I think you missed the point where I said “it’s not about nuance.”

I’m not claiming my examples don’t have nuances, I’m claiming that many (most) people have things on which they won’t compromise. Standards, if you will. Those standards may have nuance, but they remain uncompromising.

To use your examples, if “not trimming their toenails enough” is a deal breaker for someone, then the nuance of “but they shower ever day” doesn’t matter.

Because it’s not about nuance. It’s about deal breakers.

Oddly, I thought that was one of the worst parts about Google+. I get your point though and I respect your opinion, I just thought it was interesting how we disagree 😄

You’ll notice that on the list of things that are illegal to discriminate against, everything is either an immutable part of the person (national origin, race, gender) or is something that is unethical to ask a person to change about themselves (religion).

Political beliefs are nowhere on the list, because they’re not immutable and it’s not unethical to ask somebody to change them.

Discriminating against somebody for their political affiliation or political beliefs is legal and, in some cases, moral/ethical.

(As an aside, this is what makes all the people wanting to discriminate against LGBTQ people on religious grounds so egregious; they always had the right to discriminate against LGBTQ people on political grounds, but that wasn’t enough for them. They had to do it “in the name of God.”)

they aren’t

You just haven’t seen it yet. Try coming out to them as trans, see how that goes for you.

It’s not about nuance. It’s about deal breakers. For some people, a deal breaker might be something like poor hygiene. For other people, it might be voting for or otherwise supporting politicians who belong to a party that’s actively trying to curtail human rights for anybody who isn’t a white cishet man.

That you or anybody else would find the first example acceptable, but not the second, is ridiculous.

You’re 100% correct, but don’t think that’s enough for Meta. It’s inherent to the nature of corporations to sell to grow, ie increase market share. If Meta thinks it can increase it’s market share, even a little, by destroying mastodon.social it will.