Libreboot Leaves The GNU, The Free Software Foundation Denounced

[DanL]

I don't see the problem here. Who exactly would want to hire someone with a severely crippling mental illness? Would you hire a paranoid schizophrenic that is unable to complete basic work and who will be attempting to harm themselves and others?

Employment is not a right. Businesses do not want or need useless mentally ill employees. These individuals should seek treatment instead of trying to go into neo-stalinist 'I have a right to other people's money' mode.

LOL. Nice troll.

[timofonic]

In other words, employees can be fired, except if they have something unusual with their sexual identity.

Does it matter? Are there sexual activity in IT? That would be like paranormal activity...

[starshipeleven]

No,it doesn't! But it was you that said that a person should be punished hard...

Still does not mean hanging people, if you don't want to sound dishonest, don't assume I said stuff I didn't.

And yet everyone is trying to limit the freedom of others to have an opinion.

Yes, those that have opinions that limit other's freedom don't get any freedom.

the opposite also exists and is such as stupid. The point here is to remain neutral and respect everyone.

No, if they think that restricting freedom of others is OK, they are fair game.

While i would not donate money and while from my point of view it was not a correct thing to to, i must respect his freedom to do what he believes. In fact it's his money and I could always donate money to the opposite cause.

That's an action that wants to restrict other's freedom, therefore tags them as fair game.

everyone tries to be the hero of freedom and everyone starts discussing the details in words... discuss freedom is something that will never end.

You are the only hero of freedom as you prefer to follow an ideal, most people just wait for someone to go against someone else's freedom to become fair game for any attack.

However everyone should be allowed to have their own opinion and be able to stand by what they believe (without punishment) - and this go both ways!!!

No they should not. Beliefs that are against everyone's freedom are wrong and must be dealt with as such.

i will not be able to make you understand my point and neither will you!

I understand your point, and you understand mine. The point is that both are convinced to be right.

You have your opinion, i have mine!

Yeah, and your is wrong, mine is right.

[starshipeleven]

Those are your words alone, What's bs is the words you put inside of quotation marks. This forum does have a quoting function as you are already well aware.

I translated the meaning of your post dumbass, I didn't alter it. Why do you call yourself native speaker if you can't read?

[starshipeleven]

Precisely. If my employee starts showing up every day in a top hat and false beard and claims he's Abraham Lincoln, it means he's mentally ill, and not someone I would continue to employ. It does not mean he might really be Abraham Lincoln. It does not mean I'm required to participate in his little game of make believe. And it does not mean I'm required to celebrate mental illness.

A man showing up to work in women's attire claiming to be a woman, is no different.

You are comparing someone that claims to be another real person with someone that changes his own identity to a new original one.

Not the same thing. The former is a mental illness, the latter is not.

[starshipeleven]

Does it matter? Are there sexual activity in IT? That would be like paranormal activity...

He was pointing out how trans or gay people can always pull the card of "fired because I'm X".

[liam]

First of all: It doesn't look very well, if one describes his own two liners as mind-blowing, especially if they aren't really that amazing.

You are not the one to decide what does and what doesn't constitute a mental disorder. The word "disorder" is not used to characterize patterns by how much they deviate from some standard of behavior as you or I perceive it. "mental disorder" is a scientific term and the results of scientific studies is presented in journals and summarized and codified for actual use in works like the DSM-V in which a conscious decision was made to abandon the term "gender identity disorder". As long as there is no distress involved, by the standards of the DSM-V there is really nothing pathological about being transgender, which is a sentiment that's in line with any definition of "mental disorder" I'm aware of.

The only thing "obvious" about this might be, that it differs from what you expect. But that doesn't qualitfy you to classify it as a mental disorder. Calling it an obvious disorder is simply wrong based on the current state of the scientific debate (and yes, of course there is debate. But the debate is not at some point at which it might have been decades ago, where one would be justified in saying that this is obviously considered a mental disorder).

"A mental disorder is a syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual's cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental processes underlying mental functioning. Mental disorders are usually associated with significant distress in social, occupational, or other important activities. An expectable or culturally approved response to a common stressor or loss, such as the death of a loved one, is not a mental disorder. Socially deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) and conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are not mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict results from a dysfunction in the individual, as described above."

DSM5


Distress doesn't seem to be required. That should make sense given the personality disorder formerly called psychopathy doesn't need to involve, and tends not to, distress on their part.
Also, given that these are definitions (and part of a particularly contentious DSM update) I, personally, wouldn't pound the scientific drum too hard.
The consensus among mainstream mental health workers is that the behaviors being discussed don't constitute a mental disorder in themselves.
If people want to argue that, a clear vocabulary must be first established.


I'm not going to post in this thread again.

[randomizer]

I'm not sure if anyone actually read the email chain, but RMS did reply to it.

[karolherbst]

Precisely. If my employee starts showing up every day in a top hat and false beard and claims he's Abraham Lincoln, it means he's mentally ill, and not someone I would continue to employ. It does not mean he might really be Abraham Lincoln. It does not mean I'm required to participate in his little game of make believe. And it does not mean I'm required to celebrate mental illness.

A man showing up to work in women's attire claiming to be a woman, is no different.

Want to play dress up and make believe? Fine! Go right ahead. But don't limit the freedom of others, by trying to force them to participate in the charade.

it actually is, because you can wear the fuck you want as long as you don't hinder the company itself and as long as you follow the directives of your boss, which also includes looking nice in front of customers and stuff like that.

[horizonbrave]

I'm not sure if anyone actually read the email chain, but RMS did reply to it.

I found disgusting the level of Phoronix in presenting this "news", like a gossip tabloid. This also made think I never read anythink like an interview either.. but anyway this still a good website as long as we have a nice adblocker and some nice popcorns. Thanks for the link and doing Micheal work