[dullcrisp]

Say you find out that your dentist is into Qanon. Do you:

a) Nod politely and try to change the subject?

b) Tell him you think he’s nuts and you prefer not to discuss politics with him?

c) Find a different dentist because this makes you uncomfortable and you’re not sure you can trust his judgement?

d) Tell your friends that this dentist has some weird political views, and here’s a new dentist you found that you like?

e) Start a pressure campaign to shame anyone who still goes to this dentist?

Because I think everything except the last one would be a fair reaction, but I can’t ever tell which one people are talking about.

[array_key_first]

The phrasing here is strange - whats the difference between a pressure campaign and me telling my friends?

What if I have a lot of friends? Is it now a pressure campaign?

What makes something telling the truth, and what makes something a campaign?

And, why do people so thoroughly fear the truth being told about them? Is that shame, or something else?

If you wish privacy, as we all do often, then stay private. Its easy and free.

But when your opinion is posted online and you willingly tie it to your real life identity, you cannot get canceled. No, in my mind, it's impossible.

You may cancel yourself. But people simply repeating your own words back to you is not a campaign, it's just a reminder of reality and truth.

[watwut]

Basically, it is ok for bigots like DHH to spread their opinions and to try to push away or harm people they dont like.

But, if you push back or criticise them, that is something wrong. The harm can go only one way - from bigots to the rest of us. But other way round, once you funded bigots you have to continue with it.

[zahlman]

> But, if you push back or criticise them, that is something wrong.

You aren't being restricted from engaging in pushback or criticism.

You're just receiving some of your own.

Part of which involves disputing your framing of who is or isn't a "bigot".

[chuckadams]

The "pressure campaign" being one guy who decided to withdraw his contribution. Was Mike Perham obligated to publicly associate with DHH indefinitely?

[dullcrisp]

I can’t comment on the decisions people made in this case, I was taking up GP’s musings on who we should let have what opinions in general.

I guess I would say that withdrawing funding from an organization based on who they let speak at an event seems like an overreaction given that it had these ramifications, but I don’t think it’s my place to judge what anyone chooses to contribute their own money to. None of the rest of us is contributing $250k to Ruby Central either, and we’re not entitled to have Mike solve our problems.

[mrguyorama]

>I guess I would say that withdrawing funding from an organization based on who they let speak at an event seems like an overreaction given that it had these ramifications

Wait wait wait, now it's Mike's fault that Shopify acted the way it did and coup'd this organization? Come on. You can't judge his choice to remove funding on what someone else did.