I love how we pretend to live in a free democratic society where everyone is free to make up their own mind and vote for what they believe...

...as long as they don't have opinions that differ from ours, in that case we might punch em in the face...

▲

bobusumisu 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

And everyone is free to chose not to buy products from people who have opinions that differs fundamentally from their own?

And some opinions cannot be tolerated in a democratic society. An obvious example is anti-liberal/anti-democratic opinions as they threaten the system itself. You cannot have a free democratic society if a majority removes the freedoms of a minority.

▲

calcifer 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You have freedom of speech to advocate for your politics. The rest of us have the freedom of association to not want to be involved with you in any way.

These are not contradictory - they are both essential freedoms.

▲

colinhb 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

For most people, the concern is the money, not the voting. People don't want wealthy people reshaping politics to fit their interests through their wealth. They can vote for whomever they want.

▲

yaris 5 hours ago | parent [-]

This sounds a bit irrational. Where does "wealthy" start? Mullvad co-CEO donated ~ $500K, would him donating $100K have the same effect? What about $10K? What if a Mullvad _employee_ donated $500K?

▲

colinhb 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

What about work in units of median annual household disposable income, which are at least somewhat responsive to the distribution of money?

What % do you think a reasonable voter should accept a person donating to a political campaign before it causes concern about the donor's influence vs the median household's voice?

Off the top of my head, I'd guess 500k USD is about 1000% / 10x median annual household disposable income in SE, which I think would give the median voter pause.

For what it's worth (my own view): I think about 10% (~5k USD) is obviously acceptable, and I expect most anyone would agree that donations at that level are fine. I think your proposed 1000% is obviously unacceptable, and I expect most people would agree with me on that as well.

I'm not sure exactly where the level is that opinion would flip, but I feel pretty confident about those boundaries.

▲

gpvos 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

A company shouldn't be able to fire an employee over their opinion,[0] so that wouldn't matter to me. For a major owner, the donation amount starts to matter to me around $5-10K, but YMMV.

[0] I suppose unless they have a very influential position and it's about a matter that contradicts main company goals

▲

microgpt 4 hours ago | parent [-]

What if the employee's opinion is that the employee should murder the CEO?

	▲	gpvos 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Oh, come on. If you're trying to make a point, be more clear.

▲

grim_io 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What's wrong with choosing who you give your money to?

Is that somehow undemocratic?

Is anyone censoring the guy?

▲

misnome 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> "punch em in the face"

Very weird interpretation of "voluntarily choose to not continue supporting them financially"

Presumably you want everyone to be forcibly compelled to finance the political parties they disagree with? And you would define this as a democratic society?

▲

thendrill 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Punishing a company because someone does something in their free time with their own money ....

	▲	gpvos 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The guy owns half the company, so a significant part of the money I'm paying is involved. Yes, it is quite ethical to decide based on matters like that. It's not an employee or minor shareholder.
	▲	flohofwoe 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Not doing business with a company (for any reason btw) is not 'punishment'. Nobody is taking away anything from the company or any people involved with that company.
	▲	krapp 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That's how markets work. People have the right to choose to do business, or not, based on whatever criteria they value.

▲

flohofwoe 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> in that case we might punch em in the face

Nobody is calling for violence though?

In a free democratic society nobody is forced to do business with anybody they don't agree with, and free speech means they can talk about their decision without fearing repercussion.

▲

loloquwowndueo 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So far in this thread you’re the only one mentioning punching anyone in the face.

▲

peddling-brink 6 hours ago | parent [-]

The Nazis are sad that people want to punch them in the face.

https://knowyourmeme.com/sensitive/memes/richard-spencer-pun...

	▲	qtk8 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Surprised it took that long for a Godwin.

▲

yde_java 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Haters will now say that the far right will destroy exactly that: "our" democracy. The Western morality is a joke, and many HN readers comment like an infant. I feel ashamed.

▲

Nursie 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Everyone is free to make up their mind and vote for what they believe.

And if I disagree strongly enough then I am free to take my business elsewhere. Especially if the money I hand over might go to support speech and parties I fundamentally disagree with.

Freedom swings both ways, and freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from people thinking you're an asshole and not wanting anything to do with you. That's their freedom.