Earlier quoted context omitted.
It really, really does not. I think you should try to first go find out what the behaviours actually are. It's not just having awkward opinions or butting into conversations. Like, https://twitter.com/grok_/status/1375049417926053894
He also ate ”something” from his own foot, in public. I’m not saying his behavior is not highly inappropriate for an adult man. I simply refuse to attribute malice. He probably thought it was hilarious to lick the arm of someone he just met.
John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation
401–410 of 431 posts
Re: John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation
#402Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He didn't do anything criminal, Not breaking the law is the bare knuckle minimum standard that we expect. Imagine going to a job interview and when asked about your achievements you say "well, I didn't break any laws".
Stallman is being targeted for his personal views which he expressed on his personal blog in his personal capacity. Also, as a founder of a movement, he kinda gets a privilege of not having to take an interview for the job.
Re: John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation
#403Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is this enough of a reason to not hire someone? 1) Yes, when most of the job is public facing. 2) That's emphatically not only what he's accused of. He's accused actions in the workplace while carrying out his official business. Imagine being 18 and going to a conference and a 50 year old bloke gives you a "pleasure card". https://twitter.com/tihxu/status/463691653035745280?s=20 sharing good books, good food and ex…
> 1) Yes, when most of the job is public facing. That’s no good. In open source projects all commits are public facing. All developers give talks at meetups and cons. If this is the standard we’ll have then we’ll end up in a worse place. RMS is back on the board, amongst many. He’s not the chairman, he doesn’t represent the whole org. He’s just one person, part of an organization trying to promote free software.
Re: John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation
#404Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't want to live in a world without American freedom of speech - where we can't be blunt and speak our minds. I take issue with this. I'm not hugely adept at history but from my understanding there has never been a time where you can just blurt out a communication and have it be "accepted" by society - this seems to me very American and appears very detached from reality and real world experience. Yes, you are…
> Yes, you are accountable for the communications you make, whether via keybord, orally, or any other way. Just for the purpose of debating let me bring up my (very unpopular) point of view. I have always thought that anyone should be able to say anything and not have legal consequences (ex: go to prison, pay a fine). Notice that this statement covers all scenarios as long as the person involved "only speaks" (or pub…
People sometimes get these two confused, but they're not the same thing.
Someone can easily construct a fantasy world where doing that might be fine / unharmful (or in scenarios where it is harmful, it is clear to the reader that it is bad to act on), yet believe it is harmful in reality.
Between the covers of a book is another universe. In a way, imagine someone is transported to another planet which resembles your own.
There is also indeed the distinction between advocating for something and doing it. To pick a less charged example, I advocate for the legalization of most drugs (although, it doesn't mean I would support irresponsible use, much like how I wouldn't support drink driving). This doesn't necessarily mean I am secretly consuming cocaine, heroin, LSD, and all manner of other illicit drugs.
Another thing is that there is a difference between someone giving their opinions on the matter, and actively inciting someone to do it. If someone specifically instructs the reader to go out and do it, that is clearly very bad. But, I've never heard of such a thing happening, and if it did, it is more likely to be an internet troll. It is too damaging of an act.
I am of the opinion that text + anything which is digitally created is fine. Nothing which goes back to a specific abuse, although there are occasions where the victim of child abuse will chronicle their abuse in text, and I think they should be free to do so. There is also the case in Canada where someone did a retelling of an old story (IIRC Hansel and Gretel) which was more faithful to the original.
In practice, I imagine it would be quite ruinous to publish books which cover such themes under your own name, and it would be advised to use some sort of pen name.
Re: John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation
#405Earlier quoted context omitted.
He also ate ”something” from his own foot, in public. I’m not saying his behavior is not highly inappropriate for an adult man. I simply refuse to attribute malice. He probably thought it was hilarious to lick the arm of someone he just met.
People have been telling him, over and over and over, for years, that his behaviour is not appropriate. He does little to nothing to change it.
Short of calling it a diagnosis, those are all hallmarks of ASD, which you should recognize if you have ever dealt with such people in depth. If you haven't, consider moderating your judgement.
Re: John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation
#406Earlier quoted context omitted.
> would still defend the right for some random person to publicly state that "we should kill all xxx", not because I agree with him, but because we should be able to discuss the reasons and try to convince him to do otherwise I think that's incredibly naive and doesn't actually work in the world we live in. Take a look at any of the genocides of the last century, with people on one side saying "we should kill all X",…
Saying (as I do) that everyone should be able to express their ideas (no matter how atrocious) publicly without facing administrative punishment does *not* mean that other actions (such as keeping a close eye on them) should not be taken. I doubt that preventing the Nazis from discussing their ideas would have stopped them. Having their ideas not suppressed from public forums at least gave the chance to others to und…
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/02/14/the-aclu-would-not-...
> Indeed, Weimar Germany had on statute what we would today call hate-speech laws, and Nazi propagandists like Joseph Goebbels and Julius Streicher were prosecuted for their vicious libels of Jews. In turn, they used the attention to promote their cause and pose as martyrs.
I recommend reading these articles on free speech.
Re: John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation
#407Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For one he managed to keep the whole GNU project true to its values by being someone people listen on the subject. How many other people do you know you can guarantee not to "monetize" and sell out such a huge project to a highest bidder in the meantime? Quite a lot of them actually. In a sense, that is the big advantage that free software (but really the copyleft, since let's be honest that's Stallmans most meanin…
I'm not arguing to put him in charge of FSF nor that he is the right person to do PR. I'm arguing against "cancelling" him altogether because of few stupid opinions he held and few others that got blown out of proportion. Let me refer to them one by one. On pedophilia- his original opinion is not defensible. He eventually understood and admitted his error. Personally I believe the change is genuine. Can one blame som…
What do you think this discussion is about? Nobody wants that he cannot access the internet or that he cannot publish on his own website.
but people protest that he is a public front member of the FSF.
Re: John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation
#408Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then what about the following part from the guidelines: > Honoring people's preferences about gender identity includes not referring to them in ways that conflict with that identity. For instance, not to use pronouns for them that conflict with it.
The guideline argues "they" is gender neutral, so it does not conflict with anybody's gender identity. This misses the point. "they" is indeed gender neutral. But when we talk about specific individuals, we almost always use gendered pronouns. Hence, as I said, persistently using "they" for a binary trans person is a veiled insult. Again, it's like saying 'You're not a real man, but I am not allowed to call you she,…
"they" is useful when you don't know someone's pronouns, and it's better to form a habit of using "they" for everyone (not just non-trans imo), than to accidentally use the wrong gendered pronoun, which may trigger their dysphoria more strongly.
I'm not getting the notion from this policy that it is intended to get individuals to deliberately use the wrong pronoun, because they're uncomfortable with using the correct pronoun for them. But, if you think it is ambiguous, then it could certainly be reworded.
Re: John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation
#409Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the bit about singular "they". RMS for some reason doesn't like singular "they", despite the fact that it predates singular "you" in common English usage. Singular "they" also happens to be, by far, the preferred pronoun of nonbinary people. By telling people not to use singular "they", RMS is harming, offending, and driving away nonbinary people from participation in GNU projects.
That policy has since been updated to allow singular they, despite Stallman's objection to singular they. But now the footnote of the policy would allow you to call a trans woman "they" and never "her". That's not something transphobes (or anybody else) would ever do to a cis woman.
Re: John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation
#410I signed the support rms letter with my real name. I hope you do the same if you want to support him. I was born in mainland China and these attacks on rms remind me of the Cultural Revolution.
Being in the US and in the industry, deciding to sign it gave me pause. There's already talk on Twitter about what to do with the list of signatories. Like others have said here, my daily life is substantively better thanks to rms. I use GNU Emacs all day and of course benefit from the vast infrastructure that GNU and other GPL-ed software provides. There's probably no one many of us (including many in the anti-rms c…
Could you please share a link to the Twitter talk about "what to do with the list of signatories"?