textgel

You're potentially taking up a hospital bed at some point that could be used for someone else.

> Requiring people to consume a medical product just to live their normal lives is morally wrong.

> So your hang up is the FDA giving full approval?

Perhaps they will but could you save the strawman arguments for then as well.

That we know of, just as we "Knew" these vaccines would effectively prevent transmissions and wouldn't have side effects.

I want to be able to date without the risk of HIV, seems we have to abolish gay bars and make homsexuality itself a crime.

Just as they had a good idea that vaccinating would effectively make the virus transmissible, just as they had a good idea about masks working and not working, just as they...

Perhaps it would be better for me to say ostensibly there to build browsers (and other software).

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?

> I am not asking the world: I am asking you, an individual human who assuredly stands for something (and hell: we know you at least stand for this, as you decided to stop using Firefox over it ;P).

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.

Some in the world are capable of working without being emotionally incapacitated by the thought that those they work with don't agree with all that they believe in.

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.

> I'm sorry, are you dismissing all psychology papers?

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.

Agreed.

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

You're right it isn't different, it was a stupid idea with firewalls and it's a stupid idea with chess sets.

Ah yes a progressive claim backed up by psychology papers. A field currently drowning in a reproducibility crisis, and a group who believe that lying and slander is not only okay but should be actively utilised in every goal they pursue.

Yes I think that one can be dismissed.

That's fair; apologies. I'm too late to edit it now but if some passing mods see it and is able to alter please do so.

"showdead" is a must for HN

It's honestly getting creepy at this point.

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.