• JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    43
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Literal thought policing (“what you privately think”) and quasi-religious purity logic (“has tainted Proton”). This nicely reveals the kind of busybodying inquisitorial mindset that keeps losing elections for US progressives and thus landing the rest of the world with Trump.

    There’s an easy solution to the pseudo-problem you raise: judge Proton by its actions rather than the (utterly commonplace) opinions of one of its directors.

    • Ech@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Hey bud, when you blurt out what you think “privately”, it’s no longer private, and people not liking what was said publicly isn’t “thought policing”.

      Secondly, Protons actions include supporting this wackjob’s “private” thoughts.. Even by your asinine rubric, they’re allowed to be judged on that.

    • yamper@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      hey i remember you from yesterday’s thread, where you called the official proton’s account doubling down “significant if true” and still haven’t changed your tune

    • BmeBenji@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 hours ago

      It’s not thought policing. Proton, a company all about privacy, is literally nothing without the trust of its user base. Aligning with someone who is not trustworthy by making a statement that makes no sense (literally saying Trump’s administration will be anti-big tech while it’s been gaining shit tons of support from the Tech Titans Musk, Bezos, and Zuck) completely debases that trust. Additionally it’s not thought policing because companies are not people and cannot think.

      Even if it was thought policing, in line with the Social Contract of Tolerance, there is no room to tolerate, let alone vocally support, fascists.

    • TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 hours ago

      “Thought policing” is when you coerce someone to change their thoughts against their will. It is not boycotting a service because one does not agree with the service owner’s thoughts. That is not thought policing. That is a purely voluntary transaction on both sides, and that is one’s right as a consumer of said service. He is not entitled to customers.

    • Leraje@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Literal thought policing (“what you privately think”)

      Are you suggesting that a statement that he made is not what he thinks?

      quasi-religious purity logic (“has tainted Proton”)

      lol, sorry you’re incapable of processing descriptive language :) I’ll rephrase it to ‘has negatively affected Proton’s image in the eyes of some’.

      This nicely reveals the kind of busybodying inquisitorial mindset that keeps losing elections for US progressives and thus landing the rest of the world with Trump.

      Neither I, nor Proton, are American so its difficult to see how my opinion keeps landing the world with Trump.