OK, you seem to have lost the thread of this argument, or perhaps deliberately tied it in a knot.
My first point above, is that one (me/anyone in general) does not need to confuse the “person with the product” in order to avoid someone’s products on the basis of our response to their behavior.
If I am at the funfair, and the man selling hotdogs is shouting racial and homophobic abuse at passers by, I might not buy his hotdogs, but I have not confused the man with his product. I am not under the impression that he is a sausage. I can explain what I don’t like about his behavior, and it is not much of a stretch to describe it as contemptible.
If I see him repeating this sort of behavior on a regular basis, I might find it appropriate to tell other people about what I’ve seen, because these are rather unpleasant things for people who might be, say, gay or brown, to experience. I might feel reasonably comfortable describing the man as an arsehole, and recommending avoiding him, on account of this conduct.
Is that the same as making an absolute moral judgment about that man being a “bad human being”? No. He might spend all his wages delivering toys to the children’s hospice for all I know, and my absolute moral judgment of the whole person makes no sense. But though we are not in a position to make perfect judgments of a person’s moral character, that hardly means that we cannot form reasonable opinions about them from their observed behavior.
It’s really not that complicated, unless you’re determined to tangle it up in a reduction to the absurd.
No, I think I get it
But if I don't, it's not because I'm determined to tangle it up. I'm trying to communicate my point of view - and I'm trying to understand YOUR point of view.
You feel qualified to make a "non-absolute" moral judgment about Cleve based on what you have read about him - and the result is that you don't want to support his ability to do business.
That's quite fair, and we all have different ways of making decisions.
Your analogy is a bit black and white without context, but I understand.
If I heard some hotdog vendor shout racist remarks - I would look at the context before making any kind of value judgment about my support for his business.
As in, if we imagine I had the power to "vote" for his permission to have a hotdog stand in that park - I would be very, very careful before taking that away from him, or before voting "no" to his ability to make a living.
As in, was he under duress? Was he possibly drunk? Was he being assaulted by someone and lashed out with words he might not actually mean? Does him being a racist impact his ability to sell hotdogs? Does being a stupid bigot mean you don't have the right to make a living?
Thoughts like that would go through my head.
In that same way, I don't confuse a person's seeming inability to behave decently with his permission to earn a living based on his hard work.
I use the word confuse - because those two things don't belong together in my mind. Unless we're talking about some extreme, where there's actual harm or damage involved. As in, I would not consider his doing business the problem - but his behavior and his doing harm.
Obviously, I could never get behind a guy actually SHOUTING racist or any kind of derogatory remarks in public - but having those positions "privately" should be allowed. I think it's unfortunate that so many bigots and "holier-than-thou" people exist - but I can't go around passing judgments that will lead to denying them their right to think differently.
For me, saying something derogatory on Internet forums, especially at the Codex, is just the order of the day. We all do it, in one way or the other. I do NOT think that's the same as actually shouting something offensive to "innocent" bystanders in public.
After all, you can easily put people on ignore on the Internet - and you're not exactly forced to read what they're saying.
So, very different scenario - from my point of view.
I don't think not supporting Cleve will change anything about his behavior - so the only person who will suffer is Cleve - and I'm not the kind of person who would support the suffering of others - unless it's going to benefit more than harm. Simply punishing someone for being a bigot with no upside is not my style.
Punishment for the sake of it, without tangible benefit - is irrational in my opinion.
In fact, based on my postion on the human condition - and how we work as human beings, I think there's an actual chance of Cleve becoming a "better person" if he finally gets some recognition.
In that way, I'm much, much more a honey over vinegar guy.
But I now understand his behavior and his ability to do business on Steam belong together in your mind, and as such there's no confusion involved for you - and people with a similar position on human beings. You're actually serious about him not deserving your support for his ability to earn a living - based on what you feel you know about him.
Essentially, you're more of the vinegar type in this way.
Obviously, I don't agree with that position - but that's no biggie.
That's fully fair and thanks for sharing
Sure missed that verbose yet solid DArtagnan logic for the last couple years.