It's possible to support all of the same policies without referring to human beings as "parasites," and I don't think we should be flippant about what language is used. It's relevant. It reflects a state of mind.
I personally do not ever see myself voting for (or otherwise indirectly supporting) a politician that speaks like that, regardless of whether you can steelman it with more neutral language.
I think most liberals have the intuition that laws should apply equally to citizens and non-citizens, and I think that's where a lot of the discomfort comes from when we talk about immigration. A citizen who doesn't meet those demands imposed on non-citizens (e.g., language, cultural assimilation, etc.) will never be at risk of deportation, simply because they were lucky enough to be born in the country.
However, it does seem that this Swedish party is willing to "repatriate" even Swedish-born citizens, so at least they're consistent.
It doesn't say that at all, Swedish-born citizens means at least one of the parent IS already Swedish, they aren't citizen at birth if none of the parents are swedish and that's just normal almost everywhere in the world.
You wouldn't expect your child to be Pakistani if you get birth over there as 2 German individuals.
> I think most liberals have the intuition that laws should apply equally to citizens and non-citizens, and I think that's where a lot of the discomfort comes from when we talk about immigration. A citizen who doesn't meet those demands imposed on non-citizens (e.g., language, cultural assimilation, etc.) will never be at risk of deportation, simply because they were lucky enough to be born in the country.
What you said makes no sense. Vanishingly few liberals believe laws should apply equally to citizens and non-citizens. If they did, they'd be for the complete abolition of visa/residency conditions altogether, simply allowing anyone to immigrate to the country. I doubt that even in the US more than 5% of people believe this. Any European country it'll be <3%.
Any visa/residency condition is a demand not imposed on citizens. Language and cultural assimilation aren't any different from other such conditions.
I think that's what a lot of people in this thread are missing. There are alternatives to Mullvad, so it's pretty easy to take your money elsewhere if you're unhappy with where it's being spent right now.
The counter-reaction to the reaction is so dumb. If you think it's silly to boycott a company because of a co-founders political donations, fine. But it's just as silly to try to argue people into not boycotting. Live and let live.
There are no alternatives to Mullvad where you _know_ that all of the founders have "better" beliefs than this guy. If you have one, share it.
What proves the point is that someone suggested moving to Proton, whose founder (not even co-founder AFAIK) is outwardly pro-MAGA. And comments calling that out are the ones that get downvoted. This shows people are just pretending to care.
It's not silly to boycott companies in general, but this specific case it's silly. Not because of the reason, but because boycotting only makes sense if it's very likely that an alternative is going to be better in the specific factor that instigates the boycott. In this case, it's not likely, you have no clue whether an alternative is going to have more or less $0.0x of your $1 going to people supporting far-right parties.
Especially when VPN companies are known to be some of the dodgiest tech companies in general. Mullvad is one of the most transparent ones.
Your point is relevant, but it’s not the whole story.
A rational actor will act on available information. It’s entirely possible that someone unhappy with Mullvad switches to an alternative that is even worse (on whatever dimensions they care about), and they just don’t know it. The question is whether they could’ve expected that outcome on a balance of probabilities.
I feel like the default assumption for a company in the privacy space is that they are close to politically neutral (0). Certainly skewing libertarian, but probably not more right (+1) than left (-1). So, if you see that your money is explicitly being siphoned to right-wing political parties (>0), and you don’t like that, it’s rational to switch to an alternative (expected value = 0).
Also, “very likely” to be better isn’t necessary, because switching costs are minimal.
Also also, saying that Proton’s founder is “outwardly MAGA” is really oversimplifying things. I’m not sure what your viewpoint actually is — maybe you’re just expressing someone else’s — but I’d encourage you to read: https://medium.com/@ovenplayer/does-proton-really-support-tr...
> I feel like the default assumption for a company in the privacy space is that they are close to politically neutral (0).
That assumption here is wrong, because VPN companies in particular are known to be a lot dodgier than average. Maybe if we were talking bakeries, then I'd agree.
> Also also, saying that Proton’s founder is “outwardly MAGA” is really oversimplifying things. I’m not sure what your viewpoint actually is — maybe you’re just expressing someone else’s — but I’d encourage you to read: https://medium.com/@ovenplayer/does-proton-really-support-tr...
One can make very similar arguments for this specific case. Saying that the party in question is far-right is simplifying things. On top of that, a co-founder making a private donation to a party (two layers: 1. private 2. party) is less directly related to the company than a founder directly tweeting an ideological point (1. public 2. direct).
Honestly, the party sounds insane, I wouldn't be caught dead supporting them and would hope that any Swede reading alone avoids them with a ten-foot pole. But the response in this comment section is absurdly exaggerated compared to what any of the Big Tech corps that get talked about daily on here, and whose
I don't believe it's organic at all. Recently there's the biggest push in history of "think of the children" online surveillance, with remote attestation and mandatory identity coupling being rolled out at scale. Mullvad is known to be one of the top privacy-preserving VPN providers in the West, with a large userbase on HN, and now you get this very disproportionately negative reaction to what is realistically a meaningless issue: "$0.01 of every $1 spent on Mullvad might end up with someone who donates to a radical party, if even that" - just like, almost certainly, every other $1 you spend elsewhere does.
"I'm surprised the co-founder of a freedom of speech company is contributing to a political party that wants to force religious charter schools to close."
Just one suggestion: Could you add another sort order for the list view based on the number of “closet picks”? It would be cool to see which films are most popular among Criterion Closet guests.
I wouldn’t accept the premise that wrappers (i.e., <div>s) are to be avoided in the first place.
Perhaps less nesting is better in that it is more readable. But if you compensate by writing more complex CSS, then I don’t see how that’s an improvement.
