I think being “woke” is only “not good” if you subscribe to the Fox News Cult.

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?”

No, I don't think so. I connect "woke" to activists that don't give anything about privacy. On the contrary, I think of self-righteous groups that try to get peoples private information and try to ruin their lives over the internet. In my opinion, this cannot be allowed wherever information technology is involved, especially anything concerning user information. It is one of the reasons I would never want these companies to know anything about me. They just cannot be trusted with information, even if you align with the values allegedly proposed.

That said, at least Mozillas "wokeness" is limited to a degree that is livable.

I'm so far left I have serious plans in the works with money invested to start a commune with some of my friends. So I'm about as far from Fox news as you can get and I loathe woke culture. I'm not going to argue there merits, just letting you know it's not just the right.

What is “woke culture”?

Mostly an internet fad. You can safely ignore it.

I wish it was. Mainstream media are often relaying it, as they relay almost all the new liberal leftism/feminism, just a bit less so far. And I am not even talking about the USA but somewhere in Europe where that American stuff was imported in a blink, in spite of the fact that local situation, culture and history do no match that story and the American situation, culture and history at all.

Corporate media should be regarded exactly the same as tobacco executives. Don't let their flailing about in a death spiral concern you. Not only can they be safely ignored, your health will improve if you do.

Only the sith deal in absolutes. If you don't believe in "social justice" then you must believe in "social injustice"?

I think you are contradicting yourself? Didn't you want to say people shouldn't think in absolutes? No, the opposite of "social justice" is not "social injustice", it is real social justice (without the ""). The naming "social justice" in itself is already propaganda.

If you think very carefully about Mozilla, you'll realize that they're controlled opposition on a short leash, with almost the entirety of their revenue coming from Google. Guess nobody should be working there either, huh?

>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.

The problem is listing it as a primary principle when there are more pressing concerns. I don't care about people's politics, so long as they don't push it to the forefront. Unfortunately this is what seems to happen a lot these days. "Fighting hate" should not be a primary concern for Mozilla right now.

I’m failing to see how Mozilla is being political, and how fighting hate is political. Theoretically, people across the political spectrum should all agree with that.

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.

"Hate" is a loaded term that depends on your interpretation, and can mean a lot of things, most of them political. I won't list them here because it's off-topic on HN.

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.

Referring to this, for example: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wxenxx/mozilla-wants-youn...

It isn't, they don't, nor should they bother trying

> 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.

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.

My ethics simply are different from the SJW crowd. For example, I am for equal rights and treatment for everybody, the woke crowd wants companies to give preferential treatment to women and minorities. To me, that is not fair.

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 made an account just because of the assumptions you've made that are egregiously incorrect.

> 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.

I recommend a little less parochialism, and more historical scholarship.

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)

Failing to distinguish "woke" from a genuine desire and effectiveness to help the world, is itself not helpful to the world.

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

It has often been noted that many political concepts in the western world emerged out of Christianity, notably by Nietzsche and Carl Schmitt. That's probably not really directly a unique feature of Christianity but because religions themselves tend to co-evolve with successful states as narratives that help stabilise said states.

That isn't strictly true. Christianity has a concept of what should be dealt by God and what should be dealt with by man. The very term "Religion" is a Christian one as before that generally the state, religion, your life etc were all bound up as one. It wasn't until the Roman Empire did anyone even consider that these were separate.