5 ms·

No he did not. He funded a political campaign. No I do not know that formulation and I completely disagree with that. It's like saying you need heavy censorshi

No he did not. He funded a political campaign. No I do not know that formulation and I completely disagree with that. It's like saying you need heavy censorship in order to have free speech. Complete bullshit.

Jonnax 7y ago
They funded a homophobic political campaign. Websites started user agent detecting Firefox and putting banners saying to not use Firefox because of their homophobic CEO. It's pathetic that people like you hide behind censorship arguments and "diversity of thought" when defending the right to attack minorities. This kind of disingenuous thinking makes me question anyone evangelising Brave as a web browser.
- ecmascript 7y ago
  Just because someone donate to a political campaign that wants to stop same-sex marriage doesn't automatically make that person homophobic. He didn't attack any minority, stop spreading objectively false information. I am defending his right to believe whatever he likes in private. It will be a quick downhill (as we already have seen) as soon as you start listing bad values and try to hate on people that have these values. You may think I'm pathetic if you wish, I don't care. But remember, I will defend your right to your opinion too. It's kind of obvious you do not believe in the same thing and if more people would be like you we would find ourselves in a dark dystopia. You could move to China, they are well on their way to building the kind of society you seem to strive for. :)
  - Jonnax 7y ago
    "Just because someone donate to a political campaign that wants to stop same-sex marriage doesn't automatically make that person homophobic." Really? What's the point in arguing stupid semantics. People are defined by their actions. He has a right to believe what he wants. He also has to accept the consequences of those beliefs. At the end of the day it's just a job. As CEO or an executive you're a figurehead. Your actions are publicly associated with the company you head. You can decry the evils of "wokeness" or "social justice" but it's also the right of the employees of the company to complain or even campaign against the CEO. Why is one political campaign acceptable and another not? Because it really seems like you just don't agree with the politics of one. Your disingenuousness is what I'm calling pathetic. Like calling up China? An authoritarian country where the state owns all business whilst discussing the actions of a private company in America. There are plenty of conservative companies in the USA which would be fine with his political contributions. The idea of having no social consequences or accountability for your actions isn't a Chinese thing and it isn't an American thing. But it seems to be an effective playbook adopted by conservatives worldwide. But anyway, it's not like I'm going to change your mind :)
- qbaqbaqba 7y ago
  One website.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
It's a rather well-known saying. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance. The core point is, if you have a society that accepts anything and everything, that society will not end up with all the things, because it'll also accept people working explicitly to get rid of some of the things. It will instead end up with few things, being run by "dictatorship of small, intolerant minorities"[0]. Therefore, if the society wants to stay accepting, it has to carve an exception - it needs to reject anyone who doesn't also accept anything and everything. Reasoning behind the "paradox" is sound, but its application to real world varies. In particular, I've recently noticed that the "paradox of tolerance" is primarily being wielded by small, intolerant groups that want to aggressively force their way on everyone else. -- [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20837171 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20837171
- ecmascript 7y ago
  Maybe you're right, I think I may already follow this since I do not tolerate Mozilla's intolerance. I have never seen any more intolerance than in people who thinks social justice is important. I do not tolerate these peoples intolerance. I obviously do not accept anything and everything, that is why I am upset at Mozilla and their actions. > "dictatorship of small, intolerant minorities" This. This is what a lot of the tech world has become like in my opinion. A lot is dictated by people that think a code of conduct is more important than contributions and actual value. As soon as you say make a sexual joke, say "there is only two genders" etc you will get banned from that community, be called a nazi, people will try to take your job and income away. Just look at all my posts here, they are all downvoted not because I spam or write something objectively false, but because my opinion is incorrect according to the dictatorship.
  - parzivalm 7y ago
    By all means, you are definitely oppressed at work for making a sexual joke. Let's ignore the fact that that joke may be seen as harassment of others in the office. You shouldn't be called a Nazi, but if you are contributing to an intolerant culture then the company you work for has a perogagitive to get rid of you. And you are probably downvoted constantly because you are spewing beliefs and opinions that scream, "I would prefer to work in a Mad Men era office, than one that values and respects the opinions and beliefs of others." Fact of the matter, our society is better by saying that beliefs about making a statement like, "there are only two genders", are inappropriate and have no place in modern society. As always you are more than welcome to exercise your right to free speech, but that doesn't mean others can't exercise their freedoms to remove you from the equation.
claudiawerner 7y ago
>It's like saying you need heavy censorship in order to have free speech. Complete bullshit. Many philosophers of free speech and first amendment jurisprudence would argue that some restrictions on free speech for the sake of free speech could hypothetically be permitted. The law does this all the time; it restricts action in order to help guarantee the freedom of action of others. The most basic formulation of this is in the harm principle, in which it is recognized that harm should not be permitted because it interferes with others' rights.

Jonnax 7y ago

They funded a homophobic political campaign. Websites started user agent detecting Firefox and putting banners saying to not use Firefox because of their homophobic CEO. It's pathetic that people like you hide behind censorship arguments and "diversity of thought" when defending the right to attack minorities. This kind of disingenuous thinking makes me question anyone evangelising Brave as a web browser.

ecmascript 7y ago
Just because someone donate to a political campaign that wants to stop same-sex marriage doesn't automatically make that person homophobic. He didn't attack any minority, stop spreading objectively false information. I am defending his right to believe whatever he likes in private. It will be a quick downhill (as we already have seen) as soon as you start listing bad values and try to hate on people that have these values. You may think I'm pathetic if you wish, I don't care. But remember, I will defend your right to your opinion too. It's kind of obvious you do not believe in the same thing and if more people would be like you we would find ourselves in a dark dystopia. You could move to China, they are well on their way to building the kind of society you seem to strive for. :)
- Jonnax 7y ago
  "Just because someone donate to a political campaign that wants to stop same-sex marriage doesn't automatically make that person homophobic." Really? What's the point in arguing stupid semantics. People are defined by their actions. He has a right to believe what he wants. He also has to accept the consequences of those beliefs. At the end of the day it's just a job. As CEO or an executive you're a figurehead. Your actions are publicly associated with the company you head. You can decry the evils of "wokeness" or "social justice" but it's also the right of the employees of the company to complain or even campaign against the CEO. Why is one political campaign acceptable and another not? Because it really seems like you just don't agree with the politics of one. Your disingenuousness is what I'm calling pathetic. Like calling up China? An authoritarian country where the state owns all business whilst discussing the actions of a private company in America. There are plenty of conservative companies in the USA which would be fine with his political contributions. The idea of having no social consequences or accountability for your actions isn't a Chinese thing and it isn't an American thing. But it seems to be an effective playbook adopted by conservatives worldwide. But anyway, it's not like I'm going to change your mind :)
qbaqbaqba 7y ago
One website.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

It's a rather well-known saying. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance. The core point is, if you have a society that accepts anything and everything, that society will not end up with all the things, because it'll also accept people working explicitly to get rid of some of the things. It will instead end up with few things, being run by "dictatorship of small, intolerant minorities"[0]. Therefore, if the society wants to stay accepting, it has to carve an exception - it needs to reject anyone who doesn't also accept anything and everything. Reasoning behind the "paradox" is sound, but its application to real world varies. In particular, I've recently noticed that the "paradox of tolerance" is primarily being wielded by small, intolerant groups that want to aggressively force their way on everyone else. -- [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20837171 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20837171

ecmascript 7y ago
Maybe you're right, I think I may already follow this since I do not tolerate Mozilla's intolerance. I have never seen any more intolerance than in people who thinks social justice is important. I do not tolerate these peoples intolerance. I obviously do not accept anything and everything, that is why I am upset at Mozilla and their actions. > "dictatorship of small, intolerant minorities" This. This is what a lot of the tech world has become like in my opinion. A lot is dictated by people that think a code of conduct is more important than contributions and actual value. As soon as you say make a sexual joke, say "there is only two genders" etc you will get banned from that community, be called a nazi, people will try to take your job and income away. Just look at all my posts here, they are all downvoted not because I spam or write something objectively false, but because my opinion is incorrect according to the dictatorship.
- parzivalm 7y ago
  By all means, you are definitely oppressed at work for making a sexual joke. Let's ignore the fact that that joke may be seen as harassment of others in the office. You shouldn't be called a Nazi, but if you are contributing to an intolerant culture then the company you work for has a perogagitive to get rid of you. And you are probably downvoted constantly because you are spewing beliefs and opinions that scream, "I would prefer to work in a Mad Men era office, than one that values and respects the opinions and beliefs of others." Fact of the matter, our society is better by saying that beliefs about making a statement like, "there are only two genders", are inappropriate and have no place in modern society. As always you are more than welcome to exercise your right to free speech, but that doesn't mean others can't exercise their freedoms to remove you from the equation.

claudiawerner 7y ago

>It's like saying you need heavy censorship in order to have free speech. Complete bullshit. Many philosophers of free speech and first amendment jurisprudence would argue that some restrictions on free speech for the sake of free speech could hypothetically be permitted. The law does this all the time; it restricts action in order to help guarantee the freedom of action of others. The most basic formulation of this is in the harm principle, in which it is recognized that harm should not be permitted because it interferes with others' rights.