Comment

Comment on Why I recommend against Brave.

First of all, thanks for calling out the bullshit of this professional far right fire hydrant apologist. You’ve stayed on track with the fire issue of their argument despite them wanting to hide attention away from it.

The reason their propaganda sounds reasonable is because it pretends to be rational and sounds calm, when in reality it’s ignoring extremely glaring issues. In one of these cases for example, it’s pretending that funding intolerance isn’t intolerance. Another is ignoring details, such as how the crypto scam was essentially malware, and did cause performance hits to devices using Brave (part of the reason why it was caught).

Second of all, for everyone following along this far, I just want to point out the false equivalency between something like hard drugs and gambling - things that literally statistically bring literal harm - to marriage.

And finally, we’re done entertaining bullshit in the tea - that’s why Teslas are burning. Remember that when shit hits the fan.

source

Sort:hotnew top

sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
I was pretty confused when reading because it sounded like you were thanking me for calling our far right BS from the person was talking to, but I was calling our far left BS instead.

But after a couple paragraphs, I realized it was me you were talking about. So thank you for giving me a chance to see this and respond.

professional far right fire hydrant apologist

Everything here is incorrect. I’m not being paid, I’m not far right (I hate Trump and voted for Biden in 2020), and I call out far right BS all the time (had an argument w/ my boss the other day who supported Trump’s tariff and immigration policy).

ignoring extremely glaring issues

I’ve tried to cover all of them, but my posts get long as is, so I try to combine a few. I don’t follow Brave news much, so I’ll miss some things.

funding intolerance isn’t intolerance

If I donated to an intolerant PAC or something, sure, I’d get that. If I bought products from a corporation that openly funds intolerant PACs with a large chunk of profits, I’d get that as well.

But if the CEO uses their personal money on it, I have more trouble connecting that with the company. As long as they keep personal opinions personal and don’t drag the company into it, I’m fine. The VP seems worse than him honestly (from the article).

A CEO is not the company, and if you disable ads, don’t use their search engine, and don’t engage with their crypto nonsense, you’re not giving them any money. I do all of that for the handful of minutes each day I use it.

I use Firefox as my main browser, and that’s what I recommend to others. I use Brave as my backup browser, because I need something that runs on the Chromium engine that doesn’t have ads. I think people are overreacting about Eich. I disagree with his politics, but as long as he keeps that outside the company, I’m okay with it.

crypto scam was essentially malware, and did cause performance hits to devices using Brave (part of the reason why it was caught).

I assume you’re talking about the referral link thing? Yeah, that was bad, and I think I mentioned that. At least they quickly reversed course.

I can see an argument for them thinking it wasn’t that bad, so I’m willing to chalk it up to naïveté. It wasn’t quite as bad as Honey, which removed other referral codes. It’s still bad.

I didn’t hear that it caused performance issues though.

false equivalency between something like hard drugs and gambling - things that literally statistically bring literal harm - to marriage

I never claimed they were equivalent. I merely pointed to them as fairly unpopular things that I support, and gave reasons for it.

And I agree, they can absolutely cause problems in marriage, as well as non-married people (addiction is real), hence why I said they are “bad.” But “bad” doesn’t necessarily have to mean “illegal.”

I have never used drugs, gambled, or hired a prostitute, and I don’t think anyone else should, but I will absolutely support legalizing them. In fact, I’m quite religious, and those things are 100% against my religion, but I believe personal morality shouldn’t really impact politics. My religion and moral code is for me, and I’m not going to force that on anyone.

In short, I support these probably for the same reason you oppose Eich: I believe in freedom. I guess I define that a bit more liberally than you do.

that’s why Teslas are burning

Teslas are burning as a symbol of opposition to Musk and DOGE. And I completely respect that, I also don’t like Musk and DOGE.

That said, this isn’t going to change anything. Musk has enough money that even if Tesla disappears, he’ll still be filthy rich. He does seem to care about the “richest man in the world” title, so I guess it will hurt his ego a little.

The ones that’ll suffer more are regular people who bought a Tesla years ago and are getting caught in the crossfire. Some idiots will burn privately owned Teslas, insurance coverage will get dropped, etc. That’s not worth it IMO.

Protest at Tesla dealerships, or better yet your state capital. I might even join you. But wanton destruction isn’t the way.

source
- Lumiluz@slrpnk.net ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  
  In short, I support these probably for the same reason you oppose Eich: I believe in freedom. I guess I define that a bit more liberally than you do.
  
  I know you fake mofos are the type to always need to get the last word because it makes it seem to other dumdums that getting the last say is somehow “winning”, but I’m leaving this link here for anyone who remotely might believe your take is a good one:
  
  en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
  
  source
  - sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    I’m not trying to win any argument, I’m trying to have a discussion. It seems to me that you’re not interested in that, so I’ll leave some links to relevant logical fallacies in a hope that someone going this far down the thread will make up their own mind using reason instead of emotion.
    
    Poisoning the Well - i.e. Eich’s products must be bad because they believe something bad, or something like that
    
    Association Fallacy - Eich believes something bad, therefore his corporation and products must be bad
    
    Argumentum_ad_populum (bandwagoning)
    
    The link in the post above me is also great, I highly recommend reading it, especially the following from the person who wrote about it:
    
    Popper underlines the importance of rational argument, drawing attention to the fact that many intolerant philosophies reject rational argument and thus prevent calls for tolerance from being received on equal terms.
    
    To be clear, I am not arguing that Eich’s intolerant beliefs be tolerated, I’m arguing that they’re irrelevant to the discussion about Brave browser (i.e. the Association Fallacy). By all means, protest against intolerance, be loud, and above all, completely discredit it through rational argument, and I’ll join you in that. But don’t become the thing you claim to hate by refusing rational argument. Articulate why his personal actions matter at all to the products his company makes, and why those can’t be evaluated on their own merits.
    
    source
    Lumiluz@slrpnk.net ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    It’s not an association fallacy or poisoning the well if those things are actually being done, which has already been covered in the previous comments. Goggles is another current example of that.
    
    You can go on and have your last word now, I’m done with your bad faith argument. I think there’s enough evidence in this comment thread by now for others to see you’re being disingenuous.
    
    source