On Sun Apr 11, 2021 at 11:08 AM BST, Didier Kryn wrote: > Le 08/04/2021 à 17:00, David Brown a écrit : > > At some point, someone in the public relations > > department at IBM, Google, Facebook, ARM, or other big supporters of the > > project will get the impression that the FSF and GNU are lead by a > > misogynist who thinks child abuse is fine if the child consents, and > > will cut off all support from the top down. The other companies will > > immediately follow. > > Here we are. The liberty of expressing opinions is too much of a > liberty. This is ironical to read in a mailing list dedicated in some to > a free software project.
He's actually recanted his views about 'consensual pedophilia', which is testament to the benefits of open dialogue. By having discussions and arguing points, we can convince people that they are wrong. By shunning them, we do nothing to change their views and everything to make them believe we don't have any real arguments. As distasteful as I find such a view, I don't think that anybody should be banished for polite society for thoughtcrimes. We can judge people for their actions, but there's no evidence or even suggestion that he has ever harmed a child. > But you are wrong on a point. The bannishment or RMS isn't being > called by big companies or their customers. In the same way that Donald > Trump's accounts on social networks have been closed on request of > employees of these networks, here the employees of the same social > networks and other companies call for the bannishment of RMS. > > "My opinion, not my employer's" is probably true. If the majority of > employees call for lynching someone, the employer let them do because > s(?)he is concerned by the cash flow first, not ideology. I'm not 100% convinced by this. RMS has made some enemies in the corporate space who probably aren't too unhappy to see this division in our community over him. > I agree that the constitution of FSF, GNU, and GCC would gain to be > clarified and cleared from some childich relics, but that doesn't mean > the banishment of anyone and doesn't justify the cabal we have seen on > this list. > > Social networks, besides their likely utility, are a place where > hatred builds up pretty easily by mutual excitation because people get > the illusion they're right when they're many. This has always existed > amongst humans but social networks ease and boost this trend. This is > one good reason to keep away. > > > ... no one can > > be in doubt that [RMS's] attitudes and behaviour are not acceptable by > > modern standards and are discouraging to developers and users in the > > FOSS community. > > It is obviously wrong that "no one can". Several persons have > expressed their disagreement whith these statements. Or do you mean "no > one is allowed to"? I'm in doubt that anyone can claim to speak for the diaspora of ideas and principles that is the free software community. We have participants from all corners of the globe, all religions, all political stances. It would probably be hard to find unanimous agreement among us on anything, other than perhaps that free software is a desirable thing. > What do you mean by "modern standards"? Do you realy think there are > standards for political correctness? Is it an ISO? POSIX? IEEE? Sorry > for the easy joke. Probably you could express better what you mean (~: > > Le 10/04/2021 à 14:50, Bronek Kozicki via Gcc a écrit : > > Hello there > > > > As a long time GCC user, who is also a father to teenage children, I would > > very much prefer if a person who openly expressed opinions, and also openly > > exercised behaviours, which I consider abhorrent, was *not* associated with > > the GCC project. > > I bet you would also prefer that this person doesn't live on the > same planet as you. Sorry but this is just plain intolerance. > > The root of the cabal is there: intolerance. The arguments about > the behaviour of RMS or the mere fact that his name appears on the web > page are mostly given (conciously or not) to hide the actual mobile. Very well summarized, Didier. This is an authoritarian attempt to clamp down on freedom of thought which is unfortunately being swallowed whole by people who spend the rest of their time fighting for it. If it is not possible for us -- a global community representing not only the entire spectrum of American politics and values, but of global politics and values -- to agree to disagree, then we are doomed to failure.
