undefined

points

[-]

If we're going to sealion, why don't you first explain what you think my argument is and why the quote does not support it?

by carlosjobim2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Accusation: "So you're a political company, but you don't want people to examine the politics of the people running the company? That seems naive."

Supposed evidence: "It should be obvious that Daniel's private donation to a political party is not part of Mullvad's values or mission."

But the second quote has nothing to do with the accusation. He never said that he was against people examining the politics of the people running the company. Not even hinting at it.

This hasn't anything to do with you, but I also notice that people are flagging and [dead]ing completely reasonable comments in this thread, making any kind of decent conversation quite hard. What is the point of being in a comment thread, if we figuratively "kill" every person who doesn't follow only one allowed view. Are hackers doing this because they are the same type of persons who would literally kill people with differing views if they had such opportunity and power?

by nomel3 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

https://hackersmacker.org is pretty great. It allows me to not waste effort. After using it for a while now, there's incredible consistency with people I mark making the same shallow types of comment/inability to think. I think tribalism is just more pronounced in some people.

by devindotcom1 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

sorry but your argument is sophomoric and disingenuous. and your absurd complaint about "killing" makes it pretty clear you're not engaging in good faith.