Comment by MeetingsBrowser

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.

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.

>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.