take.
Really, it's a rhetorical device. I think it's pretty standard. I didn't create that device myself -- I've seen it used before and I liked it.
Morally-neutral does not equate to neutral insofar as I think most technologists consider some tech to be "good" and some to be "bad" in a practical sense.
"Good -vs- evil" is obviously hyperbolic - particularly the latter - but outside of morals they still imply a tendency to be technically/practically good or bad in an objective sense. So discounting it as a mere rhetorical device seems overly dismissive.
Why do we do this? Well, because it adds emphasis, and a dash of humor.
Clearly fork() is neither Good nor Evil. It's morally neutral. It has no moral value whatsoever. But to say "fork() is evil" is to cause the audience to raise their eyebrows -"what, why would you say fork() is evil?!"- and maybe pay attention.
Yes, there is the risk that the audience might react dismissively because fork() obviously is morally-neutral, so any claim that it is "evil" must be vacuous or hyperbolic. It's a risk I chose to take.
Really, it's a rhetorical device. I think it's pretty standard. I didn't create that device myself -- I've seen it used before and I liked it.