----- Forwarded message from Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> ----- From: Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> To: rms@gnu.org Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 16:58:04 +1100 Subject: LWN.net discussion -- "Richard Stallman and the GNU project" Some comments from myself:

I think he probably shouldn't hit on women at all until he fixes a couple of things about himself. Context doesn't matter. I also don't believe anyone ever told him that since it's a pretty cruel thing to say.

So this part of the conversation has descended into "which phrases are appropriate (or not) for a man to ask a woman on a date, whilst each are at a technical conference". Well that's all fine and dandy to have some "recommended behaviour and conversation" lists for ya conferences. So exactly WHY is it appropriate for the mob to metaphorically crucify someone for a list that doesn't exist, for a code of conduct which does not yet exist, and for which no agreement/ consent/ contract to can possibly have existed before, when such list/ code/ contract existed even less than it could exist now? Retroactive laws are supposed to be illegal. But every now and then a government brings one in, most often (always?) to dastardly intent - for example jailing an up and coming politician (e.g. Pauline Hanson), on a retroactive law created AFTER then --alleged-- infraction, to stop her momentum so she would not get elected. Oh, and eventually (after at least 11 weeks of jail), she was cleared by a higher court.

Doesn't it follow that people should be free to call for RMS to be removed from positions of leadership, and that any objection to such calls ignores their freedom of speech? How can their words cause any harm to him?

Of course. I made no call to censor anyone. People are free to voice any objection they so choose. The warning is to those who exercise free speech in a way which those of soft and sensitive ("snowflake") emotions might find confronting - do not put much trust or expectation (for the support of free speech at least) into those who do not uphold the right to free speech; same for other rights...

How can their words cause any harm to [RMS]?

Is this a serious question?

...

If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything.

You certainly fell for something. Sit down and get out of the way of those standing up.

So you say. Quote something I actually said and try responding, rather than waving an imperial straw hand to the crowd.

My point was that such values, regardless of their merit, are off-topic with regards to the GNU project.

In general I very much support the positions you have put forward and I appreciate your efforts to be clear. You are of course free to assume a certain definition for "the values of the GNU project", as are each. Full web page as at 20191011 16:56 https://lwn.net/Articles/801482/ Richard Stallman and the GNU project [Posted October 7, 2019 by corbet] ... ~158KiB