4 ms·

Due process is for the court. If you ousted yourself as an asshole in public, people not wanting to associate with you isn't legal, it's civilized society.

xyzzy_plugh 7y ago
This is the important point frequently omitted. They don't _have_ to do any of this. They _should_, though, as society demands it. Folks are free to disagree, but this is very much the right move.
falcolas 7y ago
We, as a society, have established due process in the government and courts because we believe it's the right thing - the moral thing - to do. If it's the right thing to do for the most powerful entity in our land, what makes it not the right thing to do in all venues?
- kennywinker 7y ago
  If I come to your house for dinner, and am an asshole to you and your family, do we need to get the law involved or should you just not invite me over for dinner again?
  - falcolas 7y ago
    Perhaps I pull you aside, call you out for your actions, and give you the chance to change your ways. One strike and your out isn't even how we play baseball.
    - kennywinker 7y ago
      ... from the sounds of it, I assume the pull-aside convo happened and failed. Maybe I'm too trusting. I have no evidence that kind of a convo happened. But the allegations are that RMS has been a missing stair for well over 20 years. I find it very hard to believe that someone who's been causing problems in a community for 20+ years has never had a friend pull them aside and ask them to change their behaviour.
      - falcolas 7y ago
        If we're changing the analogy to specifically look at Stallman again, we need to make a few changes. Specifically, a quick note that now you're visiting his house for dinner. This changes things a bit. He may have the best open source dinner spread out there, but it's ultimately your choice to keep participating.
        snotrockets 7y ago
        He is no longer the sole occupant of that house.
        morelisp 7y ago
        It's absolutely maddening to see such vociferous "defense" of Stallman in ways we know he could not stand. If you think he would tolerate an "open source dinner spread", you don't appreciate what he's actually done and have just glommed onto the bizarre 4chan personality cult surrounding him.
    - dtornabene 7y ago
      yeah, the only way this makes sense is if you slide right past the "multiple conferences" part in the comment rooting this thread( which, apparently, you are). And of course also the "multiple women have come forward" part in the statements online. The mental gymnastics here to justify this is awe inspiring.
  - gfosco 7y ago
    They shouldn't invite you over for dinner again, but it ends there. They don't get to come for your job, your career, your legacy.
    - kennywinker 7y ago
      Right, so if the assholery happens at work then the equivalent of "shouldn't invite you over for dinner again" is being asked not to come back to work.
      - virgilp 7y ago
        Except that in this analogy, RMS is the one who invited them for dinner. You don't simply get to tell the host that "we don't like you but I think we'll keep meeting in your house for dinner.
        joshuamorton 7y ago
        So you're saying that RMS, is the sole owner of everything GNU? No. This is equivalent to a threat to strike. RMS without the GNU project maintainers is just a dude with a blog. And this approximates a vote of no confidence.
        virgilp 7y ago
        No - analogies are imperfect. But it's certainly a better analogy, RMS is not just a rude guest.
Accujack 7y ago
The problem is that they want to keep his ideas and achievements, but don't want to keep him. They're free to walk away from Stallman and the movement he created, but they won't because they can't let go of the shiny. Instead, they convince themselves they deserve free software and GNU without the nasty man who built it.
cnst 7y ago
Then fork. Why don't they fork? The XFree86 group didn't have an issue forking and disbanding. Yet these people, with projects like Guix that noone has ever heard of, are simply using a GNU name to lobby against the hand that fed them. Dr Richard Stallman is a person, too. It's no longer a secret that he likely has high-functioning autism. What is he supposed to be being now being disbarred from his own project that he founded in 1985? If people think he doesn't deserve to be credited as the founder of FSF, just fork, and be done with it. Instead what they're doing is trying to actively ostracise the very hand that fed them.

xyzzy_plugh 7y ago

This is the important point frequently omitted. They don't _have_ to do any of this. They _should_, though, as society demands it. Folks are free to disagree, but this is very much the right move.

falcolas 7y ago

We, as a society, have established due process in the government and courts because we believe it's the right thing - the moral thing - to do. If it's the right thing to do for the most powerful entity in our land, what makes it not the right thing to do in all venues?

kennywinker 7y ago
If I come to your house for dinner, and am an asshole to you and your family, do we need to get the law involved or should you just not invite me over for dinner again?
- falcolas 7y ago
  Perhaps I pull you aside, call you out for your actions, and give you the chance to change your ways. One strike and your out isn't even how we play baseball.
  - kennywinker 7y ago
    ... from the sounds of it, I assume the pull-aside convo happened and failed. Maybe I'm too trusting. I have no evidence that kind of a convo happened. But the allegations are that RMS has been a missing stair for well over 20 years. I find it very hard to believe that someone who's been causing problems in a community for 20+ years has never had a friend pull them aside and ask them to change their behaviour.
    - falcolas 7y ago
      If we're changing the analogy to specifically look at Stallman again, we need to make a few changes. Specifically, a quick note that now you're visiting his house for dinner. This changes things a bit. He may have the best open source dinner spread out there, but it's ultimately your choice to keep participating.
      - snotrockets 7y ago
        He is no longer the sole occupant of that house.
      - morelisp 7y ago
        It's absolutely maddening to see such vociferous "defense" of Stallman in ways we know he could not stand. If you think he would tolerate an "open source dinner spread", you don't appreciate what he's actually done and have just glommed onto the bizarre 4chan personality cult surrounding him.
  - dtornabene 7y ago
    yeah, the only way this makes sense is if you slide right past the "multiple conferences" part in the comment rooting this thread( which, apparently, you are). And of course also the "multiple women have come forward" part in the statements online. The mental gymnastics here to justify this is awe inspiring.
- gfosco 7y ago
  They shouldn't invite you over for dinner again, but it ends there. They don't get to come for your job, your career, your legacy.
  - kennywinker 7y ago
    Right, so if the assholery happens at work then the equivalent of "shouldn't invite you over for dinner again" is being asked not to come back to work.
    - virgilp 7y ago
      Except that in this analogy, RMS is the one who invited them for dinner. You don't simply get to tell the host that "we don't like you but I think we'll keep meeting in your house for dinner.
      - joshuamorton 7y ago
        So you're saying that RMS, is the sole owner of everything GNU? No. This is equivalent to a threat to strike. RMS without the GNU project maintainers is just a dude with a blog. And this approximates a vote of no confidence.
        virgilp 7y ago
        No - analogies are imperfect. But it's certainly a better analogy, RMS is not just a rude guest.

Accujack 7y ago

The problem is that they want to keep his ideas and achievements, but don't want to keep him. They're free to walk away from Stallman and the movement he created, but they won't because they can't let go of the shiny. Instead, they convince themselves they deserve free software and GNU without the nasty man who built it.

cnst 7y ago

Then fork. Why don't they fork? The XFree86 group didn't have an issue forking and disbanding. Yet these people, with projects like Guix that noone has ever heard of, are simply using a GNU name to lobby against the hand that fed them. Dr Richard Stallman is a person, too. It's no longer a secret that he likely has high-functioning autism. What is he supposed to be being now being disbarred from his own project that he founded in 1985? If people think he doesn't deserve to be credited as the founder of FSF, just fork, and be done with it. Instead what they're doing is trying to actively ostracise the very hand that fed them.