4 ms·

This has nothing to do with cancel culture, and everything to do with being a bad leader. > Somehow modern democracy (de)evolved from "I disapprove of what you

by hazz99 6y ago

This has nothing to do with cancel culture, and everything to do with being a bad leader. > Somehow modern democracy (de)evolved from "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" to current cancel culture. Brendan has a right to express his opinion. Mozilla has a right to fire him for it. There's nothing totalitarian here.

dogma1138 6y ago
Would Mozilla be still in its right to fire them if the situation was reversed?
josteink 6y ago
They only did so after the SJW lynch-mob showed up on twitter and demanded him fired. Personally I'm not OK with rule by lynch-mob, and I hope you see how allowing such a culture to take hold may one day backfire, also on the things you hold dear.
- rocqua 6y ago
  Thing is, if people really feel like "I can't support this company while X is there" are they just supposed to be quiet? Cancel culture is probably toxic to public discussion. But what is the alternative if people want to vote with their feet? If people want to make choices based on their morals, that seems awesome to me. It's only if people are bluffing things into being canceled that I see an issue here.
  - gremlinsinc 6y ago
    > Thing is, if people really feel like "I can't support this company while X is there" are they just supposed to be quiet? This! isn't that the whole point of capitalism? Love it or hate it, dollars = votes. Withholding it via firing or boycotting it's the same deal. The market decides what 'stands' and doesn't, what people can get away with and what they can't. At one point you could get away with refusing service to black people. Pressure from the markets and community changed that. Every change we've gotten is because someone fought back some way. You can't want unfettered capitalism (looking at the right/libertarians), and then cry when capitalist companies bow to pressure from the masses online and cancel shit. Privatize them, go dictator/socialist then the state/constitutions can say how a business is ran, and they maybe censorship is banned, or maybe they only censor whatever the state wants to censor...as long as there's 'at will employment' and businesses are free to censor content on their platforms, (which I approve of, personally), nobody should be able to complain about being silenced. Go start a facebook competitor, or your own company and compete (ironically that's what he did with Brave browser).
    - rocqua 6y ago
      I am not talking about refusing service. I am talking about refusing being a customer. Big difference. We can force people to provide service to customers. We can't force customers to demand service from certain vendors. Especially with culture (comedians, pundits, writers).
Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
Yeah. "I disapprove of what you say, so your employer must fire you and we'll destroy your career", so people know to keep their mouth shut about their views. Nothing totalitarian here, right.
- gremlinsinc 6y ago
  If you had an employee sitting outside your office literally just saying all day to anyone walking by, my boss is a "effing <insert-racist-or-homophobic-slur>" would you allow them to continue working there? If not, are you not totalitarian?

by hazz99 6y ago

dogma1138 6y ago

Would Mozilla be still in its right to fire them if the situation was reversed?

josteink 6y ago

They only did so after the SJW lynch-mob showed up on twitter and demanded him fired. Personally I'm not OK with rule by lynch-mob, and I hope you see how allowing such a culture to take hold may one day backfire, also on the things you hold dear.

rocqua 6y ago
Thing is, if people really feel like "I can't support this company while X is there" are they just supposed to be quiet? Cancel culture is probably toxic to public discussion. But what is the alternative if people want to vote with their feet? If people want to make choices based on their morals, that seems awesome to me. It's only if people are bluffing things into being canceled that I see an issue here.
- gremlinsinc 6y ago
  > Thing is, if people really feel like "I can't support this company while X is there" are they just supposed to be quiet? This! isn't that the whole point of capitalism? Love it or hate it, dollars = votes. Withholding it via firing or boycotting it's the same deal. The market decides what 'stands' and doesn't, what people can get away with and what they can't. At one point you could get away with refusing service to black people. Pressure from the markets and community changed that. Every change we've gotten is because someone fought back some way. You can't want unfettered capitalism (looking at the right/libertarians), and then cry when capitalist companies bow to pressure from the masses online and cancel shit. Privatize them, go dictator/socialist then the state/constitutions can say how a business is ran, and they maybe censorship is banned, or maybe they only censor whatever the state wants to censor...as long as there's 'at will employment' and businesses are free to censor content on their platforms, (which I approve of, personally), nobody should be able to complain about being silenced. Go start a facebook competitor, or your own company and compete (ironically that's what he did with Brave browser).
  - rocqua 6y ago
    I am not talking about refusing service. I am talking about refusing being a customer. Big difference. We can force people to provide service to customers. We can't force customers to demand service from certain vendors. Especially with culture (comedians, pundits, writers).

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago

Yeah. "I disapprove of what you say, so your employer must fire you and we'll destroy your career", so people know to keep their mouth shut about their views. Nothing totalitarian here, right.

gremlinsinc 6y ago
If you had an employee sitting outside your office literally just saying all day to anyone walking by, my boss is a "effing <insert-racist-or-homophobic-slur>" would you allow them to continue working there? If not, are you not totalitarian?