• 0 Posts
  • 4 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 21st, 2023

help-circle
  • “It should be obvious that Daniel’s private donation to a political party is not part of Mullvad’s values or mission, in the same way that someone’s opinions on animal rights, taxes or public healthcare policy isn’t.”

    The part being unsaid here is “that Daniel’s private donation to a political party is NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH Mullvad’s values or mission” (pardon the double negative)

    That’s what I have issue with. They’re saying Daniel’s own personal purpose/mission (the donation being an expression of that) is compatible with their mission, or at minimum does not conflict.

    What does “freedom of speech” have to do with expression of Mullvad employees? Mullvad isn’t a government. Free speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences. If Daniel’s own personal mission/purpose is incompatible with Mullvad’s, severing their relationship with him would be appropriate and not a violation of his freedom of speech. Of course, this goes back to, it’s not incompatible.

    The “tolerance” bit, Daniel’s own personal mission/purpose as expressed by his donation is inherently inhumanely intolerant. Again, Mullvad is indirectly stating that intolerance is not incompatible with their mission/purpose, which makes the “tolerance” bit a contradiction. They might as well have people working for them that believe you have zero right to privacy.




  • My definition is any group that typically was targeted by the slur “queer” in the past would be covered by the queer umbrella. The slur was generally used against minority sexual orientations and gender identities, or in other words any trait or behavior that is not “normal” for heterosexuals or “normal” for man/woman, but isn’t limited to well defined groups. For example, a cisgender heterosexual man who liked to dress in women’s clothing would be considered queer by those who use it as a slur. They are not LGBT, but if they identified as Queer that would make sense to me.