It's an impressive list of names, of whom I know a few personally and hold in high regards.
At this point I'm VERY curious to how RMS and the folks that requested him to come back to the FSF have to say in his defense.
I'm not fully aware of what he did, and to what extend he holds on to being a "misogynist, ableist, and transphobic, among other serious accusations of impropriety". Hence I look fwd to a defense.
“ I'm not fully aware of what he did, and to what extend he hold on to being a "misogynist, ableist, and transphobic, among other serious accusations of impropriety". Hence I look fwd to a defense.”
You don’t know what he did. But you look forward to seeing his defence...?
One of the large problems of cancel culture is people, like you, who jump on the bandwagon without really knowing the context or what the person actually did.
C'mon the petition does not link where he expressed his views. How can I go and read all the internet looking for the offensive material?
Nah. I believe the people signing the petition know to some extend that this is serious. The petition respects him by not linking all expressions directly. Now it's up to him to defend himself if he likes. If he came around (like he came around before) that is a good defense in these cases. I know him as a very principled person: he'll not come around just for show :)
This leaves me very dismayed, why is simply "a lot of people think it" enough to convince you something is true/right? I can think of a good many scenarios where that couldn't ever be non-destructive. This is what critical thinking is for!
I'm saying the opposite. I want to see his defense. That's my whole point.
And yes, that list of people is impressive. I know some of 'm and hold m in high regard. That does not say it's true, but it does make me believe there's actually something going on here -- although I dont any evidence presented. And nowadays even with links to "evidence": what do we truly know?
> I'm not fully aware of what he did, and to what extend he hold on to being a "misogynist, ableist, and transphobic, among other serious accusations of impropriety". Hence I look fwd to a defense.
The accusation uses political activist wording that most of us are familiar with at this point, indicating that woke activism of the signatories and the organizations they work for have at least had some influence. Do you think an expectation of a response should be tempered by this concern about political activism of the accusers?
Socially extremely competent innocent people regularly fail in defending themselves, or get cancelled even after proven innocent. Asking a borderline autistic person like RMS to defend himself while navigating the complex woke activism in the accusation seems like a big ask.
To me this list of people and organizations are not some silly knights of "woke activism", they are people who'd feel misrepresented by RMS due to his beliefs. I'd not be so dismissive to that. We try to make software a more inclusive place. We being: people organizing conferences, the companies that create software and the FLOSS movement as well. Having someone in a position believing what he is accused of is a real problem.
I just want to know if he can come around to his beliefs, or if he sticks to them. He came around with beliefs concerning the "age of sexual consent" and how that should not matter. I find people's ability to come around when presented with evidence a good thing.
> To me this list of people and organizations are not some silly knights of "woke activism", they are people who'd feel misrepresented by RMS due to his beliefs. I'd not be so dismissive to that. We try to make software a more inclusive place.
Several of these organizations engage in woke political D&I activism, e.g. Mozilla and GNOME.
The woke sense of tolerance is to be intolerant to violations of its fundamentalist norms, while most expect tolerance to be a two-way street. Serious accusations put into political activist wording, like in this petition, is a commonly used woke tool to remove viewpoint opponents from positions of influence. How are we supposed to judge what part of their reasoning stems from political activism, and what stems from evidence of malfeasance?
> I just want to know if he can come around to his beliefs, or if he sticks to them. He came around with beliefs concerning the "age of sexual consent" and how that should not matter. I find people's ability to come around when presented with evidence a good thing.
On top of the accusation of "misogynist, ableist, and transphobic, among other serious accusations of impropriety", this is another serious accusation.
An old political trick often used by the woke is to reduce the opponents moral standing by having them answer an accusation of bad things, true or not. "Sir, how do you respond to those that accuse you of pedophilia?". Even if one answered "Absolutely not; I just argued that a 19 year old is not a pedophile for engaging with one two years younger", the association sticks in peoples minds. How can you retain your moral standing by answering such a question?
I dont think adding this "woke" word helps making your point. Or, could you please define what you mean by it?
I'm intolerant of hate speech myself. I think organizations that represent people may hold even stricter "codes of conduct" in order to ensure a maximum of people feels represented/welcomed by the organization.
> this is another serious accusation.
I did not accuse him, I said I valued him coming around on this topic. It seems you want to paint me in a color no matter what I say. An why did I say this about the age of consent? Because here I actually did go and look for the evidence, and here he did come around. Good stuff, not bad stuff. I hope he can come around IFF he really hold the beliefs people signing the petition find intolerable. I hope for a defense, or a statement of coming around.
> Are you aware of the tolerance paradox of Popper?
> The woke sense of tolerance
Yes, Popper wrote the "paradox of tolerance" in 1945 as a liberal philosophical answer to the national socialists that were intolerant to violations to their fundamentalist norms.
What the paradox of intolerance says is that we should be intolerant towards totalizing belief systems that justify force and coercion against viewpoint opponent to enforce their compliance to its norms. The woke belief system is exactly the kind of belief system he warned us about. Basically, Popper says tolerance need to be a two-way street.
> I did not accuse him, I said I valued him coming around on this topic. It seems you want to paint me in a color no matter what I say.
That is not what I meant, as I’ve been responding to your request for a defense. Focus is on the accusation and how this kind of accusation found in the linked open letter is frequently used by the woke to reduce the moral standing of opponents. I demonstrated how if you respond to such an accusation, that due to its woke political activist wording demonstrably at least partially contain political activist aspects, you will still loose moral standing.
The letter got posted yesterday and flagged (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26558348), which is probably why it can't be posted again, because of HN's dupe policies. But it was also posted basically immediately when the site was created, when the list of signatures was much smaller. So there wasn't any meaningful discussion of the list of folks who signed it, because they hadn't signed it yet.
Also change the title to "Petition to oust RMS from FSF board"
https://rms-open-letter.github.io/
It's an impressive list of names, of whom I know a few personally and hold in high regards.
At this point I'm VERY curious to how RMS and the folks that requested him to come back to the FSF have to say in his defense.
I'm not fully aware of what he did, and to what extend he holds on to being a "misogynist, ableist, and transphobic, among other serious accusations of impropriety". Hence I look fwd to a defense.