there is essentially no evidence that actions are unaffected by beliefs and viewpoints, and that's precisely what you're asking us to uncritically accept
Mozilla is uniquely vulnerable to political incompetence because it’s not
just some corp, it’s also FOSS. It is still a FOSS project, yes?
Convincing people to donate their highly-technical labor to maintain your
cash cow for you is a delicate political art.
Free-software contributors want, in return: a degree of control and
ownership, an association with a respected brand, warm fuzzy feelings.
In the USA it is routinely assumed that you don’t share the worldview of the
person who signs your paycheck. (Cue: Dolly Parton soundtrack)
But society interprets donations as a form of endorsement. So if your
business relies on donors, you’d better make ‘em proud.
-mechanical_fish
0. Are you sure you didn't just misunderstand what was being said?
there is essentially no evidence that actions are unaffected by beliefs and viewpoints
1. I don't know how you got that from what I wrote. I was responding to a post that specifically refers to "unacceptable viewpoints", not unacceptable actions. It's the refusal to make a distinction at all that is unsettling, especially when it's being described as the proper heuristic for determining whether someone is above scrutiny or not.
and that's precisely what you're asking us to uncritically accept
2. I'm not asking you to uncritically accept anything. I'm stating my personal unwillingness to uncritically accept the notion that thinking the wrong thing or having a minority point of view ought to itself a punishable offense. A person's merit is not the sum of the popularity of his beliefs.
there is essentially no evidence that actions are unaffected by beliefs and viewpoints, and that's precisely what you're asking us to uncritically accept