[animuchan]

I wonder if by this thread's logic, it is now my turn to virtue signal as if I'm leaving Mullvad as a customer, because now you said that don't like someone else's freedom of conscience, and I value freedom of conscience.

Such a bad place we're in: people say they value "freedom", but then you can't choose you own political representation without being witch-hunted to death by the same "freedom" group.

(I honestly think that the perfect response in this case would be to support the cofounder, if anything, to make their own choices, and refuse to hate on the person's political leaning. But alas, the chains of freedom are super heavy.)

[asdewqqwer]

At 21 century, especially on a topic regarding Europe, I thought we should have long learnt the lesson from how problematic Legal Positivism and naive "freedom" is from Weimarer Republik‘s constitution.

In short, freedom should at least maintain the capability of preserving basic poltical freedom. From my understanding of that party, they are clearly against other people's existing political freedom.

[animuchan]

That group is against our political freedoms, so we're naturally against their political freedoms. Are we just doing tribalism and then intellectualizing? (I don't know what the answer is, but I fear it's a resounding "yup".)

[sierisimo]

Its the tolerance paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Not bare tribalism, just trying to keep everyone's freedom.

[bingoMen]

The same applies to people who say they support freedom but are then opposed to immigration because their concept of freedom is tied to wealth, privileges, and the preservation of those things. But that has little to do with freedom. We are only free when everyone is free.

[kfreds]

> The same applies to people who say they support freedom but are then opposed to immigration

Indeed. Open borders is the ideal. That's also one of the views that Daniel and I share.

[lightbritefight]

The primary financier of a political party that calls immigrants "parasites" does not support open borders.

Claming otherwise is at a minimum disengious, but with absolutly no clarification from Daniel directly, it just reads like you are lying about his stances for PR.

[kfreds]

> The primary financier of a political party that calls immigrants "parasites" does not support open borders.

It's his ideal. He states in the Flamman article that it is unfortunately not possible due to mismanagement by the Swedish government.

> clarification from Daniel directly

Read the Flamman article and read his blog. I've linked to it elsewhere in this thread. You can choose to believe me or not.

[lightbritefight]

I can't find the link youre referring to in the vague chaos of this thread, but based on his current donations to a virulently anti immigrant party, it sure seems like your partners feelings have changed about open boarders since it was written. Why is he unable to speak for himself on this matter?

If open boarders are only acceptable when you can refuse immigration based on ethnicity, then no, you do not support open borders. When you work to forcably eject not only first but second generation immigrants, people born in Sweden, based on their ethnicity, you do not support open borders.

The above looks to be a core tenat of Daniel's prefered political party based on their own statements, so its extremely disengious to discuss some old article about supporting free movement while he's actively donating to people who want to brutalize hundred of thousands of Swedish residents because they are the "wrong type" of people.

[owebmaster]

> You can choose to believe me or not.

You are choosing to ignore that OP and many more people don't believe that otherwise this thread would not even exist.

[cmsj]

"witch-hunted to death" is a fairly generous interpretation of "I am no longer going to be a Mullvad customer" don't you think?

[ksec]

>without being witch-hunted

I still remember in 2013 to 2021 when this was happening in the US and wider internet on twitter and reddit. A lot of people in Europe / AUS / NZ thought it was some soup opera made up by the internet's few.

[latexr]

> soup opera

Slight note, it’s soap opera. They got that name because the original sponsors were soap manufacturers.

[ksec]

LOL yes. It was a typo.

[chlorion]

I don't think you understand what these people view as "freedom".

This isn't a simple difference in political beliefs, they believe that certain groups of people are basically subhuman and don't deserve basic human rights.

How can you support that?

It seems there are a lot of far-right extremest trolls/psychopaths on hacker news. What a disgrace.