4 ms·
I think your analogy goes the wrong way. If you buy bananas from a grocery store, along the entire chain of people that were involved in selling you that banana
by tosti 1mo ago
I think your analogy goes the wrong way. If you buy bananas from a grocery store, along the entire chain of people that were involved in selling you that banana there could be all kinds of sick fucks. You'd never know because you've only met the store clerk and you don't really know that person either. I also don't know why anyone would care, except maybe the manager.
Your situation would describe something like Panda antivirus. They're known for funding scientology. I'd rather not buy from them, but honestly I also don't know if the competitors are worse. Perhaps that Norton guy has flipped swastikas all over his basement and that Kaspersky dude also runs an illicit brothel in south-west Asia on the side. Who knows.
- skeledrew 1mo agoRead the OP comment again. They expressly said they only care that the tool works; nothing else matters to them. So they will buy bananas from a grocery store even if they know that the owner is sourcing those bananas from... "sick fucks" and there's another grocery store across the street, also stocking bananas but sourced from an ethical supplier, but maybe those bananas are usually a bit more ripe than they prefer.
- tosti 1mo agoNo, that's your interpretation. OP merely gave examples of acceptable (mis)conduct. If you want to know where the boundary sits, go ask OP. I, for one, also wouldn't know why it matters what the toolmaker voted or to what organisation he donated to. Voting is considered everyones own private business. That's because some people can't stand it if others disagree with their choice, but democracy doesn't work that way. If people are coerced by peer pressure to tell what they voted and it's contentious, they could be inclined to cast a dishonest vote.