|
|
|
|
|
|
by vacri
3551 days ago
|
|
|
Don't put words into my mouth - I made zero comment on the morality of the initial action, only on the morality of people who don't clean up after themselves. I think that your position that gave rise to the debacle was indeed deplorable, but at the same time, boycotting Mozilla was the wrong thing to do. I didn't support the boycott, because it was striking at people unrelated to the issue at hand. Finally, if you're conducting a specific action on the basis of a moral position, then yes, you are morally obligated to reverse yourself when you win. It's the point of taking a moral position in the first place. |
|
|
Thanks for writing more about your position. I appreciate that you don't endorse collective punishment. However, I still do not agree with your collective judgment of those who may have boycotted Firefox on account of me for not returning after I left. They could have found other reasons not to switch back, having tried another browser. I heard directly from some people who had exactly that experience.
It seems to me we disagree on obligations based on reactions. That's ok, peace. I suggest that cause and effect, action and reaction, are not as simple and Newtonian as you seem to say. Not only might people who left Firefox while I was CEO have found the grass greener -- some might have changed their minds and then become appalled by post-me Mozilla, and not come back on that basis.
As with the grass-is-greener cohort, I know a few folks in this category. One example: https://twitter.com/theHirad/status/547588240895528960. Here is another point of view, but I'm not sure whether a change of mind preceded it: http://jeremiahlee.tumblr.com/post/81652982229/9-quick-thoug....
I think such thoughtfulness over time, rather than hurting "their cause", does it individual/piece-wise credit.
People are not simple machines, ya know! :-)