Le lundi 4 novembre 2019 05:50:09 CET, vous avez écrit : > 1 : of, relating to, or marked by hysteria hysterical conditions > 2 : feeling or showing extreme and unrestrained emotion hysterical fans > … the paper did not hesitate to appeal to racial passions in hysterical > headlines and rabid editorials. — The New Yorker
Thank you! So I guess it’s the second one, since the one is either recursive (then a tautology… what is hysteria otherwise?), either refers to a biological condition you were told wasn’t possible. I guess you’re going to be better understood, maybe as less insulting, that way, so it’s more easy to keep the discussion on with more people in it rather than less… Definitions helps keeping stuff less irrational) Personally I think Sandra must have restrained her emotions as a bunch of still civil persons here. The most notable thing was how she seemed misguided, and she didn’t explained herself much at the end (neither about the opinion change, nor about how an opinion can justify kicking a founder philosopher out of so much respected places). So yes it must be irrational, but not to a “crazy” level I believe. In the end each person has per principles, per axioms, that aren’t necessarily explained, and are prioritized so that to justify decisions, sometimes baked by the term “morality” (so to give a less arbitrary look and a more social one). To her, opinions about pedophilia, like for so much people unfortunately, go beyond free speech, defense against slander/difamation, and maybe good of GNU, since she didn’t that much talked about rms’ capabilities of leading GNU, otherwise. So they are prioritized (over defending rms). For us, defending rms may be more a priority (over matching global thinking about these issues… including *past* thinking ><). That may be irrational too (as we’re not prophets able to predict the future of free software (yet rms has, as already widely remarked, been a pretty good prophet in regards to predicting future until then). The question in the end is how can we agree for free software. I believe Richard is doing nothing wrong and was anyway already prone to piss off and/or disgust some persons before just as well (like I commonly do, too), it has worked until now, it could work again a long more. I’d be happy such persons might be kept in, because I like him, and being alike, I’d like not being kicked off one day for opinions or for being found disgusting or pissing off people. On the other side, software hacking seems quite distant from global population thinking about mores/customs. I doubt, like sometimes stated on twitter, people will really less use GNU software or free-software because of some past rms opinions (in the long run, that look sooooo distant). Especially as because the discomfort that would could cause (I even doubt that’s nowadays possible… bash is shipped even on Windows nowadays…)… People already distant from our ideals, that we’d like to attract, are more often —unfortunately for them— prone to prefer comfort to morality. And yet, the other, I hope, will know how to keep their freedom, I hope. I just hope that won’t make more people argue in favor of BSD, LLVM and such, that would make people face greater risks to be trapped into proprietary software, and, worse, providing them better proprietary software and badder free software in the end…