> Ever hear the expression "Your right to your fist only extends as far as my face?" I have. A "community guideline" or social disapproval of threatening viole

> Ever hear the expression "Your right to your fist only extends as far as my face?" I have. A "community guideline" or social disapproval of threatening violence may disallow those sorts of expressions, but they're quite common in certain communities (sports, games, etc - may be known as "trash talking"). > In order to express ideas openly, even firmly and directly, one does not need to be explicitly RUDE to others, and apply personal insults and attacks. I agree. What one person interprets or intends as "explicitly RUDE" may be interpreted or intended differently by another individual, though, so an open community should assume good faith, correct the socially-determined, arbitrary language violation, and try to focus on the content of the message rather than delivery mechanism. If you'd like to share examples of what makes you believe ESR[0] is unable to differentiate between a stupid idea and a stupid person, I'd be happy to examine them with you. I myself used Linus as an example of someone who can be famously insulting[1], yet I'm unaware of him actually permanently banning people from submitting new patches to the Linux kernel because he flipped out in a code review. Indeed, as I think everyone can agree they've been polemic regardless of how you agree with them, the fact that they've engaged with the public at large seems contrary to your statement that they revel in personal attacks rather than engaging a free marketplace of ideas: They share an unambiguous position and offer defense of their ideas against all comers. I suspect most of this defense is done today by the organizations and the legacy they've created rather than them personally, which is why it's more noteworthy when they feel the need to make such strong statements. > turns out that you don't HAVE to be a jerk, and you can express your strong beliefs in an idea without calling someone a looneytune. You don't "HAVE" to be a jerk, but you may. I will listen to the content of your words rather than the appearance of your statement, and I believe ESR is aggressively asserting his position the Open Source Initiative should do the same. I find it interesting you used "looneytune", because I don't see any message from ESR in the month of February using that word.[2][3] Quoting Russell McOrmond later in the thread[4] that does use the word "loonytoon", "ESR tried to post a message where he named and shamed some individuals and activities which he considers to be seriously problematic not only in society as a whole, but software communities as well. The moderators rejected his email to this list. Some might even suggest he is being de-platformed by being blocked from expressing personal political views. I'm not suggesting this, as I'm advocating strongly that those who wish to use software and software licenses to discriminate be invited (strongly if required) to go elsewhere than the OSI mailing lists." [0]: Or Linus, I suppose, though that's less relevant to the specific topic [1]: https://www.fudzilla.com/media/k2/items/cache/7a3a7dc8bbb8eb186821d33f4f28126d_XL.jpg https://www.fudzilla.com/media/k2/items/cache/7a3a7dc8bbb8eb... - I don't mean to insult him and use/appreciate his work/writings practically every day! [2]: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/2020-February/author.html#21271 https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists... [3]: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/2020-February/021328.html https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists... is quoting a message that was rejected by the moderators. It appears ESR rephrased without public discussion and it never went out to the list. [4]: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/2020-February/021341.html https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists...