LWN.net discussion -- "Richard Stallman and the GNU project"

[Zenaan Harkness]

----- Forwarded message from Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> -----

From: Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net>
To: rms at 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