Elias @eliasr@librem.one

@hicks@mstdn.io @alexl@mstdn.io

> not react too fast

That, I think, is an increasingly important quality in the world today.

It would be great if there was a way to make people think more before they react.

For me it is hard to ignore the connection to the rise of surveillance capitalism in recent years. Things like Facebook making money by steering people's behavior towards many quick clicks, shortening the attention span more and more. It's getting worse, I wonder if we as a society can turn it around.

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org Considering the points I just made about the abortion joke, will you concede that your criticism in that case was based on a misunderstanding? If not, please explain how that joke issue contributes to you calling RMS a "misogynist".

Let me also ask if you, in calling RMS a misogynist, have considered the fact that he has consistently defended women's rights when it comes to the abortion issue? Many people consider that a pretty important issue.

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org Valid criticism based on the abortion joke could be, for example:

- RMS is alienating people with strong "pro-life" opinions

- RMS is making technical documentation messy by including irrelevant things like jokes in it

- RMS is micromanaging GNU, he should have let the person responsible for the glibc manual make the decision without interfering

Of the above, I think the most valid one is the third, about RMS doing misusing his leading position by into such details.

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org It is true that people have criticized RMS for his fighting to keep that joke in the manual. There can be reasons for criticism here, but really not for calling him "misogynist". On the contrary, valid criticism could be that he is making "pro life" supporters feel less inclined to use GNU software. RMS is effectively using his power as GNU chief to further his pro-choice opinion. Does that really contribute to you calling him a "misogynist"?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org My understanding of that joke is that it makes fun of some proposed federal censorship regulations. The joke is defending the right to abort as well as the right to abort().

It is basically saying: each person should have the right to make their own decisions both regarding their own computer, and regarding their own body.

The fact that RMS is "pro choice" on the abortion issue can be looked up elsewhere I think, it is not surprising given that he usually defends freedom.

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org The joke is in the documentation of the abort() function in glibc, it looks like this: (here I have taken a screenshot from page 709 in https://ftp.gnu.org/old-gnu/Manuals/glibc-2.2.3/pdf/libc.pdf)

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org Thanks a lot for explaining, this helped my understand better.

I will ask you about one particular point, please don't take that as dismissing the other things you wrote. I appreciate all your points but I want to ask about one particular thing, namely the issue of RMS fighting to keep an abortion joke in technical documentation.

The reason is that I looked that one up myself the other day, and found it interesting. Let me explain.

(to be continued)

Regarding #RMS and the letter to remove him from all leadership positions, this makes several important points: https://www.arp242.net/rms.html

Bottom line, that I agree with: "being unfair is being unfair, no matter who the target may be".

Anyone here who signed that letter who would consider explaining their thinking? Looking for someone who both read it and signed it, knowing what you were signing and who is still standing by the claims in the letter. Anyone?

@akenyg Ett annat tips är Feministiskt initiativ, för den som vill göra motstånd mot nationalismen och understryka vikten av mänskliga rättigheter.

@douginamug I agree that is really relevant and well written.

I would have been very interested to hear from some of the (surprisingly many) people who signed the letter, what they think about this.

Could it be that some of them signed it without having read it carefully themselves, just joining in and trusting it was good because they saw so many others had signed already? I suspect that is what happened. Not that it's any excuse, it's pretty important to know what you are signing.

@clacke @alexl@mstdn.io @claudiom@mastodon.sdf.org
(8/8)

Tying this back to the first problem, the github letter makes everything much worse. Giving in to the demands of the github letter would signal that it was successful, thus encouraging more such behavior in the future.

The mindset behind the github letter presents a real danger to our society in a fundamental way. If this is how we commmunicate and how we make decisions now, then we are in big trouble.

@clacke @alexl@mstdn.io @claudiom@mastodon.sdf.org
(7/8)

I have a hard time beleiving that all those people would have signed the github letter if they had carefully read it first and thought for a moment about the consequences of their own actions. My best guess is that most of them just heard there was a petition, asked "how do I sign" and then signed it, not really knowing what it said other than it was a petition to remove RMS from the FSF.

@clacke @alexl@mstdn.io @claudiom@mastodon.sdf.org
(6/8)

The fact that so many people signed the github letter is deeply worrying, because it indicates that these people do not agree to the above. They think it is fine to throw grave accusations without solid proof. They see no problem in ganging up thousands of people to harm one person.

@clacke @alexl@mstdn.io @claudiom@mastodon.sdf.org
(5/8)

To understand why the github letter is so problematic, you really need to read it in detail to see how grave the insults are, and look at how it cites partly false information as evidence.

@clacke @alexl@mstdn.io @claudiom@mastodon.sdf.org
(4/8)

When your demands are extreme, such as demanding the founder of an organization to be kicked out, that makes it even more important to be very careful and truthful when you present your demands.

When you make grave insults against a person, you should be even more careful to make sure you have solid grounds for your accusations.

@clacke @alexl@mstdn.io @claudiom@mastodon.sdf.org
(3/8)

The people who signed the github letter seem to think that it does not matter if they are careless, rude and even partly dishonest, because they beleive they have such a just cause. That is a dangerous attitude.

I would argue that if your cause is important, that makes it even more important to carefully consider how you express yourself.

@clacke @alexl@mstdn.io @claudiom@mastodon.sdf.org
(2/8)

One problem is RMS behavior that has hurt people and has driven people away from the free software movement. It is not unreasonable to wish for that to change.

The other problem regards the github letter the criticizes RMS and demands the resignation of the whole FSF board and so on. That letter is harch and disrespectful and makes very serious allegations while partly based on something false. See https://www.wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-web

@clacke @alexl@mstdn.io @claudiom@mastodon.sdf.org
Welcome to my new 8-piece reflection on the #RMS controversy.

(1/8)

Having seen how this played out during the last few days and discussed it in a few different places, I am increasingly convinced that there are two separate problems in play here. It would be good if people recognized both of them, rather than inflating one and pretending the other does not exist.