Technology

I think your responses to this are taking extreme theoretical positions that aren't true. So for instance, the extreme theory of "I don't support them because one of their (still financially connected) founders is a nazi" is "I must research all company's I support for their political beliefs" and that's not true - that's an extreme stance.

My real stance is "everyone should strive to be as ethical a consumer as they possibly can be - given their time, energy, and financial situations." It's not my job to research every company and I don't have time/energy to research every provider of every product I consume; but I do what I can. It's the job of the journalist to dig up these meaningful stories and distribute them to their community, that's why that job is so important. And easily getting these stories distributed to me is why I'm on Lemmy (or back in the day reddit).

So no, I do not have to research everyone to reduce my euros from going to Nazi's. If my options are known Nazi or unknown something - I expect a reasonable person to always go with the unknown.

And I do want to live in a society where Nazi beliefs have real life consequences, including and especially at work. The extreme stance is "all beliefs can be held against you at work" and that's wrong. There's a difference between a person wanting their government to tax them 2% less and a person wanting their government to expunge all black people to countries they may have never even visited. There's a difference between being a part of the NRA and being a part of the KKK. You can be in party that worsens your country and your quality of life and makes the world slowly worse (like pre-trump modern republicans in the US or the CDU in Germany). You can't be in party that is actively looking to dismantle civil rights, harm the out-groups, and make society rapidly worse (like Republicans, AfD, reform for britain, or the Nazi party).

Everyone should want to live in a society where, if their coworkers are racist their company does something about it. Because that gets rid of racists at best or at worst it makes them sneakier - more quiet. Their has to be societal consequences for holding societally destructive beliefs. Should they starve? No. We should have Universal Basic Income. Should they be kicked out of their home? No, they should own their home and there shouldn't be landlords. Should they be removed from any position of power and barred from ever holding one again? Yes, absolutely. They should be "tarred and feathered", we should put a badge on them that says "dangerous and hateful" and we should treat them as such - they only get to hold jobs which can't hurt other people they seek to hurt.

There is a difference between ideas destructive to society and most normal ideas and you should want to treat them differently.