61–70 of 139 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://stallmansupport.org/
This website does not acknowledge the harm he has done to the free software movement and therefore cannot heal any issues that he has caused. If he made a sincere apology things might be different, but as long as he and his supporters refuse to engage with criticism they won't reach a resolution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alas, cancellation is binary. It's akin to bullying: once started things begin to go downhill really quick. There are always enough people willing to raise there self-esteem by kicking a dead lion.
I disagree that it's binary. Brendan Eich seems to be doing pretty well running Brave after being "cancelled" for donating for anti-gay-marriage causes. I think people remember that but have mostly let him get on with his life because he a) apologised, and b) no longer runs something as visible as Mozilla.
I don't think it's even about visibility. People didn't want to have to choose between leaving Mozilla and following Eich.
[1] https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/
[2] https://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-ceo-gay-marriage-firestorm...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Engaging with criticism is different than bowing to pressure (and I think he is engaging, just not in the way his detractors want). You can be nice, but you still have to stand strong on your principles. I don't like a lot of the stuff RMS says and think a lot of it is downright disgraceful, and I'm mostly indifferent to his cause, but I think he has a right to disagree with his detractors. I'd rather defend the righ…
I see your point, although I'd suggest that there's a difference between changing the conversation and ignoring the conversation. I think RMS is ignoring the claims of toxic behaviour and/or claiming them to be fake news, rather than, say, owning and apologising or showing why those claims are wrong.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420...
I realize he has been accused of a lot of other controversial behavior - would love to see more unedited source material of RMS's behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no team without him, you are aware of that, right? The core purpose of the FSF is to defend his achievements and to follow the path he laid out decades ago. He is not accused to be a toxic person, he is attacked on various angles by a mismatch of FUD, puritan toxicity and simple hate against unconventional people. Sure, you can opt to distance from that, but what do you stand for then? Giving up against an i…
> There is no team without him, you are aware of that, right? I certainly hope this is not true. Stallman will die one day. I doubt that anyone in FSF simply intends to just pack it in when that happens.
I read this and RMS's statement. I've been saying Stallman needs to go for adecade or more, I believe his fanaticism holds back the organization and movement. However, after reading his statement, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt IF he not only sees now that he's been ofensive, but is more willing to listen to criticism in the future. If he TRULY recognizes he's got social issues and communication pro…
Spoiler alert: He won't. He's been problematic for decades, and it's extremely difficult for someone like him to change at the drop of a hat.
> He has sincere regrets, especially at how anger toward him personally has negatively impacted the reputation and mission of FSF In my opinion, "I'm sorry you were offended enough to stop supporting me" is not a sincere apology. In fact this whole announcement is one big "I'm sorry you were offended" statement. It doesn't apologise for the problem, it "apologises" for not managing to sneak the announcements past peo…
What the media claimed was Stallman defended Epstein. That isn't true. The whole thing should be a non-story.
Ideological movements like free software require uncompromising people like RMS in it because it's an ideology. If the ideology of free software bows to people who aren't even involved in software then it will bow to anyone and thus serves no one. People's feelings don't make software and they certainly don't make it free.
RMS is an icon in a field that is still brand new, letting this fad of woke cultism cancel him would be a tragedy would rightfully look back on I think as foolish as the chemical castration of Alan Turing for being gay.
So what if RMS hurts the feelings of fragile people? He's done more good for software than most people ever will. This whole thing is a storm in a teacup and people getting upset about it are clearly seeking to be offended. And people who seek to be offended always succeed. So taking their offense seriously is literally a waste of time.
The purpose of the FSF is free software. Not people's feelings. That they even acknowledged this storm in a teacup is disappointing. It's not their job.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alas, cancellation is binary. It's akin to bullying: once started things begin to go downhill really quick. There are always enough people willing to raise there self-esteem by kicking a dead lion.
I disagree that it's binary. Brendan Eich seems to be doing pretty well running Brave after being "cancelled" for donating for anti-gay-marriage causes. I think people remember that but have mostly let him get on with his life because he a) apologised, and b) no longer runs something as visible as Mozilla.
He's also an anti-masker and thinks a lot of what Dr Fauci says is actually lies. He is not somebody I look up to or see as a leader, especially in recent years.
Not sure how to define 'cancelled' globally but I will not support Eich for the future.
This basically refuses to acknowledge the problem. It links RMS' statement > Occasionally I learned something about relationships and social skills, so over the years I've found ways to get better at these situations. When people help me understand an aspect of what went wrong, and that shows me a way of treating people better, I teach myself to recognize when I should act that way. I keep making this effort, and ove…
> He has sincere regrets, especially at how anger toward him personally has negatively impacted the reputation and mission of FSF. This line really misses the mark for me. When you defend a man who raped a 17 year-old girl, your biggest regret shouldn't be about how it harmed your reputation.
I'm personally not a fan of Stallman (I don't agree with many of his positions), but I really don't think we should judge him based on a few stupid comments that he made on a mailing list based on limited information about a controversial topic.