* Alexandre François Garreau <galex-...@galex-713.eu> [2019-11-04 05:26]: > Hi, I like discussion. This so because I like language. And therefore, > meaning. > > Le lundi 4 novembre 2019, 04:32:04 CET Ruben Safir a écrit : > > Nobody believes this except for a few hysterical lunitics. > > I think you’re wrong about lunatism. I think though mob attacks can seem > really lunatic, they’re made by disinformed persons that tend to keep a sort > of consistence within the few, probably unsufficient, knowledge they have > about > the situations they get in.
People who use computers, who know how to use Internet search engines, who know how to read and who are just will find the facts and get informed and verify information. There are people who do not act by information, for which being informed or being dis-informed really does not matter. You are rational person. Why I say so? Because you are referring to the fact that people are supposed to make their decisions or incite actions on informed decisions. You have just mentioned it. But there are types of people who are not responding to being informed. They may even have all the knowledge necessary, and will not regard the knowledge, facts, arguments as being valid, because this type of people regards only emotions or feelings of justice to be valid and to have the ultimate priority before any facts. And that is why lynching was prohibited! Because carrying on with the justice based on emotions and feelings does not bring any justice about, but injustice. Political movements all over the world are using the phenomena that one part of people may be moved by emotions, by feelings, by apparent public propaganda what should be just, and they are inciting divisions and wars, this is happening all over the world. Lynching is form of ochlocracy. Ochlocracy is rule of government by mob or mass of people. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching Lynching is a premeditated extrajudicial killing by a group. It is most often used to characterize informal public executions by a mob in order to punish an alleged transgressor, convicted transgressor, or to intimidate a group. It can also be an extreme form of informal group social control, and it is often conducted with the display of a public spectacle (often in the form of hanging) for maximum intimidation. Instances of lynchings and similar mob violence can be found in every society. We do not speak of lynching here, but we do have analogy at hand. The analogy is to the call-out culture. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call-out_culture#Cancel_Culture Call-out culture (also known as outrage culture) is a form of public shaming that aims to hold individuals and groups accountable for their actions by calling attention to behavior that is perceived to be problematic, usually on social media. A variant of the term, cancel culture, describes a form of boycott in which someone (usually a celebrity) who has shared a questionable or unpopular opinion, or has had behavior that is perceived to be either offensive or problematic called out on social media is "canceled"; they are completely boycotted by many of their followers or supporters, often leading to massive declines in celebrities' (almost always social media personalities) careers and fanbase. I think that defines pretty well what we are dealing here. More citations from Ochlocracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy Ochlocracy (Greek: ὀχλοκρατία, romanized: okhlokratía; Latin: ochlocratia) or mob rule is the rule of government by mob or a mass of people, or, the intimidation of legitimate authorities. As a pejorative for majoritarianism, it is akin to the Latin phrase mobile vulgus, meaning "the fickle crowd", from which the English term "mob" originally was derived in the 1680s. The above terms are well connected to what we have here at hand. There is GNU project and FSF, which was and is and will be success. There was already well established organization, and there is founder who as a person is very kind and always strive for justice by all means. A thinker, forerunner, precursor, visionary. There is observable phenomena that people who tend to join the call-out culture, or mob incited justice, that such will not regard any information, as they do not care about information, facts or evidences. I have installed wordnut package in my Emacs so to have quick access to local Wordnet, and there is also online list of dictionaries on a press of a button. * Overview of noun lunatic The noun lunatic has 2 senses (no senses from tagged texts) 1. lunatic, madman, maniac -- (an insane person) 2. daredevil, madcap, hothead, swashbuckler, lunatic, harum-scarum -- (a reckless impetuous irresponsible person) * Overview of adj impetuous The adj impetuous has 2 senses (first 1 from tagged texts) 1. (2) hotheaded, impulsive, impetuous, madcap, tearaway, brainish -- (characterized by undue haste and lack of thought or deliberation; "a hotheaded decision"; "liable to such impulsive acts as hugging strangers"; "an impetuous display of spending and gambling"; "madcap escapades"; (`brainish' is archaic)) 2. impetuous -- (marked by violent force; "impetuous heaving waves") In my opinion we are observing a phenomena of this time period that could be best (maybe?) described as online and offline mob justice. The phenomena is connected to terms such as "cancel culture", it is connected to "social justice warriors" and to "being offended and accusing for justice" and so on. It is type of bigotry. * Overview of noun bigotry The noun bigotry has 1 sense (no senses from tagged texts) 1. bigotry, dogmatism -- (the intolerance and prejudice of a bigot) Thus when person is reckless, characterized by undue haste and lack of thought or deliberation, irresponsible, for such person one could say "lunatic". I do understand how word lunatic is strong word and it may insult people, and I would not tell that. I do not say that group of people who appear in those movements to bring about justice are related. I think they are just picking up vibe from each other and assume that it is right way to bring about justice, even if necessary with aggression, or any kind of behavior, without looking into any arguments. That phenomena exist is obvious. I have not invented it. Without the "joint statement" I would not even know about it. But phenomena is cultural phenomena, only that its character does not apply to majority of the world, it is currently present only in few countries in some specific environments, and it also appears in media, mostly US media that I know. It probably existed since ages, but for some reasons it is now more visible. After all those definitions, if we are to speak about GNU governance, then we shall address the governance by its general types: QUESTION A ========== Should such governance get polluted or intertwined with mob type of a justice? Should such governance be based on intolerance and prejudices of bigots who speak loud while pretending to speak for the whole group? In this case, if this is acceptable for any organization, then I would say let me get out of their space, as what is next to come will be lynching, and nobody will be safe in such environment. GNU project is not about policing behavior or thinking of other people. It would be so wrong and so contrary to what Dr. Richard Stallman was striving all the years. QUESTION B ========== - should it be a governance by means of rational decision? Should such governance stick to anchored and well established principle of justice such as "presumption of innocence"? That is why GNU project and free software philosophy speakers are using communication and rational thought, facts, arguments and evidences to bring about mutual understanding in society and not public shaming and call-out culture. If GNU project leader is not using public shaming and call-out culture, than such shall not be allowed in GNU project. Do you people know that Selam with her article did a lot of harm to FSF, and Richard Stallman, and GNU project, and now we bear harm in community for reasons that third party incited the fights. All without facts, without evidences. There is no true justice at hand, because RMS is kind person, and did not want to incite court processes. How tolerant is he when he is allowing the defamatory slander statements on Guix pages? RMS did not decide to sue people who defame him. That does not mean it cannot happen in future. He would win all the cases. But what injustice and what kind of punishment he received from few members of the GNU community? That is a big burden, big punishment that he received and all in the country of US that is supposed to be free speech country. Where associates and members are and were supposed to stand on the side of the legal justice system and defend RMS, as he did not commit any crimes to be punished that way. Just as Ruben said, nobody expects Spanish inquisition. It is humor, for those who are too serious. In my opinion GNU project shall simply stay where it is, with its good directions and FSF campaigns, and shall restrict any kind of proposals to call-out anybody by public shaming and calling attention to wrong behavior. Why? Because that is not a justice system, and no non-profit organization shall serve the justice in that way for the reason it is not a court of justice. One way to do that is to recognize if somebody is being publicly shamed for some speech or behavior which was not anyway connected to GNU project or FSF, and then to reject such complaints and route people to legal justice system. As if anybody was harmed by somebody's behavior, they have justice system as a recourse. If anybody was harmed by somebody's speech, they have legal justice system as a recourse. Reject public shamings, let people solve issues between themselves. Do not divide community and stray away from purposes of free software philosophy for reasons of mob justice. Non-profits such as FSF, and also unincorporated associations such as GNU project, can have their internal justice systems totally different to government, and such system shall not be based or founded on any principles that allow mob justice to take place. Jean Louis