Le jeudi 27 février 2020, 16:27:57 CET Ruben Safir a écrit : > Frankly, this entire email is a lie.
No you can’t say that. > It is very subtle, Yes it is. For that subtle fact: this mail doesn’t contain anything factually false. So it’s not a lie, and doesn’t even necessarily contains lies. The only things I could doubt on are motivations (or rather: their evolution), which are both: a) unprovable and b) not to be speculated on. However even here, whatever my doubt, I can’t possibly imagine there’s not at least a part of truth in it. Because it is hard to have friends, or at least colleagues, cosupporters of same views, etc. being hurt and not having an issue with that. > but it an > example as to why you receive such a strong push back. You are NOT > honest and your motivations [further speculation] Since it is subtle, you’d better analyse it further and comment it in a less easy-to-withdraw manner. And when it’s too difficult… well don’t. If something is “too subtle” it likely doesn’t have *yet* the easy consequences you’d like to criticize. So wait for them to appear, and keep privately, and kindly, your reservations. Stay on a “I can’t explain why, but reading XXX, I don’t trust him…”, never more. And preferably say that when it’s appropriated to say (when a friend of yours asks you, or when there’s a public consultation, and only *once* without repetition). If you had to get angry, do that in front of someone that would understand and stand it. > > I am very sorry for this. And I apologize because I was one of the > > people who suggested people discuss things on this list. > > The use of the term "things" here is a lie and newspeak. No, it is a general term. People can be lazy. They also can be lazy to purport theirs opponent’s views, but there’s no way using the word “thing” for anything is exagerated. It is only imprecise, but then precize yourself. People are allowed to be lazy, if they’re not sure what they’re talking about (make suggestions, instead of accusations). > What you suggested is that since you have two supporters moderating this > list, They don’t have anymore, they regret that actually. So you,re wrong. > [same accusations as always] are the "things" you decided to do. This was obvious. Nobody is stupid. You can use different terms as them for what, because of differing viewpoints, yet everybody understand them to refer the same thing. > > In hindsight suggesting this list was a terrible recommendation > > and I realize now that I put some people, who just wanted to discuss > > what they love about being GNU, through a lot of pain. > It was never your intention to discuss what you "love about being GNU". I think it could. > What there has been a discussion about has been the creation of a domain > that claims it represents GNU That was likely *after* they decided the list wasn’t as fit as it was initially. > At no time has there been any discussion of what we love about GNU, They were distracted, likely. By opposition. Not necessarily yours. But maybe without non-GNU people they would have more talked about GNU. > > I am very sorry > > for that. > > Save me the crocodile tears. Your efforts made RMS homeless for a > period of time. No they weren’t there at that time. It was the consequences of MIT people. These people aren’t MIT people. Don’t conflate accusations like the people you hate did with rms. I’m sure he wouldn’t like that as well. Also because he’s more reasonable. > > I am certainly not recommending people make themselves a > > target by publicly posting to this list anymore. > > Your hostile effort to take over GNU will be resisted by people of fine > moral character and real concern for the freedoms it strives to protect > no matter where you attempt to destroy GNU. Harassment, insults, etc. aren’t “resistance”. And behaving by repetition demonstrate the opposite of “concern”. > > I have heard from various people they felt intimidated both by > > reactions on the list, some by fellow GNU participants and from > > outsiders sending them some of the most offensive email they ever > > received. > > Since you have a pattern of lying, I chose not to believe that without > proof. Do you know Okham’s razor? Hanlon’s razor? First postulate incapacity, before to postulate malevolence. You’re not the only violent party. And you could as well consider people are more affected by what you write than you think. And yet, because they believe to be right, they could keep doing it yet being affected and even hurt by you. Because it is noway related. > Granted > though, I grew up in the deep ghetto of East New York, Brooklyn and not > some lillywhite ivy league town, so my sensibilities aren't yours. When > I was a teen-ager, people were shot dead on the street for an argument > over a nickle bag. Does it still nowadays? With time, and economical development, violence decreases (sometimes from good, sometimes from bad reasons, but the result is still good)… you don’t need to keep it staying there. We can resolve conflicts without this. Especially as it doesn’t help. RMS and GNU don’t need you for that. Especially, they don’t need you to follow their own ideas and what they believe in, which includes being kind even with opponents, which includes not banning dissension, . > > Some contain direct personal threats, extremely racist or > > sexist language and even antisemitic views (luckily most of the worst > > ones aren't posted to the list, but there have certainly also been > > implicitly/implied threats and racist or sexist views posted on this > > list). > > I am certainly not recommending people make themselves a > > target by publicly posting to this list anymore. > I think this is yet another lie. > Please post them to the list. Your accusing unknown posters of racists > and sexist views being posted. I think you are a liar. I was surprised, but I hope they’re not such blatant liars. I guess the racism (including antisemitic) attacks would likely be from MikeeUSA (aka nipponmail, aka gameonlinux), who’s known for this behavior, and, given his participation (I used to be cc to many attacks but understandably wouldn’t be anymore), that was likely more than one month ago. But then I keep finding it strange, as I don’t see how he built up any argument with this… Also, most of participants were (unfortunately) men, so I’m unsure who the sexists attacks were directed to… I think the most likely possibility, that you might not think about, were about sexist *discourse* which is not private personal threats, attacks, etc. that have happened in the last weeks (the ones from you). In fact, even publicly, I just recall, MikeeUSA has repetedly supported pretty masculinists views, sexist views, etc. They’re likely talking about him then, not you. As he was a very notoriously known troll, and sent way more offensive as you (in comparison, you almost seemed legit to me, at the time you were both writing). > > The FSF keeps ignoring our calls for a neutral discussion space. And I > > think it is unacceptable that people are afraid to publicly discuss > > why > > they participate in GNU because they feel intimidated and fear to get > > personal threats or have to endure racist or sexist language. > > People should not have an uncensored mailing list to through about > libelous charges at individuals without it being accountable. Yet they are accountable, and *you* argued against censorship. You shouldn’t complain against censorship when you broke rules (ones by rms) and moderators advises (indirectly given by rms), while arguing for censorship for people who, however dishonestly, simply expressed diverging opinions, and *implied* (never restating them, and not all of them) unkind accusations against people. > There is NO MAILING LIST BY GNU that is not safe for people to post of > all genders, creeds and races. Wellll… if we choose not to consider any spam-filtering software, the very concept of mailing-list and open protocol over a federated network (like mail) is actually unsafe. Any really violent troll (such as MikeeUSA) could just get the emails (thanks to federation and publicness) of people whose discourse they don’t like, and harass them (through that same open and decentralized protocol). To fix that requires to discuss privately (what they suggested, done (through their gnu.tools mailing-list) but initially didn’t want to), to centralize things (so you can’t message someone without passing through a moderator), or some mix of both (for instance you could simply publish moderated archives, without emails). Or to add some free-software and federated way of moderating. Mastodon has recently popularized the idea of giving sysadmins and hosters the ability to moderate anything. But there could be others, and thanks to the concept of federations, all of these could freely compete. > Your repeated accusation otherwise is a > fraud and a lie. The ONLY racist email sent was an obvious anti-Semitic > troll, which nobody would give a damn about. It is just interesting to > me, though, that as usually, only the Jews get targeted. If MikeeUSA at some point, privately, backed up his masculinist view about women dominating the world/etc. by antisemitism (actually he’s the troll), that wouldn’t be directed at a specific Jew, yet be racist, right? > > IMHO the > > FSF really has a responsibility to the GNU volunteers to be able to > > work and communicate with each other without having to feel harassed > > all the time. > > That is another lie. I've reviewed these mailing lists and been a > member of a number of them and NOBODY has been harassed other than a > few maintainers harassing Richard and falsely accusing him of racist > views and actions. When you restate your opinion again and again, especially when it has blatant insults added, it is harassment. And if you use mailing-list to get emails of people you harass (which is to be expected, as you, as you said, participated to them), you use them to harass people. Even if the moderators were always there and doing an incritiquable job, if you used the lists to get email and mail privately, you used mailing lists to harass people, so it becomes possible to say “GNU mailing-lists are used to harass people”… in great part because of you. As before this didn’t happen a lot (never, to my knowledge), and only you and MikeeUSA did that. So, even though it was possible before (as with any mailing-list) you made it aknowledgable. If you never participated to those mailing-list, and only harassed people privately, and never shown to have got these mail by mailing-lists (typically by not doing that as answers to their mails there), say by harvesting mails on the web, on projects’ web page, etc. based on stuff such as anti-rms statement, social contract support, etc. one no longer could say “GNU mailing-lists are used to harass people” (yet they could say “GNU project current governance is supported by agressors, sexists, racists and harassors” (which is the dishonest way of saying “2 harassors (whose one sexist and racist threatening troll) support the current governance of GNU” (which is actually still half-false as I’m unsure MikeeUSA supported rms at all, he was only trying to conflates rms’ views and interests with his own, blaming at the same time his not-agressive- enough behavior as his fault, possibly for racist and sexist reasons as well) > > We are working on providing a better discussion space for GNU > > volunteers, > > You can do whatever you want, but this is not what you have tried to do > until now So now you state they do? > and you are NOT ALLOWED to do is to claim that your represent > the GNU project. They could, however, as they’re currently trying to do, claim they set up tool for represent the set of people chosed by rms to maintain the GNU project. They only happen to resume “we bring together rms’ chosen maintainers ourselves” as “we represent the GNU project”. Which is simply a way to ignore everything else that constitutes GNU’s structure. > What you have tried to do is oust GNU leadership by > falsely accusing them of left-wing social justice thought crimes and > dragging their reputations through the mud. He’s notably himself a self proclaimed “social justice” left-wing guy you know… > > but that is taking some time. I hope we can soon though, so > > people who do want to publicly discuss why and how they want to > > participate in GNU can do that in a more safe space. > > I am sure it will be highly censored and full of libel and false > accusations. Good riddance. > > For the record, GNU and the FSF never discriminates in its hiring or > appointments according to race, religion, gender,or sexual identity. > Furthermore, Richard Stallman has been a vocal proponent of Feminism, > and women's rights for his entire life and a vigilant support of civil > rights for all walks of human life. Maybe, as they may try to be, except rms has less consensual views as them. Which is what typically happens when you attempt at the same time to have public views on everything, and to be consistent, like he does. Also, as a more famous character, his life details are more publicly known and criticizable as theirs, who are a lot less personalized and famous. You talk about crowns and stuff, but I’m doubting they’d wish to be in rms’ shoes. They’d likely prefer governance to be less personalized, possibly more opaque, but not something that could get them in the same troubles. _______________________________________________ Hangout mailing list hang...@nylxs.com http://lists.mrbrklyn.com/mailman/listinfo/hangout