3 ms·

> Does "support RMS being on the FSF board for life" mean supporting him on everything he says Of course not. I just say that I understand if people would not

> Does "support RMS being on the FSF board for life" mean supporting him on everything he says Of course not. I just say that I understand if people would not like no associate with him.

smsm42 6y ago
My opinion is that such people are stupid. I can understand people that disagree with RMS on his free-software philosophy, or views on software development, or management style, or his personal quirks or whatever and not wanting to work with him - fine, freedom of association, it's yours to choose. That's valid and understandable. Making a choice because of a random opinion voiced once - which is completely immaterial as RMS himself is not a woman and his opinions about personal decisions of women have absolutely zero importance (which does not preclude him from voicing them, everybody can have an opinion, just some of them are pretty worthless and useless) - is just stupid. It's manually disabling your own intellect, removing all the huge body of useful information you could base your decisions on and concentrate your attention on one immaterial detail. It's like you being offered an awesome job in a great company with huge salary and you quitting on the first day because one person in your office has a pen of a wrong shade on his desk. I can only attribute such decisions to performative virtue signalling, because the alternative would be insanity.
- angry_octet 6y ago
  "When people tell you who they are, listen." We choose to disassociate open source from anything to do with RMS and FSF.
  - smsm42 6y ago
    Well, you told who you are, then. Virtue signalling is more important to you than the work done by the open source community and the FSF, and you'd gladly destroy the latter for a chance of the former. OK, listened.
    - angry_octet 6y ago
      Do you realise that every time you use terms like "woke" and "virtue signalling" you are, in fact, virtue signalling? If open source could only be done by sexual abusers and misogynists it would indeed be sad.
      - smsm42 6y ago
        No, I do not realize that because it is not true. I am expressing my opinion, not trying to fit within some cultural mold that requires of me performative actions where the only purpose is to demonstrate my allegiance to "right" people and my non-association with "this kind of people". When I use the term "woke", I mean people who call themselves this term, or are functionally and ideologically equivalent to those people. I didn't invent this term, I don't like it particularly, but it came to identify a specific group of people with specific views and action patterns, so I use it. And I am completely sure when I use it, you know who and what I mean. So using it is an efficient communication practice. > If open source could only be done by sexual abusers This is an extremely wrong "if" which nobody actually claimed before you. By implying that your opponents said something like that, you are lying. Do not do that. > it would indeed be sad. It would be, but it's not because your initial assumption is false. What is currently sad instead is that you have to resort to falsities to advance your point. Or maybe not - maybe it's just a sign you have nothing better in your quiver.

> Does "support RMS being on the FSF board for life" mean supporting him on everything he says Of course not. I just say that I understand if people would not like no associate with him.

smsm42 6y ago

My opinion is that such people are stupid. I can understand people that disagree with RMS on his free-software philosophy, or views on software development, or management style, or his personal quirks or whatever and not wanting to work with him - fine, freedom of association, it's yours to choose. That's valid and understandable. Making a choice because of a random opinion voiced once - which is completely immaterial as RMS himself is not a woman and his opinions about personal decisions of women have absolutely zero importance (which does not preclude him from voicing them, everybody can have an opinion, just some of them are pretty worthless and useless) - is just stupid. It's manually disabling your own intellect, removing all the huge body of useful information you could base your decisions on and concentrate your attention on one immaterial detail. It's like you being offered an awesome job in a great company with huge salary and you quitting on the first day because one person in your office has a pen of a wrong shade on his desk. I can only attribute such decisions to performative virtue signalling, because the alternative would be insanity.

angry_octet 6y ago
"When people tell you who they are, listen." We choose to disassociate open source from anything to do with RMS and FSF.
- smsm42 6y ago
  Well, you told who you are, then. Virtue signalling is more important to you than the work done by the open source community and the FSF, and you'd gladly destroy the latter for a chance of the former. OK, listened.
  - angry_octet 6y ago
    Do you realise that every time you use terms like "woke" and "virtue signalling" you are, in fact, virtue signalling? If open source could only be done by sexual abusers and misogynists it would indeed be sad.
    - smsm42 6y ago
      No, I do not realize that because it is not true. I am expressing my opinion, not trying to fit within some cultural mold that requires of me performative actions where the only purpose is to demonstrate my allegiance to "right" people and my non-association with "this kind of people". When I use the term "woke", I mean people who call themselves this term, or are functionally and ideologically equivalent to those people. I didn't invent this term, I don't like it particularly, but it came to identify a specific group of people with specific views and action patterns, so I use it. And I am completely sure when I use it, you know who and what I mean. So using it is an efficient communication practice. > If open source could only be done by sexual abusers This is an extremely wrong "if" which nobody actually claimed before you. By implying that your opponents said something like that, you are lying. Do not do that. > it would indeed be sad. It would be, but it's not because your initial assumption is false. What is currently sad instead is that you have to resort to falsities to advance your point. Or maybe not - maybe it's just a sign you have nothing better in your quiver.