Elias @eliasr@librem.one

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org

For example, since there is not strong enough basis for the "misogynist" claim, you should refuse to sign a text that makes such a claim.

And since it is wrong to put vicious labels on a person's identity rather than focusing on actions, you should refuse to sign a text that does so.

Have I succeeded in explaining why it is wrong to sign a text if you do not support all of it?

5/?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org
If people who want to express their opinions only support certain parts of a text, then they would need to either sign separate texts to get it right, or else, if they want to avoid separating the vote as you say, then they need to revise the text so that they find the common part that everyone supports. Then they can sign that new version without being dishonest, because then all who sign it do really stand by the whole text they are signing.

4/?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org
If you do not understand that, then try thinking about it from the perspective of someone who reads the text with all the signatures under it. The reader understands that all these people stand behind this whole text. There is no other way to interpret it when you read a text with a number of signatures.

3/?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org
Then you tried to escape from your responsibility by writing this:

> I don't believe that me, or people signing it need to agree on everything it says anyways.

But that escape does not work, it is a position impossible to defend which you will see if you think about it. If the people signing a text do not all stand by it, then it is wrong to add their signatures. If the people who signed it do not stand by the whole text, then the whole setup is deeply dishonest.

2/?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org
You wrote earlier:

> I don't believe that anyone who has signed the letter thinks RMS can't change

But at the same time you acknowledge that putting a label like "misogynist" on a person is bad because it assigns it to a person's identity, something that cannot change.

So the text is clearly phrased in the wrong way, and apparently you understand that now.

1/?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org The premise when we started this discussion was that you had read the letter you signed and that you still stood by it.

Now I see that you do not really stand by it, you now appear to only support the "removing from all leadership positions" part and not all the ill-founded accusations.

I take it that you have changed your mind. Fine, we all make mistakes. Then you should make sure to have your signature removed, since you do not actually support the text you had signed.

@digital Purism support answered that direct messages are not available (they are disabled) on Librem One. Because of not wanting to create a false sense of privacy with DMs that aren't actually private. So the reason is just like @lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org guessed earlier.
Still hoping to get some more answer about if they could at least implement some kind of error indication to the sender who tries to send DMs from other instances, no answer on that part yet.

@codesections I've been working with the Chunks and Tasks programming model, see http://chunks-and-tasks.org/, where inside your function you register tasks for execution later. The order of execution can be restricted by data dependencies but is otherwise arbitrary. When two tasks can run in any order, they can also run in parallel. Your example has no deps. so the order would be arbitrary or all could run in parallel. However operations like "print" are forbidden, you can only output via return. 😉

@craftyguy what about the pinephone, it still has that problem, or never had it to begin with?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org

> I don't believe that me, or people signing it need to agree on everything it says anyways.

Ouch. I'm going to stop here for a moment to give you a chance to think that through and revise it.

If you, all those people who signed it, do not all of you stand by all of the text, then what is the meaning of your signatures?

The meaning of an open letter with several signatures is exactly that, saying that "all of us agree on this text". That's the whole point.

2/2

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org

> I don't believe that anyone who has signed the letter thinks RMS can't change

Then it should have been phrased differently because the way it is written, it signals that you think he can't change.

1/?

@digital @lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org Thanks. I wrote to Purism support about it now, hopefully they can fix it so there is at least some kind of error message.

@craftyguy Nice! Does that affect #pinephone or #librem5 or both?

@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/?