EDIT: You drastically edited your comment; see my addendum at the end.

Alright, I only barely remember this, but let's break this down anyway, because this is 1) mostly false, 2) obviously very important to you, and I'm sorry but I don't know who you are so you will have to help me understand where you're coming from, and 3) way more dramatic than it really was.

I complained once on Twitter about a particular instance of technical tooling being modified to align with certain societal/political viewpoints, which I found distracting from the purpose of the tool. In this case, it temporarily lowered my productivity (requiring me to click and scroll back through to view previous terminal output, which was not required before).

The tweet made no mention of which service was being referenced, nor did it make any reference at all to the type of issue or topic that the tool was vocal about. The point of the tweet had nothing to do with the issue itself, but it was a complaint about a UX issue I had with a technical tool.

When asked for more details by another commenter, I replied that I refused to give more information since I didn't want to start an argument: again, the point was not the specific topic of the message.

> When I confronted him, he said he didn't think companies should "get political" and claimed he didn't have anything against Pride,

At no point did you confront me, @abeisgreat. Instead, you replied to the other commenter assuming to know my heart on the matter and made claims about my opinions and feelings and background that are simply untrue -- claims which I had never made myself, nor could you substantiate except through extrapolation, mincing my words, or taking them out of context.

This comment thread here on HN is continuing that trend. That all happened several months ago. Are you really still convinced that your self-assumed attitudes against me are correct? You never even bothered to ask me what I was talking about, or what my feelings on the matter really are.

> but was annoyed with it impacting his work - which seems suspicious because he is definitely Mormon and very conservative.

I don't know what my work ethic has to do with being "Mormon" (member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) or "conservative" (yes, I tend to be more conservative).

> he will be reinforcing the structure which harms minorities (of all kinds) in tech.

You forget too that I am a minority in tech myself. The last thing I have is any feelings of enmity or bias against others who also feel they are on the outside or have non-conforming beliefs or values. After all, that's my whole life. You think being a practicing Latter-day Saint in the wildly-liberal and "progressive" tech community these days is easy? that every other person shares my core beliefs? that everyone appreciates and understands my choice of lifestyle?

I am not that much different from you... I don't know why you choose to hold this grudge against me, or why you read so much into so little, but next time, let's talk about it rather than draw conclusions.

EDIT: My addendum, in light of significant edits to the original comment.

> If you consider my analysis of his responses to be unfair, keep in mind that Matt is an active member of The Church of Latter-day Saints. The LDS church does not explicitly ban LGBT members, however it does ban sex outside of marriage and only acknowledges opposite-sex marriages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_The_Church_o...).

I'm glad you brought this up. Like you, I'm proud of the way I live, which is as an active member of Jesus Christ's Church. Ask me anything. (Also, check out https://mormonandgay.lds.org/ -- a great resource about these types of issues.)