So RMS thinks "having" child pornography is no harm done to the child, but digitally "having" GPL code in your own proprietary code does harm to the author.
I don't believe that I have ever seen RMS using this argument regarding GPL.
A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS
201–210 of 274 posts
Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS
#202You see totally different demographics between software design/development and the politics of software. In this letter I see names that have never done anything significant, yet they feel entitled to correct one of the forefathers of software development.
That's because they are first and foremost victims.
These people aren't interested in working and contributing to this field. They are interested in benefiting from it. Any successful endeavour will attract freeloaders like moths to a flame and that's exactly what we are seeing here.
Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try the standard English pronouns and see how it goes.
English is not the only language people speak you know.
We're talking in English about Stallman's idiosyncratic English pronouns. What other language did you have in mind when you wrote Apache helicopter gunship?
Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
This problem was created by trying to force people to say specific words. You try to force RMS to say some words? guess what, he will now try to force his words onto you. You don't agree? neither does he, great, just great. There is no difference here. It is no more valid for you to force language on others than it is for him to try and do it.
> You try to force RMS to say some words? You mean like “GNU/Linux”? It's really not a big leap from RMS’s thinking he gets to name other people’s things without their consent (and insist that other people folloq his preference) to his thinking he gets to name other people without their consent, and its truly backwards to think that either of those stems from people trying to “force” anything on Stallman.
So, you realize that RMS is wrong on the GNU/Linux thing and somehow are still on the side of forcing pronouns?
Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
The trouble is that one generation ago we as people of the free world abhorred the idea of punishing individuals for their beliefs. Now that has changed. It's not the first time this happened, and it certainly won't be the last, but it's always ended badly in the past.
religious beliefs != informed opinions Your boss or project maintainer in an open source project starts spreading conspiracy theories on the internet (Q, Flat Earth, whatever), to the point he becomes a public embarassment. Do you want to continue working with him?
Stallman has informed opinions on these topics however. He is not some Q nutjob.
As for me, as long as they were being tolerant of others and did not withdraw from public dialogue then sure, I would not mind working with him.
>>That's exactly what these totalitarian wokists aim for: to make people afraid to oppose them.
>Look who is insulting people here and making assumptions.
Is there any other reason for the plugin? I personally know at least two people (not including myself) who did not sign it because they feared of being "cancelled".
Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS
#206The 'open letter' language reeks with the odour of the Komsomol [1] assembly. It was a form of self-governance, where the missteped members were subjected to a court of their comrades, who unleashed their denunciation on the faulty offender, who had to stand in front of them in shame, listening to their dispraisals, and repent from his erroneous ways. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komsomol
It looks as nobody would learn from others' mistakes. US will have to go through komsomol, purges, and gulag to finally understand what's going on now.
Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS
#207Molly de Blanc must be cancelled and removed from all open source projects
Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
... and what's actually the problem with that stance that justifies what is being done to Stallman? It should be OK with everyone to be referred to by name and the set of generic English words that can be applied to anyone.
Can he have this private opinion? Yes sure, I would just avoid him. Can he be in a leadership role and organize conferences? No.
>Can he be in a leadership role and organize conferences? No.
Conferences on gender studies? Maybe.
Conferences on software and IT? Why not?
Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
The linked blog post says nothing about pronouns specifically, it's making a much broader statement that is clearly nonsense. When you promote putting people on lists, bear in mind that some of us are happy to reciprocate. I certainly wouldn't want to employ someone who thinks "if it offends a trans person, then it is transphobic" is a reasonable maxim.
Did you follow the arguments against RMS? https://rms-open-letter.github.io/appendix "RMS has spent years on a campaign against using people’s correct pronouns." And OP said: "Ah, postmodernism! Where the words are made up, and intent doesn't matter!" I'm not commenting on RMS's views about what makes consent. And I am not stepping into that discussion. But calling people something different than what they want to be…
This appendix is pretty much filled with lies and misrepresentations of his statements. Please avoid spreading it. It is pretty much "fake news".
>"RMS has spent years on a campaign against using people’s correct pronouns."
This is false.
Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS
#210> The primary author of the open letter, Molly de Blanc, writes on her personal blog: > > There is no space to argue over whether a comment was transphobic – if it hurt a trans person then it is transphobic and it is unacceptable. Ah, postmodernism! Where the words are made up, and intent doesn't matter!
In a sphere where we usually choose our names and expect other people to use them, instead of what's written in some official document, I don't see how chosen pronouns are any different. Honestly, it's not hard to call people what they want to be called. You might feel the line between innocent mistake and maliciousness has not been crossed. Other people do disagree.
Your comment is posted here as a reply to another comment, but it seems like the content is unrelated. The quoted sentence says nothing about pronouns in particular. Instead, it says that if someone says anything at all that any trans person finds offensive then the person saying it becomes tainted without any recourse. (I checked the post it was from and it hasn't been taken out of context - it really is as general of a statement as it appears to be on its own.)
Ironically, that means that if a trans person finds your comment, or the blog author's post, offensive in some way then now you or they are transphobic and there's nothing you can say or do to dispute that. Clearly, that is unacceptable.