Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The FSF Is Re-Evaluating Its Relationship With The GNU

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #51
    Originally posted by Niarbeht View Post
    In this thread: Lots of hysterical whining about people exercising their right to free association by choosing not to associate with someone.
    This is ridiculous.
    People indeed care about FOSS and willing-to-work programmers don't really grow on trees, do they? So obviously people will start questioning these ridiculous efforts about excluding competent programmers due to something stupid and unimportant that they said.
    The same with Linux CoC, Linux needs contributors more than the other way around, obviously. Policing opinions and communications on behalf of neomarxist retards for the sole purpose of protecting "muh feelings" is indeed exclusionary and does put the entire project at risk.
    "Association" my ass, nobody gives a shit about that and neither should they, these projects are bigger than your "association" nonsense.
    Last edited by IreMinMon; 10-07-2019, 07:37 PM.

    Comment


    • #52
      Originally posted by moilami View Post
      No, those people can practice their freedom to not associate with someone by taking their leave, as has been common practice, instead of trying to dictate who lead what. That is two completely different things. Just practice your freedom and leave. Or are you really saying that you have some sort of right to fire people? Who gave you that right? What is your position? Do you think you can declare ownership of someone's house too by practicing freedom to not associate with someone?

      You think you have rights to fire someone, but you don't.
      Oh, I never said I have the right to fire him. I never even called for his firing.

      But RMS isn't GNU. He isn't FSF. He's part of those things, but those things are not him. If those people decide they don't want to associate with him anymore, they don't have to. Gnash your teeth and howl at the moon all you want, but if you were actually in a position to influence these things, you wouldn't be venting your frustrations on Phoronix.

      The reality is that you've invented a boogeyman to fear and loathe. It's a boogeyman that's weak in it's inability to code, and strong in it's ability to tear apart coding communities. The reality is, that boogeyman doesn't exist. What does exist is that there are good, competent programmers out there who don't want to associate with people who they don't believe are actually necessary for their projects to succeed.

      Originally posted by IreMinMon
      neomarxist retards
      And there we have it. Exercising your rights makes you a "neomarxist retard". People freely choosing to not associate with someone is apparently a sign of communism, folks. That's where we are.

      The more you rail against people exercising their rights, the more power you give to those actually seeking to take them away.

      Keep living in fear. I'm not going to join you in your fantasy world.

      Comment


      • #53
        Originally posted by moilami View Post
        In the future you can chose limited free speech and unemployment or no free speech and a job. About the time for everyone to become anonymous and hide their identity as good as they can. And this happen in so called "free world" roflmao.
        i already chose to have "no job" just to make sure i can enjoy my limited(because germany) free speech...
        Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

        Comment


        • #54
          Originally posted by Niarbeht View Post
          In this thread: Lots of hysterical whining about people exercising their right to free association by choosing not to associate with someone.
          Except that's not what people are saying.

          People are rightfully upset that one of the pillars of free software in general is obviously being torn apart because of politics and manipulation.

          The mechanism of free association is not being complained about. You're merely choosing to interpret it that way.
          Last edited by fuzz; 10-07-2019, 09:26 PM.

          Comment


          • #55
            Originally posted by ed31337 View Post
            I think it's pretty amazing that someone like RMS, who never fraternized with Epstein, gets the big fat boot, while someone like Bill Gates, who did hang out with Epstein seems to be getting off scott-free...
            No Bill Gates did not get off scott-free Microsoft did a way better job of managing the Media.

            https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...executive.html

            Bill Gates was pushed out of Microsoft Management positions in 2014 party over Epstein involvement this is when a victim case came back up showing that the Epstein liability was not going away. Of course Microsoft did a way better job at managing the PR to make it look like a natural transfer.

            So Bill Gates in this case got the big fat boot first just a better well padded big fat boot while RMS is getting like a hard steal cap big fat boot with no padding. Yes RMS does deserve some mercy and kindness but that does not mean he is due his position at the FSF or MIT back.

            Both Bill Gates and RMS are not longer suitable for key management positions. Yes it appeared that RMS was getting off scott free while Bill Gates got punished until now. Yes media is starting to work out that Bill Gates got a soft boot from Microsoft to move him out the way of being a liability and that is the write up you found.

            Of course we can expect the savage media to go after Bill Gates as well now they have worked out he got the soft boot and attempt to turn that into a hard boot as well.

            Comment


            • #56
              Originally posted by moilami View Post
              In the future you can chose limited free speech and unemployment or no free speech and a job. About the time for everyone to become anonymous and hide their identity as good as they can. And this happen in so called "free world" roflmao.
              Thank God I'm retired. I can be as offensive as I want.

              Still waiting for legislation that forces Facebook to only delete actually illegal speech/threats via claiming it's a public forum and doesn't get private party rights to limit speech

              Comment


              • #57
                The claim that people are exercising their right not to associate with someone is misleading. They're also whining, throwing tantrums and don't shut up until others are forced to not be able to associate with them either

                Comment


                • #58
                  Originally posted by nicalandia View Post
                  I agree, these outrage mobs have done nothing to help the free software community in comparison with RMS, he is one of the few visionaries in the world that have contributed to this cause.
                  Well it is a cultural problem to some point, but it has to do with your laws. You seem to miss the equivalent to the german "ueble Nachrede" which translates to defamation, or you have fucked up version of it.

                  We have here 2 different versions of this the normal one if the person that does it can't proof it he get's fined or even inprisoned if you can even proof that they are lies it's "verleumdung" which can both be translated to defarmation you seem to have no seperate words for the 2 different things

                  So in other words if here somebody writes on twitter that person XY raped them and they can't proof it, they get at least fined and forced to remove that from twitter, and btw every mention in a public space of it also can get fined. So in other words, the Cavenough (did I write his name correct) case could never have happend, I mean we have wrong claims but they go then into court they are no accusations on twitter or other platforms, at least non legally.

                  We don't make mobs legal, mobs are bad things so why would you make mobs and witchhunting legal?

                  If they can't proof their claim they can be send to prison for 2 years, if you can proof they lied they can be send to prison for 5 years. You seem to have the latter version but not the former which is important because the victim of the defarmatian should not have to proof it.
                  Last edited by blackiwid; 10-07-2019, 11:24 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
                    We don't make mobs legal, mobs are bad things so why would you make mobs and witchhunting legal?
                    Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean, but mobs don't necessarily equate to witch hunting.

                    With regard to "mobs", we value our right to protest and/or violently overthrow our government if needed.

                    I think the term "witch hunt" is probably too vague to be meaningful with regard to the law, however I see a lot of value in Germany's defamation laws. Here, we would get into arguments about what is considered a public space online.

                    Comment


                    • #60
                      Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
                      I anticipate pleasant and civil discussion in this thread.
                      I didn't anticipate so...

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X