tuckerm

Agreed, I wouldn’t recommend Librewolf for casual users. I understand why Librewolf makes those decisions, and I’m glad that it exists, but you definitely run into some quirks when using it. I’m thinking about switching from Librewolf to Waterfox myself.

The thing I dislike about Brave is that Brave intends to be an advertising company. Brave’s original idea for revenue was that the browser itself should be the ad platform. Brave doesn’t block ads because it has a pro-user manifesto; it blocks ads because it dislikes competition.

That’s why it makes no sense for people to abandon Firefox for Brave. I understand the backlash against Mozilla’s recent ad-focused shift, but Brave invented that idea. So leaving Firefox for Brave is not an improvement.

It’s the browser I’ve chosen to use after getting fed up w/ Gecko’s terrible web compatibility these days (coming from Librewolf).

I’m curious about what those compatibility issues are. It’s been years since I’ve noticed any problems – and back when I was seeing problems, it was mainly because Google could afford to implement new standards faster than Mozilla could, not because Mozilla was doing anything wrong. Could it have been because of Librewolf? Librewolf has a ton of privacy-focused settings that can sometimes make pages behave in strange ways. (It doesn’t use your real time zone, it ignores dark mode, it lies about which OS you’re on, and it constantly clears your cookies to name a few.)

And on a meta-note: I dislike Brave, but I don’t think the parent here is a comment that needs to be downvoted. We can just explain why Brave is a bad idea.

Looking forward to reading it! awk has been a huge blind spot for me for a long time now.

Honestly, this sounds like an amazing combination.

It’s like they have no sense that other views exist, and opposing views do not constitute politics.

I think they point they are trying to make is that once you are very very wrong about something (in their mind), it’s no longer a political position, it’s just an immoral position. And if that’s what they’re saying, I disagree with it.

I’m not saying that there are no immoral positions, I’m saying that a position can be completely immoral and still be political. I hate when people use the phrase “it’s just politics” as a shield, as though everyone else has to be OK with some incredibly shitty attitude they have, just because they have managed to also make it a political attitude.

And that’s such a terrible superpower to give to politics, too: the ability to instantly legitimize a position simply because it falls under the domain of politics.

Not to long ago, the question of “should white children and black children be allowed to go to school together” was a political issue in the U.S. And I’d say that’s still a political issue. It didn’t magically become some other type of issue just because a few decades passed and we now agree that one side was completely wrong. The fact that it isn’t actively being discussed anymore doesn’t change the fact that it falls under the umbrella of political issues. It means that someone can have a political opinion and they have to be a real piece of shit to hold that opinion.

We used to have academic freedom. Now we just have sensitivity trainings and PANTS. SHACKLES OF THE MIND, I TELL YOU!

Honestly, those two points don’t seem incompatible to me. For example:

Teaching the history of fashion to undergrads in 1985 is bizarre because:

1. They insist that standards of dress are entirely relative. Being dressed decently is a cultural construct; some cultures wear hardly any clothing whatsoever and being nude is a completely normal, default way of presenting yourself.
2. And yet when I walk into class with my dick and balls hanging out, they all get extremely offended and the coeds threaten to call the police.

(And yes I changed the year because I’m sick of so many of these issues being brought up as though “the kids these days” are the problem, when so often these are issues that have been around LITERALLY FOREVER.)

I’m not trying to dunk on this Henry Shelvin guy – I’m certain that he knows a lot more about philosophy than me, and has more interesting thoughts about morals than I do. And I’m also not going to judge someone based on a tweet…aside from the obvious judgement that they are using Twitter, lol. But as far as takes go, this one kinda sucks.

*edit: I’ll add that I hope this professor is taking this opportunity to explain what the difference is between morals being relative vs being subjective, which is an issue that has come up in this very thread. Especially since I bet a lot of his students have only heard the term “moral relativism” being used by religious conservatives who accuse you of being a moral relativist because you don’t live by the Bible. I know that was definitely the case for me.