[rglullis]

> It is the same for this soapbox product, no?

Absolutely not the same. His work was not achieved due to exploitation of anyone. His personal views do not change the usage of the product and do not mandate any kind of compliance or agreement to any of his values. You want to put someone who simply expresses a contrarian view on the same stand as someone who actively exploits their employees?

> I don't care if it is cancelled tbh, i just don't want the people behind the product to get my money, is this bad?

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist...

Yes, pretty bad. This is the seed of totalitarianism that is planted in most progressives minds and speeches. You just don't think is bad because you are not in the out-group yet.

[Miner49er]

An open source project is different then like a chair or something. Part of the value of open source is the community around it. You can contribute to the code and ask around for support, but that requires associating or at least potentially associating with the creator.

If that creator is someone you don't want to associate with then why not just find a different project to use?

[rglullis]

(This is already getting tiring, so forgive me for the flippant answer)

I don't want to associate with Richard Stallman (even before his stupid comments regarding pedophilia), yet I use Emacs every single day of my life. If you tell me that Emacs itself only came to existence due to any of Stallman's ridiculous statements or if you tell me that my usage of Emacs enables Stallman in any way to be the asswipe that he is, then I would seriously consider dropping it.

[gizzlon]

Yes, you pay money for the chair :P

More importantly, I agree with parent that expressing views is something else than actively exploiting someone or using violence. Words != violence. Tolerance is being able to co-exist, work with and even be friends with people we disagree with. And, yes, that include people we think are intolerant (or that will be the excuse not to do the hard thing and engage in debate).

Open debate is a good thing, and it was hard won. Let's not throw it away so quickly.

[488643689]

We're not talking opinions tho.

Spinster.xyz is build on Soapbox and _run by Alex Gleason. It's hosting a community, which was banned from reddit for actively harassing and willfully hurting trans people. That's actions not words. Maybe people underestimate how organized and funded these hate groups are, how coordinated and planned the gaslighting of the public is. It's also not just "feminism" but more and more intersection with ultra right and "christian" conservative thinktanks.

Just because you are not directly affected doesn't mean it's all just opinions and words, and nobody gets hurt.

[gizzlon]

> That's actions not words.

Are you saying they're beating people up? Or stalking them? Because, if not, it absolutely is "just" words! And if they do, that's illegal. I'm not in the US, but it seems to me like your laws, for the most part, strike good balance in these types of scenarios. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing you would disagree?

I'm not saying it's nice, or good, or that they're moral. I'm saying that the "fix" many people (maybe not you) are advocating usually leads to much darker things than people having their feelings hurt by words[1]. We know this because many societies have gone down that path before us.

1: OK, that sounds flippant, I know. But I think many people underestimate the horribly things people have done, and still do, to each other..

[dependenttypes]

Open debate is certainly nice but sadly both Alex and the spinster.xyz administration and users prefer offer troll responses and insult people behind their backs rather than engage in discussion.

[orwin]

> First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist...

Thank you for this. I understand your view better like this.

This is my point of view: I use my money and my time however i want. No one should feel entitled enough tell me if i am allowed to boycott a product.

This is why i don't think it is cancelling and that you are doing the term a disservice: Neither i nor 488643689 did say "don't use and/or participate with this product, he is transphobe". 488643689 just informed me, and others, of the product owner views on trans people, and that he cofounded spinster.xyz (which is a TERF platform).

Our society and economy is build on the myth of homo economicus. That people will take the best decision for them with the right informations. Having this information without haviong to dig in makes everyone stronger and able to make better decision.

Preventing someone to do business with perfectly informed economic actor is totalitarism. But informing people about the personnal deed of a product owner, not shaming them if they still engage with him, is something you should absolutely do if you believe in liberal capitalism.

[throwanem]

Invoking the ghost of Martin Niemoller to complain about people not wanting to do business with somebody who publicly espouses views they find abhorrent is a hell of a swerve.