On Mar 28, 2021, Mark Wielaard <m...@klomp.org> wrote: > It shows we don't tolerate harassment in our project.
It shows we will favor and engage in harassment against a certain demographic group, while pretending or believing it will somehow make for a welcoming atmosphere. > everybody I talked to about it had some story about being > harassed by RMS, had witnessed such harassment or heard from or knew > someone who had been. ... which, even if true, still requires quite a lot of twisting and forcing and breaking to make it fit the sexism narrative presented as the motivating factor. And this is the problem with most of the witchhunting in place. There are plenty of allegations circulating all over the Internet, and most of them fit either or both of two patterns: actual evidence twisted and forced to fit a false narrative, or repeated hearsay, most likely fabricated or exaggerated, without a traceable ultimate source. Which is not to say that there aren't exceptions, the first-hand narratives. Those invariably fit in either of two patterns: they look like smoking gun evidence of very wrongdoing, but they are disputed by other who were just as much there and are just as trustworthy, or they paint the known picture of person who has well-known flaws and is indeed frequently difficult to deal with, but those facts don't help construct the false boogeyman narrative. Of course conclusions may be different once one starts picking evidence that is favorable to make one's case, and disregarding that which opposes evidence. Most people would agree that this is not the way to go to find truth, be it for science or for justice. > he is against enforcing any anti-harassment policy some GNU > mailinglist is currently being used to organize a doxing campaign Doxing and harassment are not welcome, and that post has already been solved, with his support and before you brought it up, FWIW. Harassment has been tolerated before, which made this decision a little more difficult, because the target of an earlier and ongoing harassment campaign was someone in a position of power in the GNU project itself. My understanding is that there was a decision to not silence that discussion, although some moderators had engaged in suppression of dissenting positions to the (still) ongoing harassment. As anyone who studied history can predict, authoritarian positions tend to suppress or attempt to suppress dissent, while freedom-respecting ones endure it. If that was a trial run of the sort of leadership that was trying to replace Richard's, I'd much rather keep the devil we know. That alleged witch may have some warts indeed, but they're not quite as ugly as the prosecutors/judges/executioners's. > You link to a parody of a request of tens of Free Software foundation > projects and thousands of Free Software hackers If truth finding were a matter of headcount, we might still be forced to believe we're on a flat planet orbited by a star. But if we're to use that measuring stick, petitions calling for the FSF to keep Richard at the FSF board have been signed by more people, translated to more languages, despite there being more of them, and hosted on platforms that are less hostile to software freedom, and not being signed multiple times by the same few people on behalf of multiple organizations. > Sometimes satire is a way to deal with difficult problems, but I don't > think that is appropriate here How about this one instead? https://avilarenata.medium.com/stallman-d824724b0083 RMS’ principled stances cause an uncomfortable cognitive dissonance for them. They would rather kill a sacrificial Gnu than admit their own shortcomings. It is significant that the letter demanding his resignation must be signed using Microsoft’s Github platform, and that many organizations taking position are openly accepting money from Google and other predatory companies. Or this one? https://www.wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-web The paradox of Stallman is that while his pointedness and stubbornness leads many to dismiss him as a jerk, his stubbornness and confrontations are actually rooted in his life-long obsession with morality. Though you may disagree, there is ample reason to believe he has come to hold his views from a concerted, rigorous, good-faith effort to be a voice for good in the world. “Stallman… is a hard man to like. He is driven, often impatient. His anger can flare at friend as easily as foe. He is uncompromising and persistent; patient in both.” Lawrence Lessig, Harvard Law Professor, democracy activist “Even if I strongly disagree with a position or an idea, an expression of an idea, advocacy of an idea, and even if the vast majority of the public disagrees with the idea and finds it offensive, that is not a justification for suppressing the idea. And it’s not a justification for taking away the equal rights of the person who espouses that idea including the right to continue holding a tenured position or other prominent position for which that person is qualified.” Nadine Strossen, Civil Rights Activist, first female President of the ACLU Maybe this one? https://medium.com/@whoisylvia/richard-stallman-has-been-vilified-by-those-who-dont-know-him-a3907b25b4c7 As an active feminist and one who has witnessed much bad behavior among tech CEOs over the past 30 years, I think that accusing Richard Stallman of not supporting women, gays, or any other minority group is false -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer Vim, Vi, Voltei pro Emacs -- GNUlius Caesar
