-- Leo's gemini proxy
-- Connecting to tilde.pink:1965...
-- Connected
-- Sending request
-- Meta line: 20 text/gemini;
Originally I wanted to keep this gemlog free from politics. But no... This happened:
And I have to say several things to those who signed that, although I doubt they'll ever read it.
> We, the undersigned, believe in the necessity of digital autonomy and the powerful role user freedom plays in protecting our fundamental human rights.
That would sound a lot better if you didn't WRITE IT ON DAMN GITHUB!
> In order to realize the promise of everything software freedom makes possible, there must be radical change within the community.
Yes, like radically kicking out the clowns who pontificate about free software ON GITHUB!
> While these ideas have been popularized in some form by Richard M. Stallman, he does not speak for us.
Of course, why would he speak for those who host their libel on a server running NON-FREE SOFTWARE?
> We do not acknowledge his leadership or the leadership of the Free Software Foundation as it stands today.
Who gives a damn about what is acknowledged by those who write this nonsense ON MICROSOFT'S PLATFORM?
The actual accusations are split into two parts: actions and opinions. The actions part is entirely based on an article by Selam G:
> RMS has a history of mistreating women and making them feel uncomfortable, unsafe, and unwelcome. For incidents relating to RMS and MIT, please see:
Selam G is not a credible source. Here she accuses Stallman of believing that child pornography and sexual intercourse with minors should be legal:
> Some people have described Stallman as “controversial” — this could mean a few different things, but I do not think that Stallman’s opinions are controversial. “Controversial” implies that 40% of the public thinks one way and another 40% the other, and some 20% are in-between. If there are a large number of people in the United States who think that child pornography and sexual intercourse with minors should be legalized, this is the first I’m hearing of it, and please show me the evidence. Since it is not controversial, I’m not going to argue why these opinions are problematic. Having to “prove” this would give legitimacy to Stallman’s ideas.
But where did Stallman said any of that? Nowhere. That is libel, plain and simple.
But OK, suppose that Stallman DID mistreat women and made them feel uncomfortable, unsafe and unwelcome. So did Joe Biden. Hey witch hunters! Where's your letter demanding removal of Biden from all leadership positions? Nowhere, eh? Hypocrites.
This part is rather long. I'll limit myself to their best shot, which they mark by saying it's "especially chilling":
> Especially chilling is when Stallman addresses the accusations that Marvin Minsky sexually assaulted one of Jeffrey Epstein’s trafficking victims (Virginia Giuffre) by saying “but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing.”
https://www.vice.com/en/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing
Stallman figured out the most plausible scenario. And as we know now, he guessed correctly. *This* is especially chilling?
> RMS decries that this is not “sexual assault” because “‘assaulting’ presumes that he applied force or violence” while the report being discussed “says no such thing. Only that they had sex.”
To this they give a link which is the same as previous. *This* is their especially chilling one?
But RMS is correct. Sex with a willing minor is not an assault, nor is it a bank robbery, nor is it tax evasion. It's molesting a minor. Calling it "assault" diminishes experiences of women who endured actual assault. Take it from a feminist and a civil rights activist Nadine Strossen:
> But a number of the ideas for which Richard Stallman has been attacked and punished are ideas that I as a feminist advocate of human rights find completely correct and positive from the perspective of women’s equality and dignity! So for example, when he talks about the misuse and over use and flawed use of the term sexual assault, I completely agree with that critique! People are indiscriminantly using that term or synonyms to describe everything from the most appaulling violent abuse of helpless vulnerable victims (such as a rape of a minor) to any conduct or expression in the realm of gender or sexuality that they find unpleasant or disagreeable.
> So we see the term sexual assault and sexual harrassment used for example, when a guy asks a woman out on a date and she doesn’t find that an appealing invitation. Maybe he used poor judgement in asking her out, maybe he didn’t, but in any case that is NOT sexual assault or harassment. To call it that is to really demean the huge horror and violence and predation that does exist when you are talking about violent sexual assault. People use the term sexual assault/ sexual harassment to refer to any comment about gender or sexuality issues that they disagree with or a joke that might not be in the best taste, again is that to be commended? No! But to condemn it and equate it with a violent sexual assault again is really denying and demeaning the actual suffering that people who are victims of sexual assault endure. It trivializes the serious infractions that are committed by people like Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein. So that is one point that he made that I think is very important that I strongly agree with.
And that was their best shot, the "especially chilling" thing that RMS said, but which feminists also say and agree with. The other shots are *even weaker*.
Let's take a long hard look at Mozilla.
> We can't demand better of the internet if we don't demand better of our leaders, colleagues and ourselves.
Indeed. Remember when Mozilla was like "integration of Mozilla with Pocket has nothing to do with money" and later they admitted that Mozilla had a profit-sharing agreement with Pocket?
So who lost their job at Mozilla for this? Nobody?
It's one thing to simply have slimeballs like Mozilla around and it's completely different thing when they start to teach everybody how to be honest. RMS may be controversial or abrasive but he would never say that something has nothing to do with money only to be caught later with a profit sharing agreement. This is precisely why he needs to stay and the hypocrites who pretend to be big Free Software buffs on Microsoft's non-free platform have to go.
2021-03-25 ~monerulo
-- Response ended
-- Page fetched on Sun May 5 07:48:51 2024