As a bi man, the next paragraphs excuse nothing.

But if these details are to play a factor in browser selection, one should reflect on the myriad of undesirable associations involved in going about daily life.

Just typing this reply involves an entire supply chain associated with individuals and organizations of questionable character.

To apply this same level of sensitivity to daily life would be to mostly unhook oneself from modern society.

I care deeply about the safety and freedom of the LGBTQ+ community, and find little value in allowing someone else’s lack of acceptance of me dictate my life. Doing so is a form of “doing something” that does nothing but widen the gap to actual change, which can only ever happen via open dialogue.

I think there are plenty of reasons not to choose Brave based on the actual technical merits of the product.

Sure, I'm not disagreeing with you and this is actually an interesting philosophical topic to discuss (I meant it, I'm genuinely interested in this and have been wondering where to put limits on this kind of stuff).

But wondering whether is Eich homophobic? Meh. Bored of these discussions. I have set my opinion on this. It's been discussed enough.

Yeah, that’s a fair stance and I generally agree with you here.

What are your thoughts on Chick-Fil-A. I will sometimes choose them on the merits of their product.

I tend to avoid fast food in general, but I try not to orient my life around actions (or avoiding actions) that are unlikely to have any impact, especially if they involve spending more of my own energy.

Avoiding Chik-Fil-A at all costs: primarily affects me.

Being willing to frequent a Chik-Fil-A because a friend somewhere else on the political spectrum enjoys it: potentially opens an opportunity to talk.

Most of my family and their circles fit that latter description, so this is not a hypothetical. Any chance of influencing them is actively harmed by choosing/avoiding fast food based on tribal allegiance.

None of this should be construed to mean that I find their leadership team and public stances acceptable.

That has nothing to do with my comment. You libeled someone without providing any proof at all.

> That has nothing to do with my comment

It has everything to do with your comment? I'm inviting anybody interested on the topic to go read about it themselves instead of rehashing the same subject again and again, since I believe everything about this has already been said already?

> You libeled someone without providing any proof at all.

On the contrary, please notice how I carefully and deliberately stated nothing about Eich, not given my opinion on this and not taken sides here.

It would not be smart, it would invite people who have opinions on this to further push this discussion.

Did you confuse me with another commenter?

Yes! Apologies. I did indeed answer the wrong comment.