Comment by bigstrat2003

Comment by bigstrat2003 4 days ago

"You're doing business with someone whose views I dislike" is not harassment, nor do I believe that the person who opened the issue is arguing in good faith. The world is full of people with whom I disagree (often strongly) on matters of core values, and I work with them civilly because that is what a mature person does. Unless the VC firm starts pushing Zed to insert anti-Muslim propaganda into their product, or harassing the community, there is no reasonable grounds to complain about the CoC.

MeetingsBrowser 4 days ago

I don't agree that it is immature or overly sensitive. The issue basically says:

> Hey, you look to be doing business with someone who publicly advocates for harming others. Could you explain why and to what extend they are involved?

"doing business with someone whose views I dislike" is slightly downplaying the specific view here.

Reply View 6 replies

bigstrat2003 4 days ago

I think that the formulation you gave is precisely "doing business with someone whose views I dislike". It assumes much that simply should not be assumed, to wit:
* That this man actually advocates for harming others, versus advocating for things that the github contributor considers tantamount to harming others
* That his personal opinions constitute a reason to not do business with a company he is involved with
* That Zed is morally at fault if they do not agree that this man's personal opinions constitute a reason to not do business with said company
I find this kind of guilt by association to be detestable. If Zed wishes to do business with someone whom I personally would not do business with for moral reasons, that does not confer some kind of moral stain on them. Forgiveness is a virtue, not a vice. Not only that, but this github contributor is going for the nuclear option by invoking a public shaming ritual upon Zed. It's extremely toxic behavior, in my opinion.

Reply View | 0 replies
samdoesnothing 4 days ago

Yet they post this on Github, which apparently isn't a problem for themselves or the code of conduct despite Microsoft having ties with the Israeli military.

Reply View | 0 replies
zahlman 4 days ago

>The issue basically says:
I don't think any of the evidence shown there demonstrates "advocacy for harming others". The narrative on the surely-unbiased-and-objective "genocide.vc" site used as a source there simply isn't supported by the Twitter screencaps it offers.
This also isn't at all politely asking "Could you explain why and to what extend they are involved?" It is explicitly stating that the evidenced level of involvement (i.e.: being a business partner of a company funding the project) is already (in the OP's opinion) beyond the pale. Furthermore, a rhetorical question is used to imply that this somehow deprives the Code of Conduct of meaning. Which is absurd, because the project Code of Conduct doesn't even apply to Sequoia Capital, never mind to Shaun Maguire.

Reply View | 3 replies
- runarberg 4 days ago
  
  The issue also cites the New York times. Here is an archive: https://archive.is/6VoyD You can read the quote for your self here https://x.com/shaunmmaguire/status/1941135110922969168 there is no question about the fact that this is racist speech, that builds up on a racist stereotype. Many of Zed’s contributors are no doubt Muslims, whom Shaun Maguire is being racist against here.
  Zed’s leadership does have to answer for why they invited people like that to become a part of Zed’s team.
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
  
  zahlman 3 days ago
  
  (And since I missed it the first time around: accepting funding from Sequoia Capital doesn't make Maguire "part of the team".)
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
  
  zahlman 3 days ago
  
  I had already read the NYT article when I commented.
  Making a racist claim in a tweet is not advocacy for harming others.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies