Brendan Eich's firing: yet more conservative incompetence
Like everyone else, we urge you to wash your hands and engage in social distancing.
Unlike everyone else, we urge you to also help with this smart plan to get more tests, ventilators, and PPE. Everyone can do that plan right now, at home, in just 15 minutes.
If enough people help with the plan we can save lives. Take time out now and help get more desperately-needed supplies.
The firing of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich is the latest example of conservative incompetence (or just corruption). Conservatives present themselves as the opponents of political correctness, yet political correctness keeps right on rolling along. Those who engineered Eich's firing are able to get things done; those who pretend to oppose them lack the ability or the will to stop their campaigns. By pretending to be the opposition to political correctness but being complete failures, conservatives let down most Americans. Bill Maher seemingly opposing Eich's firing (link) will probably do more good than all conservative leaders combined.
Consider these questions, with my answers in parentheses:
1. What percentage of Americans - whether they support gay marriage or not - think someone should NOT  be fired for donating to a political campaign? (my guess: 80% or 90%)
2. Can valid arguments be made that firing someone for what Eich did is supportive of open debate and is good for the U.S.? (no)
3. Have or will those who were involved in the campaign to fire Eich suffer any consequences from their actions? (it's very unlikely)
4. Will things like this keep happening again and again? (yes)
5. Would a campaign to make those involved in the campaign to fire Eich suffer consequences from their actions tend to keep things like this from happening again? (a resounding yes)
So, why isn't there such a campaign? Because those who've pushed to the fore and presented themselves as the Only True Opponents to Political Correctness are incompetent or corrupt. It's not just that they don't know what to do: it's that, when presented with a problem, their first inclination isn't to solve the problem. Most of them don't even see problems as things in search of a solution: all they can think about is using the outrage du jour to keep their audience outraged and coming back for more.
The proof's in the pudding: if I'm wrong, then one month from now, direct me to a campaign that reduced the likelihood of things like this happening again. There's an excellent chance you don't know the name Chris Lane, and likewise there's an excellent chance that there won't be such a campaign.
Note: part and parcel of that incompetence is that some conservatives won't understand this post. They're trained to reflexively respond to any criticism with the Jump, Smear, and Lie technique. Due to that incompetence, they'll incorrectly think I support Eich's firing, when the opposite is the case. They'll rush to defend their incompetent leaders, encouraging more incompetence rather than encouraging their leaders to do the jobs they've assumed for themselves. Or, they'll say, "why don't you show us how it's done". That's not the problem: I know how to reduce the likelihood of things like this, the problem is that few others are willing to help.
Another part of the incompetence/corruption discussed in this post is that those who have megaphones won't help those who can figure things out and develop campaigns. I could develop a campaign that would be highly effective - as I have in many other cases - but someone like AllahPundit (who's written no less than five posts about the firing) isn't about to promote it because it would reveal his failings. Most of the audience for those like AllahPundit or all the rest isn't competent enough to demand competence from those like AllahPundit.
What America desperately needs is a movement that would take the side of "80%" issues like this: opposing things like Eich's firing, opposing amnesty, and so on. Because the self-appointed opponents of things like Eich's firing and amnesty just aren't up to the task.
 4/30/14: The "not" was missing in that sentence, fixed (h/t Glaivester).