3 ms·

I don't know the details of this, but I think the first response in the thread makes sense and reflects what I thought straight away: "I'm sorry to hear about

I don't know the details of this, but I think the first response in the thread makes sense and reflects what I thought straight away: "I'm sorry to hear about this unacceptable prejudice, as you've described it. My question is: should this be taken as an indictment of the entire GNU project, or those individuals managing personnel at the FSF's offices? I would hate for the intolerance of one or a few people to be construed as a reason for the entire GNU project not to exist"

Pyxl101 10y ago
Yes. This seems like a situation where individuals should be blamed, not an entire group, who may not even be aware of the actions of specific individuals. If the group is aware of the actions of the individuals and sanctions it, then that's a different scenario. > The FSF fired her because they thought she, rather than the assholes bullying her, was causing the FSF potential damage. As a result, she was fired from the FSF. It also seems worthwhile to understand what is the other side of the story about this.
- yitchelle 10y ago
  On the other hand, this individual has the authority to make the decision on behalf of the FSF. So at this point in the time and until more evidence is provided, this _is_ the decision of the FSF. Having said that, there are still many layers of information that needs to be provided to get a clear picture.
  - DSMan195276 10y ago
    I suppose I can't speak for the FSF, but I highly doubt they would ever come out and publicly say why they fired someone. Most companies/similar would never be willing to do that - so it is entirely possible we'll never hear the other side of this story.
raverbashing 10y ago
Yes, and tolerance goes both ways I understand the rage, but "live by the sword, die by the sword"
rtpg 10y ago
There is a more forgiving interpretation. Even if the FSF has not actively discriminated, it chose not to help support one of its members from the effects of discrimination. This can be seen as a protest against inaction. How big is the FSF? If the organisation is pretty small, I would be concerned. Matt Levine recently had a piece on the Wells Fargo events: >“The 1% that did it wrong, who we fired, terminated, in no way reflects our culture nor reflects the great work the other vast majority of the people do,” he said. “That’s a false narrative.” >You hear bank CEOs say that sort of thing all the time when a few rogue employees do bad stuff that incurs a big fine for the bank, but there are never 5,300 of them. It is the sorites paradox of "a few bad apples": If one or two or eight rogue employees don't reflect the broader culture, why should 5,300? At one point actions do reflect on the entire project, though the line is fuzzy. I think the last line is a bit strong. I've seen much worse language elsewhere, of course, but I don't know if it serves the point. Though empathy should be had for Leah, I imagine it was not a decision taken lightly.
- flukus 10y ago
  > There is a more forgiving interpretation. Even if the FSF has not actively discriminated, it chose not to help support one of its members from the effects of discrimination Where did you get that from?
ZenoArrow 10y ago
Assuming the story is accurate, the problem was not just with the people who bullied the transgendered person, the problem was also that nobody with authority in the GNU project backed her (or at least, not enough people). Therefore it is fair to also blame those with authority that did nothing/not enough to avoid this outcome. The fact that it's taken somebody quitting the GNU project over it to highlight the problem shows that the GNU leadership did not do enough to denounce this type of behaviour. Perhaps there is more to this story than we know so far, but as it stands I can understand Leah's reaction.

Pyxl101 10y ago

Yes. This seems like a situation where individuals should be blamed, not an entire group, who may not even be aware of the actions of specific individuals. If the group is aware of the actions of the individuals and sanctions it, then that's a different scenario. > The FSF fired her because they thought she, rather than the assholes bullying her, was causing the FSF potential damage. As a result, she was fired from the FSF. It also seems worthwhile to understand what is the other side of the story about this.

yitchelle 10y ago
On the other hand, this individual has the authority to make the decision on behalf of the FSF. So at this point in the time and until more evidence is provided, this _is_ the decision of the FSF. Having said that, there are still many layers of information that needs to be provided to get a clear picture.
- DSMan195276 10y ago
  I suppose I can't speak for the FSF, but I highly doubt they would ever come out and publicly say why they fired someone. Most companies/similar would never be willing to do that - so it is entirely possible we'll never hear the other side of this story.

raverbashing 10y ago

Yes, and tolerance goes both ways I understand the rage, but "live by the sword, die by the sword"

rtpg 10y ago

There is a more forgiving interpretation. Even if the FSF has not actively discriminated, it chose not to help support one of its members from the effects of discrimination. This can be seen as a protest against inaction. How big is the FSF? If the organisation is pretty small, I would be concerned. Matt Levine recently had a piece on the Wells Fargo events: >“The 1% that did it wrong, who we fired, terminated, in no way reflects our culture nor reflects the great work the other vast majority of the people do,” he said. “That’s a false narrative.” >You hear bank CEOs say that sort of thing all the time when a few rogue employees do bad stuff that incurs a big fine for the bank, but there are never 5,300 of them. It is the sorites paradox of "a few bad apples": If one or two or eight rogue employees don't reflect the broader culture, why should 5,300? At one point actions do reflect on the entire project, though the line is fuzzy. I think the last line is a bit strong. I've seen much worse language elsewhere, of course, but I don't know if it serves the point. Though empathy should be had for Leah, I imagine it was not a decision taken lightly.

flukus 10y ago
> There is a more forgiving interpretation. Even if the FSF has not actively discriminated, it chose not to help support one of its members from the effects of discrimination Where did you get that from?

ZenoArrow 10y ago

Assuming the story is accurate, the problem was not just with the people who bullied the transgendered person, the problem was also that nobody with authority in the GNU project backed her (or at least, not enough people). Therefore it is fair to also blame those with authority that did nothing/not enough to avoid this outcome. The fact that it's taken somebody quitting the GNU project over it to highlight the problem shows that the GNU leadership did not do enough to denounce this type of behaviour. Perhaps there is more to this story than we know so far, but as it stands I can understand Leah's reaction.