Elias @eliasr@librem.one

@digital Thanks! I can only see one message from you, the one with the screenshot, so it seems the direct message got discarded.

On your end, is there no indication that it was not delivered, an error message or something?

Does this mean something needs to be fixed at the instance I'm on? Or is it normal that some instances behave this way?

@jrballesteros05 @fsf

> Tell me officially RMS is back

I suppose it is official because his name is included here, scroll down to the bottom of the page:

https://www.fsf.org/about/staff-and-board/

Still learning how this mastodon/fediverse thing works.

Now I just found out that there is something called "direct messages" and there was a question about such messages maybe being silently discarded by the instance that I'm on. That would mean, I think, that I would never know about any direct message that someone tried to send me.

If anyone would like to help me test that, please send me such a "direct message" and afterwards also reply to this in the normal way.

@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

@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/?

@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/?

@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/?

@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/?

@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/?

@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/?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org One thing I have learned there, learning from people who are experts in such issues, is that when a person has done something racist it is generally not a good idea to react by calling that person a "racist". Instead, it is better to focus on the action, what the person did, and explain why that was racist, why that is bad, and suggest to the person how to act instead. This is considered a better approach than calling someone "racist", if we want to combat racism.

4/?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org Part of my own background coming into this discussion is that I am a member of an organization that works against racism, among other things. In the context of the ongoing struggle against racism in our society, within this organization there have been much discussion about what is the best course of action when racism is detected, with the goal of making things better in the future.

3/?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org The other thing I wanted to ask you about is the fact that the open letter you signed says that "He has shown himself to be misogynist, ableist, and transphobic, [...]".

This means that, according to the open letter, RMS *is* misogynist, ableist, and transphobic. Those are qualities assigned to him, as if they were part of his identity, who he is, as opposed to referring to some of his actions, things he has done.

2/?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org I would like to ask you another thing also.

Before doing so, however, let me thank you again for being here answering questions about this. I think that it takes courage for you to do that, you deserve respect for it.

So now when I ask you something more, please do not take it as some attack against you, I am just trying to understand, while respecting you and listening to what you have to say.

1/?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org

> can be seen as a good thing if you forget that

There you brought up the "ableist" accusation instead? If we stick to the "misogynist" accusation for the moment, I take it that we are in agreement that RMS' pro-choice stance plays in his favor regarding the "misogynist" accusation.

> the joke is harmful in that it may make women remember

This seems far-fetched to me. Still, thank you for explaining your reasoning.

IMHO your grounds for calling RMS "misogynist" seem weak.

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org @hicks@mstdn.io

> Most anti-RMS people believe in Free Speech Absolutism

Here I got confused. You meant most pro-RMS people, maybe?

Anyway I don't think that I personally believe in "Free Speech Absolutism" since I definitely think we should avoid saying things that are threatening or offensive, and so on. We should be kind to other people.

@franpoli

> Before taking any decision

Wht kind of decision do you mean here? Do you mean a decision to sign the letter or not?

@civodul

> GNU is not about RMS, it’s “ours”

Interesting. Can you say something more about how that is going to work, what is your plan to make GNU "ours"?

I checked the link but did not directly find it explained.

@clacke

@clacke Also, if we classify people as wither racist or not, we lose the ability to detect our own racist behavior. "I'm not a racist, so what I said/did could never be racist" is a quite silly way of thinking.

You were talking about transphobia rather than racism, but I'm pretty sure the same thing applies: much better to focus on actions rather than putting a label on a person, as if that behavior is a some kind of definition of who that person is, that is really unfair to that person.

2/2

@clacke

> rms took transphobic and ablist action

Kudos for separating the actions from the person!

I'm involved with an organization working against racism, and in that context this issue has come up repeatedly. One thing I learned there, listening to experts on that kind of thing, is that it is generally not useful to label a person as "racist" when in fact it is some specific actions that are racist. Labeling the person as racist reduces the chances of better behavior in the future.

1/2