> might want to look up the definition of sacrifice if you think it's synonymous with self-indulgent. It's literally the opposite.
It's orthogonal to self indulgence; what defines that is the effect. And it's inherently subjective. I'd argue most religious animal sacrifices are self indulgent. Obviously, the believers think otherwise. (Nobody asks the animal.)
In this case, they absolutely made a sacrifice. But the main effect is the fact that they sacrificed something. The sacrifice didn't actually do anything. Contrast that with e.g. putting yourself at risk to save somebody. That is more than performative.
They gave up six-figure jobs to take a moral stand. Calling that "self-indulgent" is just an attempt at character assassination, and it doesn't even make any sense.
Just because you had no reaction to it, it doesn't mean it didn't do anything. I know people at Microsoft and now they're talking internally about this.
> because you had no reaction to it, it doesn't mean it didn't do anything. I know people at Microsoft and now they're talking internally about this
I mean yes, we're all talking about it. I forgot what the protesters at Google who locked themselves into offices were specifically protesting, but everyone I know at Google talked about that, too. (Huh, it was also Israel [1].) This sort of outburst has basically never been an effective form of protest.
Yeah, they’re bombing kids. Even if it’s legally a military target, you’re not going to win hearts and minds bombing kids. My point is these protests seem to be more about the protesters doing their thing than trying to think about being effective. They’re voicing frustration, not agitating support. That’s fair. But it’s important to see it clearly for what it is, especially if someone wants to do something that’s more than performative.
