Richard Stallman FSF support/remove letter signature counts(polaris64.net) |
Richard Stallman FSF support/remove letter signature counts(polaris64.net) |
This is not particular to small organizations, it's a feature of the whole society. This attitude is one of the hallmarks of a move towards totalitarianism. There is no compromise possible, total defeat or total annihilation of opposing views are the only options.
The against letter is here : https://github.com/rms-support-letter/rms-support-letter.git...
And the for is here : https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io
You can find the number of votes on the respective websites for each letter or by checking the number of merged pull requests.
I did this as a way to visualise the number of signatures over time, just as a matter of interest.
Where I can sign to support impartial investigation.
To me, this looks more like a group of people who don’t like RMS joining hands with industry to remove RMS AND THE ENTIRE FSF board.
RMS did nothing legally wrong, that’s why he’s not in prison and there’s no investigation. Because he took no actions.
From my perspective, the “ostracize RMS” crowd appear like bigots who are attacking someone with autism for personal gain. Yes he did something potentially inappropriate, he apologized and we should work on reforming.
If there’s no forgiveness for someone who had a different opinion (he didn’t act on anything, as far as we know), then there will be no quarter. No one wants to live in a world with no recourse.
You can sign the "support" letter.
It says clearly that RMS is not above criticism, that it welcomes discussion on all the issues, but that the smear campaign supported by the other letter is unacceptable.
Besides, notice that the promoters of the pro-ostracization letter are not open for discussion. Any discussion or move towards a compromise (e.g., by questioning RMS's fit as a leader while rejecting the lies of the letter) is ruthlessly suppressed.
What is the reasoning at HN for allowing one side of the story and censuring the other side. Very disappointed at HN moderators...
To be fair, "these things" are being discussed here every day, with lots of comments and no intent of suppression. Maybe some users are tired of seeing the same subject appear many times per day with no actual news, and they are flagging it as a form of protest. It would be still an inappropriate usage of flagging, but somewhat understandable.
This is a graph showing the counts of signatories both for and against. How is this post possibly coming out on either side of this issue?
But he didn't?
1. The Founder of a project is the one who gets the biggest say in who should lead it, not some random virtue signalling dude from the internet.
2. Why should I stop conflating these issues? You judge the person for his actions, just like criminal judges do. However, the very criminal and ugly offense of rape is NOT punishable by the law after a number of years. But you are such a severe judge that you demand a punishment with no lenience or clemency and no statute of limitations for being an unpleasant person who is very awkward with women, and allegedly made someone uncomfortable three decades ago.
3. Found your own project, run it the way you like, decide who will have a 'privilege' to lead it.
The idea that you don't view that situation as threatening is just so myopic. People who are unstable enough to threaten suicide because of romantic rejection are a danger to others, not just themselves. Ask a woman, literally any woman you know, about whether they would feel safe in that situation.
I asked a few (non-representative anecdotal sample) womans (programmers, managers, etc.) around, they all considered it safe unless the person crosses the line and starts stalking or exibit any other kind of oppressive behaviour (coming/staying too close, "accidentally" touching, stealing your belongings, starts looking for a ways to be alone with you).
Everyone of course is different and the same situation could be interpreted differently by different people. Some could even overreact a single glance or intonation therefore we need to draw a line between harrasment and being a weirdo and don't jump to conclusions too early.
From what I currently see (I haven't been there and can judge only by media), the situation has been pushed from personal issue to a political leverage. And this is unacceptable. What could have been done instead? I don't know, may be an open letter from a few persons to ask him to be more polite and/or ask to seek consultation with a psychotherapist? But cancelling is not the way.
* Techcrunch: "Computer scientist Richard Stallman, who defended Jeffrey Epstein, resigns from MIT CSAIL and the Free Software Foundation" - where in fact RMS never defended Epstein and just called him a rapist.
* Motherboard: "Famed Computer Scientist Richard Stallman Described Epstein Victims As 'Entirely Willing'" - this being the most sick twist of what he actually said
* The Daily Beast: "Renowned MIT Scientist Defends Epstein: Victims Were ‘Entirely Willing’" - here the falsehood reaches new depths
* Daily Mail: "MIT scientist appears to DEFEND Jeffrey Epstein as he claims sex assault victim Virginia Giuffre was 'entirely willing' in alleged rape case in emails leaked by a graduate" - again, anyone who would bother to check the actual email would realize how stupid this is.
The longer these falsehoods are repeated, the more people believe in them.