By "demonstrating a fear of rational arguments and simply attack those who disagree".
More in general, can't all social or political boycotts, ranging from the boycott against Boycott and absentee landownership, to the Indian boycott of British goods and British colonialism, to the Montgomery Bus Boycott and race discrimination, to the anti-apartheid boycott, to the US boycott of Cuban goods be interpreted as "suppressing" a disliked idea?
If so, then I can understand how someone who uses that definition of "suppress" can object to any social or political boycott. While I do support the right to boycott, as part of the right to free association, so I don't have the same definition.
Many of them are in fact attempts to suppress ideas they dislike. Not all.
For example, if I boycott Cuban goods, I'm boycotting the people currently in control of Cuba for their actions. If I boycott opponents of the embargo I'm attempting to suppress ideas.
I object far less to the former than the latter. But I admit, I don't fully understand this issue, which is why I'm asking questions to people who claim certainty.
You can say that it's actually boycotting them for specific actions, and not for the general expression of ideas. That seems like a weak distinction - "faith without works is dead". Ideas, without the ability to act on those ideas, have no power or influence. They are dead.
Your counter-example, where you "boycott opponents of the embargo", is hard for me to understand without an example. An opponent of the embargo might buy and import a Cuban cigar, in order to protest the embargo. That's an action. Under your action/idea distinction, it's therefore okay for me to boycott that person's action, no?
Going back to Eich, Eich did a specific action - donate money to a political cause. That action is the prime, and really only, stated reason for opposition to Eich as CEO.
Under your action/idea distinction, don't you find that perfectly acceptable? OKCupid isn't suppressing an idea, only boycotting someone for a specific action.
I asked if there was a social or political boycott which you agree with. I'm trying to get a sense of if your objection is to boycotts in principle. You mentioned the Cuban embargo, but I can't tell if you support it, and you haven't said why you support it - that is, which actions/ideas you are against.
Any more than boycotting Coors because of the anti-immigration policies of the Coors family suppresses ideas.
Any more than boycotting Disney because of its support for Gay Days suppresses ideas.
Any more than disinvestment of South African goods suppressed the idea of apartheid.
It comes across like you think every boycott is an attempt at suppressing an idea. If that's what you believe, then know that I stand with the oppressors.
Otherwise, is there any boycott you like which was done for social or political reasons and which didn't somehow "suppress ideas"?