(Referring, for example, to their recent manifesto telling students they should only work for SJW approved companies).
Thinking carefully about the ethics of the company you work for, especially those in-demand employees who largely have a choice like software engineers, is definitely important. This is not a partisan issue.
Sure, you may not get your chance to own the libs, but that stuff is a bit childish, isn’t it? What does the phrase SJW actually mean to you? If you don’t believe that “social justice” is good, what do you find appealing about the alternative of “social injustice?”
That said, at least Mozillas "wokeness" is limited to a degree that is livable.
>If you don’t believe that “social justice” is good
I don't believe your definition of "justice" is good, and I don't believe that the people who had attempted to implement your ideology in practice brought any good to the people they've promised that justice to.
Hate online is a huge problem, and if Mozilla think they have potential to solve that problem, I’d say they can go for it. It’s their budget, not mine or yours.
Mozilla right now should focus their efforts on being profitable (or at least sustainable!) without relying on Google, Baidu and Yandex. Ideological or political pursuits should come later.
So is climate change. They really should focus on that problem, because it's literally endangering our planet, not just the Internet.
Or they should keep their focus on a more narrow topic that they actually understand and have some success in working on.
I've yet to see mission creep that didn't turn into a problem very quickly.
If I would work for Google or other openly SJW companies (including, apparently, Mozilla), as a man I would be at the mercy of my colleagues who could shoot me down at will with unjustified accusations. Why would I subject myself to that? (See James Damore for a prominent example. Mozilla has their Brendan Eich, as another prominent example). They would shame me in mandatory diversity trainings, make me shut up in meeting so that I don't "mansplain", force me to use "gender neutral" language and things like that. That's not just "Fox News World", those are borders I am not willing to cross.
We don't have to discuss it, as it has been beaten to death. I just wanted to say that people's values differ, and unfortunately mine don't align with Mozilla.
I wish more companies would focus simply on creating good technology, and stay out of politics. I don't mind if individuals are political, but there is no need to involve the companies. What is there to gain?
> I think being “woke” is only “not good” if you subscribe to the Fox News Cult.
I've never watched Fox News (outside of the odd clip that has Bill O'Reilly saying something insane). I am not from the USA. "Woke" isn't well defined but most people when they use it are referring to the insane left wing hypocritical politics. Believe it or not you don't have to be "ignorant right winger" to disagree with insane policies.
Also you've managed to do this nonsense of saying "well you must be one of these [ignorant people] so I can dismiss your opinion". Which must be some sort of fallacy. I don't know what it would be called, but it is certainly fallacious.
> Thinking carefully about the ethics of the company you work for, especially those in-demand employees who largely have a choice like software engineers, is definitely important. This is not a partisan issue.
Many of these companies expose "woke" ideas and make nice adverts while quite happily paying sweatshop wages in Asia. Many people see this as hypocritical.
Also developers need a reality check. You can and will be replaced by someone they can hire for cheaper if you don't want to do the job. There are what seven billion people on the planet? You are not special.
> If you don’t believe that “social justice” is good, what do you find appealing about the alternative of “social injustice?”
Social Injustice isn't the opposite of Social Justice it is Justice. Justice should be kept to the courts.
From what I've seen Social Justice normally normally includes things like harassment campaigns (and yes there are organised harassment campaigns), de-platforming of speakers and going after people's income known as "breaking their rice bowl" or they do some sort of insane "reverse racism". All of which I oppose.
woke/Fox News Cult.
All populist politics needs to appeal to its clientele with simplistic, easy to grasp utopias that are claimed to be in easy grasp after "we" win power, whether it's the classless society of Marxism, notions of paradise in various religions (e.g. 72 seventy-two houri in Sunni-Islam), libertarianism's coercion-free optimal resource allocation, anarchism's absence of social hierarchy, Robespierre's "liberté, égalité, fraternité", and many others. "Woke" culture is clearly a contemporary evolution (rebranding) of the socialist tradition emerging out of the French revolution, and made politically potent by Lenin, Stalin & comrades, channeled into the modern western world via Gramsci's cultural hegemony, and nowadays spread by powerful branding organisations like Avaaz [1] and Purpose [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avaaz
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Madden_(entrepreneur)
I've seen plenty of people "talk the talk" but act in a way that is completely disingenuous, manipulative, harmful, and often hypocritical. Other people don't examine their words too carefully and suck up to them just because they "talk nice", leading to various degrees of cults of personality.
It's exactly the same as pretending to have e.g. Christian values to gain popularity and respect but not following any of the principles, only you've replaced Christian with climate change or LGBT activism or charity or whatever.
replaced Christian with