3 ms·

It means Mozilla is unable to work with people who have other opinions. I do not have an opinion on abortion, and I’d probably lean towards a yes. But Mozilla

It means Mozilla is unable to work with people who have other opinions. I do not have an opinion on abortion, and I’d probably lean towards a yes. But Mozilla being capable of making it a problem out of someone’s history, 10 years earlier, a private donation, shows a major issue of intolerance. The root cause: Mozilla turned woke, and did look into the past of each employee to fire them. The wokists see no problem with that, but for the rest of us, it’s the darkest time for intolerance.

const_cast 1y ago
Well there's multiple problems here, so one by one: 1. Mozilla didn't fire anyone. My understanding is they actually tried to keep him. 2. Public pressure, dollar voting, and boycotts is just the free market at work. The invisible hand is real but it seems to me as soon as the invisible hand starts pushing stuff we all get uncomfortable. 3. Nobody takes anyone seriously who says "woke". That word means absolutely nothing to anyone, it's just a dog whistle. A type of inverse virtue signal that you are not a serious person worth listening to.
- eastbound 1y ago
  #3 is a perfect for the description of Mozilla’s standing. The fact that you decide to use this keyword as a sign that the argument is flawed is proof that the argument is correct with nothing of substance to criticize. Mozilla decided to #2 appeal to those types of people, with various angles including “renewing the masculinity inside Mozilla”. It’s not public pressure, as the public went on for a backlash against wokism in the 2020 and later. Mozilla is in an ironic situation where it is now driven by those incompetent people, while the public moved on, and its values are not a value proposition anymore. Especially the “We fire people who do not think like us” part. Let me tell you that the kind of public “We harass people into quitting” answers perfectly to #1 in my books. Just be good. Just be good people! That’s all we ask!
  - saubeidl 1y ago
    Donating money to interfere in other people's lives and telling them who they can and can't marry is not being good. Just let people live! Just be good!
  - const_cast 1y ago
    > Just be good. Just be good people! That’s all we ask! Simple on the surface, but if you dig deeper it's more complex. Being a good person necessitates refusing things that are not good. That typically means distancing yourself from people you perceive as bad. Think about it: would a good person assist a carjacking? Would a good person be part of the Third Reich? Would a good person sit idly by while a black lady is called a slur? No, they wouldn't. That's not to say I think you, or this person fired, or anyone else, has done any of those things. It's simply to demonstrate that being a good person necessitates acting against non-good things. Mozilla believed they were acting against a non-good thing: so, to them, they are good.
- waterhouse 1y ago
  If you want a definition, a "woke" person is one who prioritizes waging identity-group conflict over other priorities. The more woke, the more things they sacrifice and trample upon to that end.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    That's your definition. I think a lot of people who use woke would disagree, and I say that because I notice how they use woke and it seems to describe "anything vaguely left-leaning I do not like, but if anyone on the right does it it's fine". With that definition, it becomes clear the word is stupid and we should actively ignore people who use it. And, on the topic of identity group politics, we cannot pretend the right does not engage in this. If you look closely, this describes pretty much the entire republic platform. Trans people? Identity group politics. Immigration? Believe it or not, identity group politics. Tax on tips? Identity group politics.

const_cast 1y ago

Well there's multiple problems here, so one by one: 1. Mozilla didn't fire anyone. My understanding is they actually tried to keep him. 2. Public pressure, dollar voting, and boycotts is just the free market at work. The invisible hand is real but it seems to me as soon as the invisible hand starts pushing stuff we all get uncomfortable. 3. Nobody takes anyone seriously who says "woke". That word means absolutely nothing to anyone, it's just a dog whistle. A type of inverse virtue signal that you are not a serious person worth listening to.

eastbound 1y ago
#3 is a perfect for the description of Mozilla’s standing. The fact that you decide to use this keyword as a sign that the argument is flawed is proof that the argument is correct with nothing of substance to criticize. Mozilla decided to #2 appeal to those types of people, with various angles including “renewing the masculinity inside Mozilla”. It’s not public pressure, as the public went on for a backlash against wokism in the 2020 and later. Mozilla is in an ironic situation where it is now driven by those incompetent people, while the public moved on, and its values are not a value proposition anymore. Especially the “We fire people who do not think like us” part. Let me tell you that the kind of public “We harass people into quitting” answers perfectly to #1 in my books. Just be good. Just be good people! That’s all we ask!
- saubeidl 1y ago
  Donating money to interfere in other people's lives and telling them who they can and can't marry is not being good. Just let people live! Just be good!
- const_cast 1y ago
  > Just be good. Just be good people! That’s all we ask! Simple on the surface, but if you dig deeper it's more complex. Being a good person necessitates refusing things that are not good. That typically means distancing yourself from people you perceive as bad. Think about it: would a good person assist a carjacking? Would a good person be part of the Third Reich? Would a good person sit idly by while a black lady is called a slur? No, they wouldn't. That's not to say I think you, or this person fired, or anyone else, has done any of those things. It's simply to demonstrate that being a good person necessitates acting against non-good things. Mozilla believed they were acting against a non-good thing: so, to them, they are good.
waterhouse 1y ago
If you want a definition, a "woke" person is one who prioritizes waging identity-group conflict over other priorities. The more woke, the more things they sacrifice and trample upon to that end.
- const_cast 1y ago
  That's your definition. I think a lot of people who use woke would disagree, and I say that because I notice how they use woke and it seems to describe "anything vaguely left-leaning I do not like, but if anyone on the right does it it's fine". With that definition, it becomes clear the word is stupid and we should actively ignore people who use it. And, on the topic of identity group politics, we cannot pretend the right does not engage in this. If you look closely, this describes pretty much the entire republic platform. Trans people? Identity group politics. Immigration? Believe it or not, identity group politics. Tax on tips? Identity group politics.