Social Justice advocates are running a campaign to "cancel" Richard Stallman (again) and the whole Free Software Foundation board for good measure

[LAwLz]

4 minutes ago, Aochan said:

I don't agree with "cancel culture", but I sure do agree that assholes can play with themselves and people is entitled to not having them around. For every person that takes idiotic jokes for being idiotic jokes, there's always a bunch that will take them at face value and reinforce their beliefs; orgs such as FSF need to defend their interests, which are important to society at large.

 

But yeah, keep arguing that he is not a douche, I don't care or complaining, I just find it quite ridicolous.

But in that case it sounds to me like you should be against this campaign to cancel RMS.

First of all, it is part of "cancel culture" through and through. It even describes itself as "cancel RMS".

Secondly, the campaign isn't about letting people choose who to associate with. It is trying to force people to not have the option to choose who to associate with. That is the goal and entire point of the campaign. It is trying to say "align with us or else we will punish you". If Molly wanted what you just described then she would just go "okay, if RMS is at the FSF then I don't want to be there" and then left. 

 

 

I feel like you jumped in here to voice your opinion without looking into what the subject is about properly first.

You're making counterarguments to arguments nobody has made, but you assume they did.

When you describe your opinion it doesn't align at all, and even goes against, the side you have chosen to be on.

[Lierdakil]

43 minutes ago, Aochan said:

Politics is in everything dude. Just because you think you are extraneous to it doesn't mean you don't partake in it. Even this issue is politics at the core, where one person who spouts idiotic prejudices is being held accountable for those. And I agree that giving people a pass for being asses is dangerous and creates toxic environments.

 

Yourself called out "social justice warriors" (or a synonym), putting a derogative term in the title, already setting sides.

I made an effort to avoid derogatory labels. "Social Justice advocates" looks reasonably neutral in my book. Do the people we're talking about advocate for "Social Justice"? They do. Does "Social Justice" by itself has negative undertones? If you're alt-right, probably. Not so in the broader context, as far as I can tell. That said, actual overzealous "sjws" are doing their best to make the concept itself look bad by association. But English is not my native language, so I may be missing some subtext here.

Edited March 29, 2021 by Lierdakil
Spelling fixes

[Lierdakil]

31 minutes ago, gloop said:

Can someone explain what 'justice oriented software' is, how it works and its purpose?

It seems like it's "atheism+" all over again. Which if you don't know, boiled down to "I don't want to even stand near an atheist who is not on the far left, let alone march with them" -- it ended up dividing and basically depowering the US atheist community; now I'm not saying the idea of being excellent to one another, which atheism+ was on paper, is a bad one, but the actual implementation was at best questionable.

 

Disclaimer: I'm not based in US, and not an atheist, all my information on US atheism and atheism+ comes from watching YouTube.

 

Another discalimer: Look at the source [9], it has some elaborations there. I may be biased, so please don't trust my spin over making your own informed opinion.

[Master Disaster]

I'm going to try and keep calm and remain objective but if anybody needs cancelling its RMS. I'm sorry but him having autism is no excuse for his remarks involving a convicted peadophile. To say that the victim likely gave consent then after it was pointed out she was only 17 to go on and double down by saying "it is morally absurd to define rape in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.“ shows exactly what kind of person he is.

 

There is a very good reason why 20 MIT GNU programmers told FOSS that if he doesn't go then they will back in 2017.

 

He does not deserve to be in a position of privilege.

 

I don't advocate cancel culture and I don't condone cancel culture however even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

[StDragon]

"Social Justice" = new Bolsheviks. They're the new trolls of society. If everyone ignored them, they won't be fed. Don't feed the trolls!

[Lierdakil]

26 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

I'm going to try and keep calm and remain objective but if anybody needs cancelling its RMS. I'm sorry but him having autism is no excuse for his remarks involving a convicted peadophile. To say that the victim likely gave consent then after it was pointed out she was only 17 to go on and double down by saying "it is morally absurd to define rape in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.“ shows exactly what kind of person he is.

 

There is a very good reason why 20 MIT GNU programmers told FOSS that if he doesn't go then they will back in 2017.

 

He does not deserve to be in a position of privilege.

He did not state that the victim "gave consent", only plausibly feigned consent to Minsky under external coercion (by Epstein). If you actually read the whole exchange that is painfully obvious, even if the wording leaves a bit to be desired. The crux of his (RMS's) argument was that Minsky didn't necessarily know that the victim was coerced, so labelling him as a "rapist" is perhaps going a bit too far. See source [10].

 

RMS also didn't at any point defend Epstein (the actual convicted paedophile). In fact, RMS wondered if Epstein should be retried for a longer prison sentence.

 

See, that's why I'm getting literally sick with this whole situation. The actual statements made by RMS are twisted until they cause outrage, and then presented as a genuine position held by RMS, which is just not true.

Edited March 29, 2021 by Lierdakil
Clarify that "his argument" refers to RMS; add a paragraph on RMS not in fact defending Epstein

[Sir Humphrey Appleby]

54 minutes ago, Drama Lama said:

I think it's like free software ( free as in freedom ) but If someone who i don't like uses it I can say no

I can wait until some (not yet known as) neo-nazi writes some popular software and then after years bans gays from using it.

 

(I am not saying the author of this post agrees with the concept and I am grateful for the definition)

[Lierdakil]

7 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Kinda agree, but there's is a problem: they will come for everyone anyway.

 

Not only that, but these lunatics are infiltrated everywhere. Contributor covenant is the same story: either pick their code of conduct or they will try to publicly shame you.

If everyone actually ignored them, they wouldn't be able to come for anyone. However, this is not a sound strategy: many of the social justice advocates bring up genuine social issues that need to be fixed, and I don't think ignoring those issues is a way forward. The problem arises, however, when those same people start crying "wolf" for everything, even going as far as "coercing" the truth to fit their narrative -- this ultimately hurts everyone in the long run.

[StDragon]

1 minute ago, Sir Humphrey Appleby said:

I can wait until some (not yet known as) neo-nazi writes some popular software and then after years bans gays from using it.

 

(I am not saying the author of this post agrees with the concept and I am grateful for the definition)

I'm not going to get into the whole freedom of free speech vs hate speech, because different laws apply differently in nations; and this forum is multi-national as it gets. But FWIW, I personally take a libertarian view (small "L").

 

That said, if the SJW crowd have a problem (and they do, their cause is defined by problems), they should develop their own software foundation and software; including a SJW Linux destro. But that's not the issue here. The issue is standing behind a cause and weaponizing it to bludgeon those they disagree with.

 

 

[Beerzerker]

24 minutes ago, StDragon said:

"Social Justice" = new Bolsheviks. They're the new trolls of society. If everyone ignored them, they won't be fed. Don't feed the trolls!

These SJW's are apparently the new foot soldiers of Cancer Culture.....
At least from what I can tell.

[Deus Voltage]

Whats the goal behind including "social justice" in the title? You stated earlier that it's a "reasonably neutral" term, then it should be, following your logic, no different than saying "white American man/woman is ...", which is quite silly, unless used in a more clinical context (the police force, healthcare, ect...)

 

This thread will probably get locked since the undertone behind it is very political, and the mods are in a somewhat of a tricky position. I don't understand the need to use an anti-sjw tone just for a few clicks and likes from people, seems very juvenile and counter-productive to the broader conversation of "canceling".

[StDragon]

2 minutes ago, Deus Voltage said:

This thread will probably get locked since the undertone behind it is very political, and the mods are in a somewhat of a tricky position. I don't understand the need to use an anti-sjw tone just for a few clicks and likes from people, seems very juvenile and counter-productive to the broader conversation of "canceling".

Careful now, the SJW crowd might decide to go after Linus to cancel him. If you watched any of his earlier YT content, there's plenty to build a montage from. Don't think it can't happen, because it can.

 

"First they came..."

[CarlBar]

25 minutes ago, Lierdakil said:

He did not state that the victim "gave consent", only plausibly feigned consent to Minsky under external coercion (by Epstein). If you actually read the whole exchange that is painfully obvious, even if the wording leaves a bit to be desired. The crux of his argument was that Minsky didn't necessarily know that the victim was coerced, so labelling him as a "rapist" is perhaps going a bit too far. See source [10].

 

See, that's why I'm getting literally sick with this whole situation. The actual statements made by RMS are twisted until they cause outrage, and then presented as a genuine position held by RMS, which is just not true.

 

Thank you for the clarification.

 

I'd also point out that, (for certain types of autistic, it varies hugely case to case), how your perceived to be using the word paedophile would be important. This is a very self centric example, i can't speak for the gentleman under attack but it should hopefully illustrate what i mean.]

 

When describing someone as a paedophile:

 

If i perceive you as using it in a technical sense i'll take the statement purely on the facts as they are known, and the laws as they applied in that situation as i know them.

 

If you use it in a colloquial sense however i'll judge it very differently. if your relaying the situation to me i'll judge it based on my moral precepts which are strongly based off my local law, (where the age of consent is 16 for reference). But, (assuming the thought of the relevant factors comes to mind, i'm no more perfect a considering all possibble factors than the next person), if your describing it to someone or several someone else's who may or are from somwhere where the standard for paedophile is different from my own i'll specify the details for them if they weren't adequately spelled out so that they can make their own morale judgement on weather to use the description of paedophile based on the facts of the occurrence. It's not for me to say what opinion someone should have on such events, even if i don;t like that opinion, so i will to the best of my ability try not to prejudice that opinion by giving them a statement that is based of what could be a very different moral standard set. I will state my opinion in there, but i'll also try to give all the facts i can think of that are relevant to someone forming their own opinion.

 

In the event i'm dealing with a situation where technical and colloquial overlap i'll cover both aspects, "X plus Y happened so N is a paedophile under the local legal definitions but here's the relevant details that may matter for your own opinion" (or words to that effect, probably in much longer and more confusing form, because communication difficulties are the core of autism).

[Master Disaster]

21 minutes ago, Lierdakil said:

He did not state that the victim "gave consent", only plausibly feigned consent to Minsky under external coercion (by Epstein). If you actually read the whole exchange that is painfully obvious, even if the wording leaves a bit to be desired. The crux of his (RMS's) argument was that Minsky didn't necessarily know that the victim was coerced, so labelling him as a "rapist" is perhaps going a bit too far. See source [10].

 

RMS also didn't at any point defend Epstein (the actual convicted paedophile). In fact, RMS wondered if Epstein should be retried for a longer prison sentence.

 

See, that's why I'm getting literally sick with this whole situation. The actual statements made by RMS are twisted until they cause outrage, and then presented as a genuine position held by RMS, which is just not true.

After careful consideration of my response I think I'm going to abstain.

 

I realise that I have a huge bias against RMS (honestly I think he is reprehensible) and I also realise that should disqualify me from getting involved in a debate about him in any capacity.

 

I'll just say this, in this particular case I'm strongly on the side of "he should not be in control of an organisation or in any position that puts him into a public spotlight".

 

Again, this is my opinion and my bias, I still respect other peoples right to disagree if they wish.

[Deus Voltage]

1 minute ago, StDragon said:

Careful now, the SJW crowd might decide to go after Linus to cancel him. If you watched any of his earlier YT content, there's plenty to build a montage from. Don't think it can't happen, because it can.

 

"First they came..."

Yes, with their dreadful rainbow flags and menacing blue haired devil worshipers. Don't forget the overweight cookie monsters, lest you wanted to keep your freedom limbs. /s

(I know I didn't to add the s/ at the end, but quite a few people on YouTube, especially the younger ones, would eat it up)

[ravenshrike]

1 hour ago, Aochan said:

 

Yourself called out "social justice warriors" (or a synonym), putting a derogative term in the title, already setting sides

Amusingly, SJW only became a derogatory term after SJWs started to harass people outside their bubble. Prior to that it was used internally as a term of pride.

[SolarNova]

One day, eventually, these companies , corporations ..businesses ..governments. .what ever .... will realize that responding in any way to these far left 'progressive', SJW, insane, nutjob, loonies.. is a bad idea.

 

Until then, we can only watch as 'Justice' moves out of the courtrooms into 'social media' where it becomes 'social justice'.

As the sayings go:

"As soon as you add a modifier to Justice, its no longer Justice"

and

"Anytime you put a modifier in front of a term that is inherently good, you turn it into a perversion of itself"

[Lierdakil]

21 minutes ago, Deus Voltage said:

Whats the goal behind including "social justice" in the title? You stated earlier that it's a "reasonably neutral" term, then it should be, following your logic, no different than saying "white American man/woman is ...", which is quite silly, unless used in a more clinical context (the police force, healthcare, ect...)

 

This thread will probably get locked since the undertone behind it is very political, and the mods are in a somewhat of a tricky position. I don't understand the need to use an anti-sjw tone just for a few clicks and likes from people, seems very juvenile and counter-productive to the broader conversation of "canceling".

The goal was to describe what's going on to the best of my ability. As I said above, maybe I'm missing some subtext here due to not being a native speaker. Or maybe I'm indeed heavily biased and don't actually see my bias, that's also a possibility. I do not see "social justice" as a derogatory label -- and it is pretty descriptive. Now, "sjw" is often used as a derogatory term, but I understand the term "warrior" being used here with a heavy dose of irony is what makes it derogatory. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding, I always look to improve my language comprehension. If you'd like to suggest a better (less "anti-sjw"?) title, I'm open to suggestions. The ArsTechnica title that uses "Free software advocates" I find misrepresents the issue somewhat, key people behind the "open letter to remove RMS" mostly advocate for the Social Justice rather than Free Software (as is very apparent by their Twitter messages)

 

Overall, I thought it's an issue worth reporting on (although I can understand why people may prefer to stay clear), and the media at large provides very one-sided reports. So I tried to provide a slightly more balanced coverage, and maybe I overcompensated. My personal opinion on the issue is expressed in the OP in the "my thoughts" section. Anything beyond that is me trying to be reasonably neutral (nobody can be completely neutral unless it's an irrelevant issue -- and if it's irrelevant, why bother reporting on it? -- but I tried)

[WkdPaul]

* thread locked *

 

While the subject is close to tech, the undertone is heavily political and the discussion is already steering towards right/left, sjw, cancel culture, freedom of speech, etc...

 

This is why we're locking the thread to prevent further derail and pointless arguments.