You're potentially taking up a hospital bed at some point that could be used for someone else.
187 karma · joined May 21, 2020
> So your hang up is the FDA giving full approval?
Perhaps they will but could you save the strawman arguments for then as well.
In response to the manifesto I'll ask how recent that manifesto and mission statement is? Surely they weren't always a politics first, software second organisation? They must have started out as free software and then morphed into what they are now at some point.
Or was it that case that the politics was there but it was that that changed?
How about standing for leaving politics at the door of the work environment and freedom of expression?
> FWIW, I would presume the answer is "because most people don't realize that companies might be doing that"; however, I also take issue with the example: not going out of your way to display support for something is, in fact, different than actively taking action to undermine it... someone who doesn't show a flag might still support something, but someone who actively donates against something clearly doesn't.
Once you've gone out of the way to show it on one account, going out of the way to not do it on another is essentially the same thing and hasn't drawn ire.
> You do realize that no one has suggested deleting all the copies of Firefox,
You're feigning ignorance and creating a strawman. The movement that forced Eich out advocates for censorship and destruction of ideas and information. You were the one who made up the story about deleting all copies of Firefox.
> Remember both that CTO is a a very public position for an organization like that
Now that is an argument. If the organisation has made efforts to climb into bed with a modern religion and the CTO commits a sin then yes, removal makes sense but it should never have got to this point.
> By saying that you have decided to stop using Firefox because the employees of Firefox should not have revolted against Brandon Eich, you are thereby not only cancelling the work of a number of people you disagree with
No "cancelling" as you put it and most likely as the person you are replying to understands it involves mob justice forcing people out of careers and forcing the removal of ideas from platforms. Deciding not to use something is a personal choice.
> Truly: all of your fretting over people destroying the work of the "evil pagans" is off topic, whether it makes you feel better to frame it like that or not.
When you make a three paragraph strawman argument it can seem that way but while "your truth" may be that it is unrelated, the reality is different.
> Ummm... are you missing that Brandon Eich made the first move here, taking action against gay people by fiscally
He expressed his political opinion through excepted channels. He didn't incite a mob. Again there's an argument he couldn't be at the head of an organisation with the religious connections it has but again it should never have got to that stage.
Mozilla is there to build browsers. Politics should have been left at the door. Instead it wasn't and so Firefox happened and then Brave happened.
Following the reproducibility crisis they can't be trusted on face value. When used to promote SJW and progressivist causes they can be almost certainly dismissed.
> I'll be honest, I'm not really sure what this is in reference to
That was in reference to progressivism, hence why I stated that in the comment.
> Ah yes a progressive claim backed up by psychology papers.
This is the paragraph that Barrin92 is trying to missrepresent.
> Let me be clear: The horror of Mao’s China was singular. I am not making a comparison to the death and destruction it caused or to the severity of the punishment that the mobs imposed. Instead, I am drawing a parallel (one that various journalists and commentators, including the pseudonymous Chinese-American academic, Xiao Li, have made before) to an instinct—the inclination to humiliate and terrorize
Yes I think that one can be dismissed.
Throughout this entire comment tree starting from its base you have multiple long term HN users all consciously going out of their way to constructs lies in the pursuit of defaming this man.
joshuamorton is supposedly a google employee according to his profile and yet was perfectly happy to throw the antisemitism bs around.
There's several accounts down the bottom, each a number of years old and ostensibly regular otherwise; all of which have made efforts to come to this discussion and make up slander. And then of course run when pressed to provide evidence.
And they do all this despite the counter evidence being available to all.
Honestly, what is happening there? Is it some sort of collective insanity? Is it something they all agree needs to be done for some greater good? And if that's the case do they agree to it subconsciously/consciously? Is it all just people who are incredibly susceptible to group pressure and who will go along with any absurdity so long as it's ordered from the right authority.
How do you go about justifying deliberately attempting to hurt a person like this?
Just the sight of it astounds me.
> And beyond that, it's a moot point, because even if you don't see it, plenty of other people read it that way. Enough people read it that way that he was fired for it.
Well you personally are absolutely certain that a document definitely contains racist statements despite being completely incapable of quoting even one. Seems this is an affliction that can affect quite a few people. Well seeing as that's the "logic" you can muster perhaps we should put some sort of protections in place to the shipping industry. After all quite a few people are adamant the world is flat and we don't want to see cruise liners falling off the edge of the world now do we.
At that stage if you can't reflect on your behaviour and that of those on your side, well there either is no hope for you or you're just further lying along with your fellow ideologues.
Various people keep claiming that but there doesn't appear to be any proof of it.
> People acting like sharing a "study" that [minorities] are intellectually inferior is just normal behavior for an engineer.
Quote the part where he says this.
Whats more, this has had progressives crawling all over it with arguments including "Just allow the slander to go on unanswered", "its someone else's definition of sexist so he's sexist", "I heard he does other evil things" and attempts to distract from the point.
At this stage vaguery without clear examples can be dismissed as nothing at best or marked as evidence of bad faith debate driven by religious compulsion at worst.
> The text preemptively claims that people will reject it because they are too politically correct.
The text was right.
> From the beginning it was a slanted criticism of Google’s hiring practices.
Yes, how does this relate to the original point?
It just demonstrates a collective insanity at the organisation in question.
They're welcome to put their heads in the sand and claim whatever irrational bs they desire is "unhelpful" and "sexist" but that doesn't make it so.
> They had guns, nooses, there were chat logs, etc. This is not conjecture.
Stop trying to wiggle out of this. You said armed with guns. Don't try and move this over suddenly to "Clubs" because your bs has been called.
> But I do need it to not be compared to situations that are not laughably benign by comparison.
> I don't know you, but that comparison was whack, be it bad faith, naivety, or ignorance. In my opinion, of course, however misguided, hyperbolic, or otherwise.
You said what you said ^ and no hand waving about "oooh I didnt mean it like that" will change that.
> And since that's all you thought was worth responding to,
That's all you've given to respond to. All you've done is hysterically scream "False equivalence" and make weak claims of "Intention", which I've already pointed out are bunk when compared alongside the obvious intention of CHAZ.
> I think that's my exit in this conversation.
Yes I think that's about your only option at this point.
> You won't find me defending CHAZ, like you seem to assume I will.
This is exactly what you're doing here, you saw the claim and came running. You're just having to back-peddle now that someone is calling you on what you're doing.
Also, it's funny how intention is the only thing you are grabbing hold of and bringing up. Is that because of literally everything else about the CHAZ situation and the riots and the destruction of property that surrounded it are completely indefensible and infinitely worse?
Is the only reason "Intention" even becomes something you care about because it's the one thing you could try and twist into X is worse than Y?
And "we'll never know" isn't good enough. Again especially from someone caught lying.