3 ms·
#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
by 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 agoDonating 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.