Re: Support RMS

[Thomas Lord <lord@basiscraft.com>]

THIS IS NOT A LIST FOR SPECULATION ABOUT RMS' OR ANYONE
ELSE'S INTERIOR LIFE.

CONSIDER THAT THERE IS A REAL VIRTUE IN JUST SHUTTING UP
ON SOME TOPICS IN SOME CONTEXTS.

(Honestly, my current assumption is that the list is dominated
by a few trolls now and ought to just go the way of all things.)


-t



On 2021-04-17 21:48, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 2021-04-17 8:49 p.m., Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Apr 16, 2021, Aaron Wolf <wolftune@riseup.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Like here's one story: I was at LibrePlanet 2014 and RMS was speaking
>>> and mentioned offhand how a certain sort of older computer with no 
>>> disk,
>>> they used to joke and called it a dickless computer.
>> 
>> Ah, yes, that was exactly the tasteless pun I alluded to the other 
>> day.
>> 
>>> I heard second hand that he had to
>>> have someone pull him aside and emphasize the problem before he 
>>> realized
>>> the issue and apologized.
>> 
>> Well...  Here the recollections diverge.  To me, it was quite evident
>> that he realized his own mistake right away.  It may have taken 
>> someone
>> to pull him aside and advise him to explicitly apologize for it, I'll
>> give you that.  But suggesting he didn't realize it by himself fits in
>> perfectly in the pattern of twisting, exaggeration, and false 
>> reporting
>> that has led so many to see a false pattern of misbehavior.
>> 
> 
> Oh I had the exact same impression, that he realized the mistake, was
> 100% sincere in the award and gratitude to the women involved, and that
> he sincerely wanted to be respectful of everyone. I also have seen him
> in his political notes *constantly* promote feminism and women's rights
> over years.
> 
> But I recall discussing that joke in 2014 that day or maybe it was
> within the following week, and someone else who was discussing the
> problem about it told me then the claim that someone had pulled him
> aside to mention it. I have no idea if they were speculating or not, 
> and
> I have nothing but their claim to go on.
> 
> I had certainly assumed he was just self-reflective enough on his own
> (though I assumed that was because he had many past cases of feedback
> which he has just been slow to fully shift his habits). I'm not going 
> to
> even presume what is actually true. I do not know whether or not his
> apology was entirely independent, I was only in the audience seeing 
> what
> everyone was seeing.
> 
>> 
>>> And although I might disagree with Deb in some of her exact tactics 
>>> in
>>> engaging, you might notice that she has not made such accusations.
>> 
>> She co-drafted and undersigned the hate letter.  Its appendix has 
>> plenty
>> of just the sort of accusation you say she did not make.
> 
> Well, I suppose my charitable-interpretation inclination is consistent.
> I don't know that she co-drafted the letter, I just see her in the
> medium-long list of primary co-signers. That itself is troubling 
> enough.
> The letter is unfair as are the selections of accusations in the
> letter's appendix.
> 
> I sincerely respect many of the signers, several of whom I've met in
> person and some with whom I've had decently long one-on-one discussions
> at conferences and such. I'm a bit sad, confused, and also maybe still
> open-minded and curious about how these people could have supported the
> letter as-is.
> 
> In my mind, for all these people to have supported that letter, there's
> got to be more going on than what it superficially appears to be.
> However, I don't jump to concluding what that might be.
> 
> Perhaps there are indeed elements of anti-free-software corporate
> interest in defanging the FSF and RMS. I'm quite skeptical though. Some
> of the people who signed are among the most ardent free software people
> I've met.
> 
> Perhaps there are deeper issues with RMS that are subtle, hard to
> capture, would *still* not make him evil or anything, but are just hard
> to express, and so these folks are failing to make it clear to us (and
> to me, I really am giving them *some* benefit of the doubt for the main
> reason that most everything else I've heard from these people makes
> sense to me, their credibility is good in my eyes on *other* topics).
> 
> Perhaps there's an echo-chamber kind of effect where certain styles of
> language, certain words (e.g. misogyny) are used in well-meaning social
> activist circles, and the letter writers are essentially writing with
> their own echo-chamber in mind as their audience without considering
> building a wider coalition or consensus.
> 
> Perhaps they are just all feeling *that* outraged, scared, triggered,
> exasperated, or similar. And people in that state are predictably 
> likely
> to exaggerate, take uncharitable interpretations of their targets, and
> be generally in a state of blame, and it's from that emotional state
> that the letter comes.
> 
> To be most charitable, just maybe they really care about software
> freedom, really believe that RMS staying in leadership will undermine
> the cause, and they are engaging from a place of real *fear* as they
> anticipate losing allies and friends who leave the movement and then 
> see
> a downward spiral that results in all the worst outcomes for software
> freedom. Others may disagree with their assessment of the impact of RMS
> continuing in leadership, but it's possible that the drama is all
> between software-freedom advocates in two camps: one camp who are
> sincerely scared that RMS will inadvertently sabotage software freedom
> and lead us to the worst-case future, and the other camp who thinks RMS
> is still a valuable leader who will further the cause of software 
> freedom.
> 
>> 
>> Even if she were to retract them, which would be the honest thing to 
>> do,
>> there's no way to gather all of the feathers to put them back in the
>> pillow after the wind scattered them all over the place.
>> 
> 
> Sure, but every possible scenario is still a chance to learn. It's 
> never
> too late to make the best *next* decisions from this very moment
> forward. And even if Deb or others do not change their views on this
> issue in the slightest, I *still* would prefer that they and everyone
> (whether I agree with someone or not) take the experience of drama as a
> prompt for self-reflection, take radical responsibility, and practice
> the most constructive communication.
> 
> The story in my mind is: if the style of communication that Deb used in
> her more recent posts here had been the style of their initial
> engagement with this issue, it would have led to less drama, less
> divisions, and possibly even to constructive discussion where everyone
> in the movement could creatively seek win-for-all ways to move forward.
> 
> And even though it's too late for that, there's always a question of
> whether the *next* situation is as productive as possible rather than
> having such drama and antagonism.
> 
> And I'll continue to emphasize that the best way to react to Deb and
> others is to *show* them what it looks like to treat everyone 
> (including
> those you disagree with) with some basic dignity, charity, and 
> fairness.
> I don't see any good coming from those people who think it's now okay 
> to
> be as unfair to Deb or others as they see them being to RMS.
> 
> In solidarity,
> Aaron
> 
> _______________________________________________
> libreplanet-discuss mailing list
> libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
> https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss