On one hand, I think Stallman cannot lead effectively under these conditions, and given the long history of accusations.
Only because people like you keep spouting this crap. The 'has become a distraction' argument has become nothing more than bland cover for cowards who won't stand up to cancel culture but also don't agree.
"Cancelers" need to be called out for the shit-stains they actually are. Cowards are who they are, personal I just make note of them for future awareness that they can't be depended on.
Only because people like you keep spouting this crap.
It's actually because people keep making claims of harassment against him, but way to marginalize them.
The 'has become a distraction' argument has become nothing more than bland cover for cowards who won't stand up to cancel culture but also don't agree.
I don't stand up to cancel culture because I am not opposed to cancel culture. Conservacucks have no right to stand up to cancel culture because they invented cancel culture. I am not a coward, and I do agree. Lots of things should be cancelled.
"Cancelers" need to be called out for the shit-stains they actually are.
Conservatives cancelled alcohol and drugs. They tried to cancel heavy metal and dungeons and dragons. They cancelled thousands of black people with nooses. Now they
I agree, some cancel culture is in order. People like yourself for instance...;)
Seriously, no, no and a thousand times no! You do not get to talk about marginalizing accusations. Because accusations without a proper hearing before a judge are and will forever remain just some people throwing niceties at someone else they don't like.
Given how much it is en vogue to accuse anyone whose name is known to more than five people of misconduct, an accusation is worth NOTHING!
I agree that the accusations against Stallman should be heard in court.
However, credible accusations have legs even without a day in court.
Stallman himself has made these accusations credible [wired.com], e.g. with his pleasure cards offering tender embraces being handed out at official events. It's perfectly reasonable to hand those out at gatherings where you're not a person of influence.
When you add to that his apparent endorsement of men in power taking advantage of young women on specious grounds (how the young wo
I agree that the accusations against Stallman should be heard in court.
However, credible accusations have legs even without a day in court.
Stallman himself has made these accusations credible [wired.com], e.g. with his pleasure cards offering tender embraces being handed out at official events.
I note that that link doesn't show the card which is actually and clearly a fairly simple joke business card (and which he handed to everyone, not just women).
It's perfectly reasonable to hand those out at gatherings where you're not a person of influence.
Or where, you know, people actually look at it in context and have a laugh.
When you add to that his apparent endorsement of men in power taking advantage of young women on specious grounds (how the young women were "presented", as if that were relevant) he's really dealt himself the hand he's got to play.
Again, that's not really what's going on. He was asked about how he felt about the accusations against Minsky (which turned out to be nonsense) and in his friend's defence said that Minsky would probably not have known what was going on since the woman's handlers would have ord
People keep saying that as if it's some kind of defence. It doesn't matter what the gender of the person receiving it is, it's still completely inappropriate to offer them a "tender embrace".
Culture changes over time, you can't stop that happening.
People have been making this complaint for centuries, millennia probably.
Much of it is the inevitable result of society getting more liberal. For example when it was illegal to be gay there were not many people calling out homophobia. Once it became legal people had to learn what stuff was homophobic, so were are right to say that there are more rules now because we went from one (homosexuality is illegal) to many (there are many forms of homophobia).
That culture changes over time (and space) should be an argument for toleration.
We ought to be able to realize that maybe it isn't always great when a hegemonic culture imposes their norms and customs as the only moral option.
A few years ago there was, for a very brief time, an ethnicity manipulation filter in the face editing app FaceApp.
There is a cultural taboo against "blackface" in the US, for understandable historical reasons, and to portray someone of another "race" than they are is seen as deeply offensive. That's seen as self evident to you, but still not to most people on this planet. Most of the world don't have or even know this historical context. Probably, most dark-skinned people on the planet would not even know what they were supposed to be offended at in this app.
The Russian dev clearly didn't know about this cultural taboo, because you can't doubt his desire to respect his audience: it wasn't even available for a full day. He pulled it and apologized as soon as he saw the first negative reaction.
Maybe that's good. Maybe we should respect other cultures' taboos to some degree, like the apostle Paul who declared that there was nothing inherently wrong with eating meat sacrificed to idols (a big taboo in his native Jewish culture) but that he would go all-out vegetarian if you seriously thought there was, to not undermine your conscience.
But MAYBE we shouldn't let upper class Americans decide for the whole world what to tolerate and what to not tolerate, damnit.
You can be bad for an organization without being criminal. The bar for removing someone from a leadership position is much, much lower than for convicting them of a crime.
I don't think any taboos are arbitrary. They all make sense in their original context (though they can be very unjust).
The "actual, real harm done to people" by Stallman in this context, is that people would feel disrespected, offended, uncomfortable or scared (though there's no reason to think that fear is justified). You think that's unrelated to the general toe-biting disgust factor?
Many religious taboos are arbitrary. Someone long ago decided they didn't like that thing, or that they could interpret some slightly vague statement in a particular way.
People attend university to learn or work, and people attend professional events to further their careers. There is real harm done if Stallman is discouraging people or making it difficult for organizers to invite the head of the FSF.
Many religious taboos are arbitrary. Someone long ago decided they didn't like that thing, or that they could interpret some slightly vague statement in a particular way.
No, they have their reasons. Sometimes it could be fairly narrow, self interested reasons. But to call it arbitrary is disrespectful to their humanity, in the same way as saying "Who cares why they do what they do? They're savages!" about a simpler culture would be.
---
On the far-fetched chance that someone decides to not attend university b
Insightful, I suppose, but not relevant to anything here. Is your argument that there is some specific moral standard we need to stop at, and never change? Under jungle law, killing anyone weaker than you, raising their kids as your own, and inseminating them at 14 was appropriate. Would you have us stop there, or somewhere else? If somewhere else, do tell, and explain how his behavior compares to that standard. Until you do that, you're only throwing out soundbites.
Not that we never stop but that we don't hold be accountable for stuff they did in the past that we deem unacceptable today.
Eventually, people are not going to want to "advance" moral standards since they will have to look back and determine if they every committed an infraction previously against that new standard.
People keep saying that as if it's some kind of defence.
It changes the tone.
It doesn't matter what the gender of the person receiving it is, it's still completely inappropriate to offer them a "tender embrace".
Have you seen the card? It's a simple joke. If it consisted simply of the words "For tender embraces, call this number" then you might have a bit of an argument, but it doesn't say that.
Why does no one get bent about the offer of good food or exotic music that appear on the card? Why does no one mention that the text is followed by "unusual sense of humour"?
Because that would spoil the fake outrage and make it obvious that the card is a joke that no one could possibly claim was serious.
Good food and exotic music are stuff people share with platonic friends and business acquaintances. In fact they are a pretty common excuse to go expense a nice meal on the company credit card.
Tender embraces are things people in intimate relationships have, necessitating as they do very close physical contact.
Good food and exotic music are stuff people share with platonic friends and business acquaintances. In fact they are a pretty common excuse to go expense a nice meal on the company credit card.
Tender embraces are things people in intimate relationships have, necessitating as they do very close physical contact.
Yes - it's called comedy contrast.
I don't believe you honestly think the card was offensive; I don't believe anyone does. It's a non-issue, but I have played Illuminati enough to understand the concept of a whispering campaign.
"Tender embraces" are what primates give each other when they see pain and hurting in the countenance of their kind. The same is good for people primates.
You labeled a gesture of healing and love hateful, harmful, and destructive.
It is little wonder you generate so much contention. Your whole being is filled with lies against the nature of love and affection.
I'll be the devil's advocate, but why would it be inappropriate to offer someone a "tender embrace" if the person is free to refuse? It's not like he is pressuring anyone to accept the "tender embrace", or asking for a "tender embrace" over and over again, which would be only then considered harassment.
Also there is nothing sexual in a "tender embrace" per se. A tender embrace is a hug, people give hugs in variety of situations. Do you find the people giving away "free hugs" creepy? Do you find them creepy
People who go to work or professional events generally aren't there to hook up. For women there is also the additional risk that the guy takes rejection badly.
it's still completely inappropriate to offer them a "tender embrace".
In the same sense that it's inappropriate ti wear a "Free Hugs!" t-shirt making the same offer to a business meeting, yes.
There is a lot of space between "this was inappropriate behavior for that situation" and "this person is an abusive predator and must be cancelled."
186,000 Miles per Second. It's not just a good idea. IT'S THE LAW.
I'm so torn (Score:5, Interesting)
On one hand, I think Stallman cannot lead effectively under these conditions, and given the long history of accusations.
On the other hand, Debian governance gave us systemd.
On the gripping hand, if the OSI says they won't work with the FSF while Stallman is around, that's a huge bonus. Fuck those fraudulent fucks.
Re: (Score:0, Flamebait)
On one hand, I think Stallman cannot lead effectively under these conditions, and given the long history of accusations.
Only because people like you keep spouting this crap. The 'has become a distraction' argument has become nothing more than bland cover for cowards who won't stand up to cancel culture but also don't agree.
"Cancelers" need to be called out for the shit-stains they actually are. Cowards are who they are, personal I just make note of them for future awareness that they can't be depended on.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Only because people like you keep spouting this crap.
It's actually because people keep making claims of harassment against him, but way to marginalize them.
The 'has become a distraction' argument has become nothing more than bland cover for cowards who won't stand up to cancel culture but also don't agree.
I don't stand up to cancel culture because I am not opposed to cancel culture. Conservacucks have no right to stand up to cancel culture because they invented cancel culture. I am not a coward, and I do agree. Lots of things should be cancelled.
"Cancelers" need to be called out for the shit-stains they actually are.
Conservatives cancelled alcohol and drugs. They tried to cancel heavy metal and dungeons and dragons. They cancelled thousands of black people with nooses. Now they
Re: (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree, some cancel culture is in order. People like yourself for instance... ;)
Seriously, no, no and a thousand times no! You do not get to talk about marginalizing accusations. Because accusations without a proper hearing before a judge are and will forever remain just some people throwing niceties at someone else they don't like.
Given how much it is en vogue to accuse anyone whose name is known to more than five people of misconduct, an accusation is worth NOTHING!
Obviously it must be investigated prope
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
I agree that the accusations against Stallman should be heard in court.
However, credible accusations have legs even without a day in court.
Stallman himself has made these accusations credible [wired.com], e.g. with his pleasure cards offering tender embraces being handed out at official events. It's perfectly reasonable to hand those out at gatherings where you're not a person of influence.
When you add to that his apparent endorsement of men in power taking advantage of young women on specious grounds (how the young wo
Re: (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree that the accusations against Stallman should be heard in court.
However, credible accusations have legs even without a day in court.
Stallman himself has made these accusations credible [wired.com], e.g. with his pleasure cards offering tender embraces being handed out at official events.
I note that that link doesn't show the card which is actually and clearly a fairly simple joke business card (and which he handed to everyone, not just women).
It's perfectly reasonable to hand those out at gatherings where you're not a person of influence.
Or where, you know, people actually look at it in context and have a laugh.
When you add to that his apparent endorsement of men in power taking advantage of young women on specious grounds (how the young women were "presented", as if that were relevant) he's really dealt himself the hand he's got to play.
Again, that's not really what's going on. He was asked about how he felt about the accusations against Minsky (which turned out to be nonsense) and in his friend's defence said that Minsky would probably not have known what was going on since the woman's handlers would have ord
Re:I'm so torn (Score:3)
and which he handed to everyone, not just women
People keep saying that as if it's some kind of defence. It doesn't matter what the gender of the person receiving it is, it's still completely inappropriate to offer them a "tender embrace".
Re:I'm so torn (Score:4, Insightful)
What's inappropriate changes constantly although that list is getting longer and longer
Re: (Score:2)
Culture changes over time, you can't stop that happening.
People have been making this complaint for centuries, millennia probably.
Much of it is the inevitable result of society getting more liberal. For example when it was illegal to be gay there were not many people calling out homophobia. Once it became legal people had to learn what stuff was homophobic, so were are right to say that there are more rules now because we went from one (homosexuality is illegal) to many (there are many forms of homophobia).
Re:I'm so torn (Score:4, Insightful)
You incorrectly understand "liberal" to mean more restrictive.
Hate speech IS free speech. A liberal would understand that not everyone shares their personal view. Tolerance. Not punishment.
You people are so doublethink it hurts.
Re:I'm so torn (Score:4, Interesting)
That culture changes over time (and space) should be an argument for toleration.
We ought to be able to realize that maybe it isn't always great when a hegemonic culture imposes their norms and customs as the only moral option.
A few years ago there was, for a very brief time, an ethnicity manipulation filter in the face editing app FaceApp.
There is a cultural taboo against "blackface" in the US, for understandable historical reasons, and to portray someone of another "race" than they are is seen as deeply offensive. That's seen as self evident to you, but still not to most people on this planet. Most of the world don't have or even know this historical context. Probably, most dark-skinned people on the planet would not even know what they were supposed to be offended at in this app.
The Russian dev clearly didn't know about this cultural taboo, because you can't doubt his desire to respect his audience: it wasn't even available for a full day. He pulled it and apologized as soon as he saw the first negative reaction.
Maybe that's good. Maybe we should respect other cultures' taboos to some degree, like the apostle Paul who declared that there was nothing inherently wrong with eating meat sacrificed to idols (a big taboo in his native Jewish culture) but that he would go all-out vegetarian if you seriously thought there was, to not undermine your conscience.
But MAYBE we shouldn't let upper class Americans decide for the whole world what to tolerate and what to not tolerate, damnit.
Re: (Score:2)
We aren't just talking about some arbitrary taboo though, these issues are about actual, real harm done to people.
In RMS' case his behaviour does directly affect others. If it was just general disgust at him eating his own toe jam I'd dismiss it.
Re: I'm so torn (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think any taboos are arbitrary. They all make sense in their original context (though they can be very unjust).
The "actual, real harm done to people" by Stallman in this context, is that people would feel disrespected, offended, uncomfortable or scared (though there's no reason to think that fear is justified). You think that's unrelated to the general toe-biting disgust factor?
Re: (Score:2)
Many religious taboos are arbitrary. Someone long ago decided they didn't like that thing, or that they could interpret some slightly vague statement in a particular way.
People attend university to learn or work, and people attend professional events to further their careers. There is real harm done if Stallman is discouraging people or making it difficult for organizers to invite the head of the FSF.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they have their reasons. Sometimes it could be fairly narrow, self interested reasons. But to call it arbitrary is disrespectful to their humanity, in the same way as saying "Who cares why they do what they do? They're savages!" about a simpler culture would be.
---
On the far-fetched chance that someone decides to not attend university b
Re: (Score:2)
Just today there was an article about "nice guys" who aren't actually so nice when they get rejected.
https://wehuntedthemammoth.com... [wehuntedthemammoth.com]
Women of course know this so maybe you can see why unwanted propositions are a problem for them - they can't predict the reaction to rejection.
Kinda like that sign behind the bar that says "don't ask for credit as refusal often offends".
Re: (Score:2)
Insightful, I suppose, but not relevant to anything here. Is your argument that there is some specific moral standard we need to stop at, and never change? Under jungle law, killing anyone weaker than you, raising their kids as your own, and inseminating them at 14 was appropriate. Would you have us stop there, or somewhere else? If somewhere else, do tell, and explain how his behavior compares to that standard.
Until you do that, you're only throwing out soundbites.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that we never stop but that we don't hold be accountable for stuff they did in the past that we deem unacceptable today.
Eventually, people are not going to want to "advance" moral standards since they will have to look back and determine if they every committed an infraction previously against that new standard.
Re: (Score:2)
and which he handed to everyone, not just women
People keep saying that as if it's some kind of defence.
It changes the tone.
It doesn't matter what the gender of the person receiving it is, it's still completely inappropriate to offer them a "tender embrace".
Have you seen the card? It's a simple joke. If it consisted simply of the words "For tender embraces, call this number" then you might have a bit of an argument, but it doesn't say that.
Why does no one get bent about the offer of good food or exotic music that appear on the card? Why does no one mention that the text is followed by "unusual sense of humour"?
Because that would spoil the fake outrage and make it obvious that the card is a joke that no one could possibly claim was serious.
A
Re: (Score:2)
Good food and exotic music are stuff people share with platonic friends and business acquaintances. In fact they are a pretty common excuse to go expense a nice meal on the company credit card.
Tender embraces are things people in intimate relationships have, necessitating as they do very close physical contact.
Re: (Score:2)
Good food and exotic music are stuff people share with platonic friends and business acquaintances. In fact they are a pretty common excuse to go expense a nice meal on the company credit card.
Tender embraces are things people in intimate relationships have, necessitating as they do very close physical contact.
Yes - it's called comedy contrast.
I don't believe you honestly think the card was offensive; I don't believe anyone does. It's a non-issue, but I have played Illuminati enough to understand the concept of a whispering campaign.
Re: (Score:2)
"Tender embraces" are what primates give each other when they see pain and hurting in the countenance of their kind. The same is good for people primates.
You labeled a gesture of healing and love hateful, harmful, and destructive.
It is little wonder you generate so much contention. Your whole being is filled with lies against the nature of love and affection.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll be the devil's advocate, but why would it be inappropriate to offer someone a "tender embrace" if the person is free to refuse? It's not like he is pressuring anyone to accept the "tender embrace", or asking for a "tender embrace" over and over again, which would be only then considered harassment.
Also there is nothing sexual in a "tender embrace" per se. A tender embrace is a hug, people give hugs in variety of situations. Do you find the people giving away "free hugs" creepy? Do you find them creepy
Re: (Score:2)
People who go to work or professional events generally aren't there to hook up. For women there is also the additional risk that the guy takes rejection badly.
Re: (Score:1)
In the same sense that it's inappropriate ti wear a "Free Hugs!" t-shirt making the same offer to a business meeting, yes. There is a lot of space between "this was inappropriate behavior for that situation" and "this person is an abusive predator and must be cancelled."