4 ms·

An open source project is different then like a chair or something. Part of the value of open source is the community around it. You can contribute to the code

An open source project is different then like a chair or something. Part of the value of open source is the community around it. You can contribute to the code and ask around for support, but that requires associating or at least potentially associating with the creator. If that creator is someone you don't want to associate with then why not just find a different project to use?

rglullis 6y ago
(This is already getting tiring, so forgive me for the flippant answer) I don't want to associate with Richard Stallman (even before his stupid comments regarding pedophilia), yet I use Emacs every single day of my life. If you tell me that Emacs itself only came to existence due to any of Stallman's ridiculous statements or if you tell me that my usage of Emacs enables Stallman in any way to be the asswipe that he is, then I would seriously consider dropping it.
- throwanem 6y ago
  I also use Emacs, and I also harbor a profound distaste for Stallman's opinions on pretty much everything, some of which disagreement he and I have hashed out loudly in public before now. But I'm not uncomfortable with using, or unwilling to use, Emacs in the way that I would be Pleroma with the Soapbox frontend. I think that's because Stallman's views don't have the same import that Alex Gleason's do. Stallman's apologia for pedophilia, for example, which you cite, is abhorrent - but it's not something that anyone takes seriously. Stallman's views on people who use platforms like Facebook or tools like Photoshop, namely that they deserve whatever abuse they receive for being too stupid or lazy to become programmers and sysadmins so they can use FSF products instead, likewise repel me - but, again, outside clapping at his talks and the very occasional hardliner, no one really cares enough about those opinions to act on them. There is no movement around those views of Stallman's. Not even the movement he helped originate seems much to heed him any longer. The same cannot, unfortunately, be said of Alex Gleason. He's part of a concerted effort to deny young trans people access to gender-affirming, and in many cases thus actually lifesaving, therapies, ultimately in support of a paternalistic belief that the people with these opinions, rather than trans people themselves, get to decide what it means to be trans, and gatekeep access to medical and psychological support on that basis. They're not above such underhanded means as inventing official-sounding medical terminology ("rapid-onset gender dysphoria"), or attempting by manipulation of public opinion and legal systems to defund trans charities and aid organizations (Mermaids UK), to advance that cause. And while they have less support now than they might have four or five years ago, their movement remains very active, and still quite able to inflict harm. So, I don't think the cases are really all that similar. In the abstract realm of pure ideas, sure, we could look at them as parallel examples of contrarianism. But the abstract realm of pure ideas isn't where we actually live. Here in reality, ideas exist in the context of the actions they motivate among people who believe in them. Stallman's weird gross ideas motivate nothing in particular, beyond maybe a little yelling and the occasional incoming F-bomb, among anyone of whom I'm aware. Gleason's weird gross ideas, by contrast, move people in ways that cause other people real harm. Maybe you're willing to overlook that. It's definitely a choice you can make. It's not one with which I'd be comfortable, but we all have our own concepts of morality and ethics, and judge one another and the world in which we live accordingly.
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    > but it's not something that anyone takes seriously I do, and so do a lot of other people. His arguments were tolerant and made perfectly fine sense. > Stallman's views on people who use platforms like Facebook or tools like Photoshop, namely that they deserve whatever abuse they receive for being too stupid or lazy to become programmers and sysadmins so they can use FSF products instead This is not his views as far as I know.
    - throwanem 6y ago
      Then he should say different things at the talks he gives, if he still does. What I described was what he said to an SRO audience at HOPE 2016.
gizzlon 6y ago
Yes, you pay money for the chair :P More importantly, I agree with parent that expressing views is something else than actively exploiting someone or using violence. Words != violence. Tolerance is being able to co-exist, work with and even be friends with people we disagree with. And, yes, that include people we think are intolerant (or that will be the excuse not to do the hard thing and engage in debate). Open debate is a good thing, and it was hard won. Let's not throw it away so quickly.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- 488643689 6y ago
  We're not talking opinions tho. Spinster.xyz is build on Soapbox and _run by Alex Gleason. It's hosting a community, which was banned from reddit for actively harassing and willfully hurting trans people. That's actions not words. Maybe people underestimate how organized and funded these hate groups are, how coordinated and planned the gaslighting of the public is. It's also not just "feminism" but more and more intersection with ultra right and "christian" conservative thinktanks. Just because you are not directly affected doesn't mean it's all just opinions and words, and nobody gets hurt.
  - gizzlon 6y ago
    > That's actions not words. Are you saying they're beating people up? Or stalking them? Because, if not, it absolutely is "just" words! And if they do, that's illegal. I'm not in the US, but it seems to me like your laws, for the most part, strike good balance in these types of scenarios. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing you would disagree? I'm not saying it's nice, or good, or that they're moral. I'm saying that the "fix" many people (maybe not you) are advocating usually leads to much darker things than people having their feelings hurt by words[1]. We know this because many societies have gone down that path before us. 1: OK, that sounds flippant, I know. But I think many people underestimate the horribly things people have done, and still do, to each other..
- dependenttypes 6y ago

rglullis 6y ago

(This is already getting tiring, so forgive me for the flippant answer) I don't want to associate with Richard Stallman (even before his stupid comments regarding pedophilia), yet I use Emacs every single day of my life. If you tell me that Emacs itself only came to existence due to any of Stallman's ridiculous statements or if you tell me that my usage of Emacs enables Stallman in any way to be the asswipe that he is, then I would seriously consider dropping it.

throwanem 6y ago
I also use Emacs, and I also harbor a profound distaste for Stallman's opinions on pretty much everything, some of which disagreement he and I have hashed out loudly in public before now. But I'm not uncomfortable with using, or unwilling to use, Emacs in the way that I would be Pleroma with the Soapbox frontend. I think that's because Stallman's views don't have the same import that Alex Gleason's do. Stallman's apologia for pedophilia, for example, which you cite, is abhorrent - but it's not something that anyone takes seriously. Stallman's views on people who use platforms like Facebook or tools like Photoshop, namely that they deserve whatever abuse they receive for being too stupid or lazy to become programmers and sysadmins so they can use FSF products instead, likewise repel me - but, again, outside clapping at his talks and the very occasional hardliner, no one really cares enough about those opinions to act on them. There is no movement around those views of Stallman's. Not even the movement he helped originate seems much to heed him any longer. The same cannot, unfortunately, be said of Alex Gleason. He's part of a concerted effort to deny young trans people access to gender-affirming, and in many cases thus actually lifesaving, therapies, ultimately in support of a paternalistic belief that the people with these opinions, rather than trans people themselves, get to decide what it means to be trans, and gatekeep access to medical and psychological support on that basis. They're not above such underhanded means as inventing official-sounding medical terminology ("rapid-onset gender dysphoria"), or attempting by manipulation of public opinion and legal systems to defund trans charities and aid organizations (Mermaids UK), to advance that cause. And while they have less support now than they might have four or five years ago, their movement remains very active, and still quite able to inflict harm. So, I don't think the cases are really all that similar. In the abstract realm of pure ideas, sure, we could look at them as parallel examples of contrarianism. But the abstract realm of pure ideas isn't where we actually live. Here in reality, ideas exist in the context of the actions they motivate among people who believe in them. Stallman's weird gross ideas motivate nothing in particular, beyond maybe a little yelling and the occasional incoming F-bomb, among anyone of whom I'm aware. Gleason's weird gross ideas, by contrast, move people in ways that cause other people real harm. Maybe you're willing to overlook that. It's definitely a choice you can make. It's not one with which I'd be comfortable, but we all have our own concepts of morality and ethics, and judge one another and the world in which we live accordingly.
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  > but it's not something that anyone takes seriously I do, and so do a lot of other people. His arguments were tolerant and made perfectly fine sense. > Stallman's views on people who use platforms like Facebook or tools like Photoshop, namely that they deserve whatever abuse they receive for being too stupid or lazy to become programmers and sysadmins so they can use FSF products instead This is not his views as far as I know.
  - throwanem 6y ago
    Then he should say different things at the talks he gives, if he still does. What I described was what he said to an SRO audience at HOPE 2016.

gizzlon 6y ago

Yes, you pay money for the chair :P More importantly, I agree with parent that expressing views is something else than actively exploiting someone or using violence. Words != violence. Tolerance is being able to co-exist, work with and even be friends with people we disagree with. And, yes, that include people we think are intolerant (or that will be the excuse not to do the hard thing and engage in debate). Open debate is a good thing, and it was hard won. Let's not throw it away so quickly.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
488643689 6y ago
We're not talking opinions tho. Spinster.xyz is build on Soapbox and _run by Alex Gleason. It's hosting a community, which was banned from reddit for actively harassing and willfully hurting trans people. That's actions not words. Maybe people underestimate how organized and funded these hate groups are, how coordinated and planned the gaslighting of the public is. It's also not just "feminism" but more and more intersection with ultra right and "christian" conservative thinktanks. Just because you are not directly affected doesn't mean it's all just opinions and words, and nobody gets hurt.
- gizzlon 6y ago
  > That's actions not words. Are you saying they're beating people up? Or stalking them? Because, if not, it absolutely is "just" words! And if they do, that's illegal. I'm not in the US, but it seems to me like your laws, for the most part, strike good balance in these types of scenarios. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing you would disagree? I'm not saying it's nice, or good, or that they're moral. I'm saying that the "fix" many people (maybe not you) are advocating usually leads to much darker things than people having their feelings hurt by words[1]. We know this because many societies have gone down that path before us. 1: OK, that sounds flippant, I know. But I think many people underestimate the horribly things people have done, and still do, to each other..
dependenttypes 6y ago