rms
@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org
> I believe "has shown" refers to his actions, not his person.
Not necessarily, that depends on the other parts of the sentence.
The word that matters most here is *be*. Look at the whole sentence:
"He has shown himself to be misogynist, ableist, and transphobic, among other serious accusations of impropriety."
The start, "He has shown himself to" indicates that the conclusion that follows is derived from his actions until now.
1/?
rms
@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org The conclusion that follows is using the word "be":
"He has shown himself to be misogynist, ableist, and transphobic, [...]"
It is clear that, according to the open letter, it is determined that RMS is misogynist, ableist, and transphobic. The way the sentence is written leaves no room for any possibility of change regarding the fact that he is misogynist, ableist, and transphobic. That's just who he is, acording to the open letter.
2/?
rms
@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org You are right that "shown himself" means it has something to do with his actions, but, the way the open letter states things, his actions matter only in the way that they allow us to see who he really is. Because of his actions, we know that he is misogynist, ableist, and transphobic, is what the letter is saying.
3/?
rms
@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org You have expressed that you have signed the open letter and that you still stand by it.
Then, I have this question: why was it a good idea to formulate that sentence such that "misogynist, ableist, and transphobic" are assigned to RMS as parts of his identity?
Would it not have been better to talk about actions, thereby leaving room for the possibility of positive changes in the future?
As mentioned earlier, the latter is the approach advocated by experts.
5/?
rms
@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org I think it is clear that, if the goal was to move towards an improved situation, to reduce problems with misogyny, ableism, and transphobia in the future, it would have been better to focus on actions and skip putting labels on a person. Focusing on actions would have given better opportunities for the person to change in a positive way in the future.
6/?
rms
@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org I see two possible explanations:
Either the goal was to improve things for the future. In that case a different phrasing would have been better, the actual phrasing of that sentence in the letter was then a mistake. Is that what happened?
Or, the goal was not to improve things for the future, but something else. Then the phrasing was perhaps perfect for the purpose. The question is, then, what was the purpose of the letter?
7/7
Librem Social is an opt-in public network. Messages are shared under Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 license terms. Policy.
Stay safe. Please abide by our code of conduct.
(Source code)
rms
@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org The sentence in the open letter essentially presents the view that RMS has always been a misogynist, ableist, and transphobic, it is inherent in his identity. Certain actions have revealed it, but the identity presumably was there all along. He is a misogynist, ableist, and transphobic, there is no changing that, is the message conveyed by that sentence in the open letter.
4/?