On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 7:23 PM Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/2/21 6:34 PM, Russell Reiter wrote:
On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 5:46 PM Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com
<mailto:xerofoify@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 4/2/21 5:27 PM, Russell Reiter via talk wrote: > On Fri, Apr 2, 2021, 4:38 PM Dhaval Giani, <
dhaval.giani@gmail.com <mailto:dhaval.giani@gmail.com> <mailto: dhaval.giani@gmail.com <mailto:dhaval.giani@gmail.com>>> wrote:
> > > > >> are all aware of. Many women were uncomfortable around
RMS and avoided
> >> him. Many refused to participate in our community because
of
> >> interactions with him. Do you think RMS is more important
than a
> >> community of developers he is pushing away? > > > > > > See all the stuff you say we are all aware in this message
is just rumors and innuendo to me.
> > > > Wait, so all these women saying those words are rumours and
innuendo?
> > Greetings, > You know what, thats exactly what innuendo is, saying "all these
women" without even a link to a personal quote from them, not a one.
That's a very dangerous to do. Lots of cases of mistreatment
against minorities or other groups historically
aren't reported because of power conflicts. I mean would you really
we comfortable with staying the same
thing if it was happening to children? I'm not stating the facts
would hope up in a court but just stating
to forget about them because there is no trail runs into this
problem of power conflicts. Not to mention
if they are stated then it runs into another problem of being traced
back to them which is a dangerous
in another light. Forgetting about this isn't a good idea.
You know there is a very famous loaded question journalists use to
generate headlines, to which there is no
correct yes or no answer. "Have you stopped beating your dog/wife/child yet?. If you answer yes you are damned as a dog/wife/child beater. If you answer no you are damned as a dog/wife/child beater.
That's not what I stated. The problem for you is that your assuming that power doesn't speak in the case with RM but does for IBM. You have to show why RM should get a break but not IBM. You can't just play favors.
The difference in power between an individual and a corporation I had thought should be obvious. In case it is not I do have a personal definition I use. A corporation has all the rights of a person but has no human rights to speak of. That's why I think Stallman should be allowed the benefit of the doubt, as a person. His personal history seems to be one of family dysfunction and then finding comfort and direction in studies in computer science at university.
Mixing factual metaphors when someone's professional reputation is on the line, makes your question about children just over the top for me. I'm not sure which is most dangerous to democracy, innuendo whether legal or other, or actual slander and libel. So to answer your question, I never said forget about anything, I said do the research and make your arguments. I said this to someone who dismissed me entirely by editing my post in order to invalidate me, I guess as some sort of reactionary, instead of acknowledging that there may be more to this situation than meets the eye.
It's a sad fact of the internet and the newspeak of tabloid journalism, also known as yellow journalism apparently for the colour of the cheap paper those inflammatory statements were published on, that sensational stories sell copy or in the modern sense get you likes on twitter etc. It's a new kind of journalistic capitalism but journalistic capitalism all the same.
That's why I posted the link to someone who is digging deeper.
> > You choose to disbelieve them? After a pattern of behaviour that > multiple people have confirmed and talked about? > > > I can't disbelieve that which I can find no record of. What multiple people are you talking about? > > What I can do is check some facts, to the best of my abilities. This link I came across in my opinion has a more balanced view than yours. > > https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/ < https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/> < https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/ < https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/>> > > > > What are not rumors and innuendo are the historical facts on IBM, their influence, their power and powerful friends and most importantly their big ball of money which they spend on influenceing the influencers. > > > >> > >> I want to explicitly state this. RMS is a major reason free software > >> is where it is. RMS's contributions to free software are gigantic. > >> However, RMS cannot be a leader of our community if he continues to > >> isolate a significant population of prospective developers. RMS the > >> contributor - YES. RMS the leader - NO. > >> > >> RMS cannot be the poster child of our community if it is going to be > >> relevant in the future. > > > > > > This is where being the willing poster child of a charitable institution, used to raise funds, diverges from the science of truth and innovation. > > > > In the legal science of truth, a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. However, media and the media barons in conteol, crucify persons and their personas daily, just to make a buck. Sure but again your assuming being guilty in a court of law is better than being found guilty by the public. There is lots of evidence that the court system isn't as infallible as you think it is for both cultural and other reasons.
I never said I thought the court system was infallible. What I always try to say is that Canada is governed under the rule of law and nobody should be judged guilty without evidence and based on gossip, innuendo and worse, misstated and omitted facts. While again your assuming facts are the be all end on on this. Favors have to be interpreted and your stating that the legal system is better because that's how Canada is governed. That's my point you can't just appeal to authority like that you have to show why that's better. Your argument about IBM could be used against legal systems so being consistent shouldn't you be attacking the legal system as well?
You keep using the word favors and indicate they should be interpreted. I don't follow this line of reasoning. As for attacking the legal system as well. I'm not attacking anything, I'm defending the right to free thinking and free speech, at least I thought I was.
> > > > And no one has charged RMS with a crime. All we are saying
is, he is
> not representative of a majority of us, and we don't want him
to
> represent us. Some of us are minorities who have heard racist > statements being made by prominent folks in the community and
have
> made us feel our contributions are not valued. It is not hard
to
> believe after that experience that other prominent folks can
be
> sexist. RMS has not stepped up and owned up to his actions and > apologized. I have no problem with people growing. We all make > mistakes. But doubling down like this, well I don't want to
be a part
> of that community. And the reality is, there are tons of
"other"
> people who will not join in and we will never know. So yes,
if the
> choice is between thousands of those people, having a diverse > community, growing and being relevant to the world, I would
rather RMS
> step down than us lose this community. And I would rather you
leave
> the community if you think being more welcoming to other
voices is not
> important. We don't need your contributions at the risk of
alienating
> many more people. > > > Wow that last paragraph was a completely off the wall projection
of negative personal attributes towards RMS without a shred of evidence. I wasnt aware that Stallman was a deemed racist by association.
> > Its bad enough that someone on this list deemed him to be an
incel. Just type incel into google and you can see the links to terrorisim.
> > > Again, I restate this. RMS as a contributor - yes. RMS as a
leader -
> no. He doesn't represent me, and he certainly doesn't
represent the
> community of foss developers. This is a discussion about RMS,
not the
> conspiracy theories you are throwing about. > > > I first came across evidence of survelance capitalisim at a tlug
meeting in 2003 or so. So its not a theory to me, it is a fact of the corporation and its predatory nature in order to make profits for the investors.
> > > What conspiracy theories are you talking about. > > Survelance capitalisim is a real thing, funded by real
corporations. Stallman is aware of this and pissed lots of people off by talking about it in public.
> > Or are you saying IBM didn't develop software and market it to
both sides of the conflict in WW2. Thats not a conspiracy its business as usual for a global corporation like them.
> > Just to be clear, IBM weren't the only ones who made money from
the holocost. You should read the quote about remembering the past on this site.
https://www.holocaustcentre.com/HEW> <https://www.holocaustcentre.com/HEW <https://www.holocaustcentre.com/HEW>>
> > Coca Cola sold its german equipment to a company now known as
Fanta.
> > Ford motors provided truck engines and parts to germany. > > Through a blind company Standard Oil provided their propritarey
additive for gasoline to the Luftwaffe for their planes so they performed better at altitude.
> > So let me phrase this issue a little differently once again. > > What part of the money which IBM used to purchase Red Hat, that
came from investments made by IBM, after they obscenely profited by trading with the Nazis, is the amount you would be willing to use to fund your work, voluntarily or paid at Red Hat today.
> So that's a logical fallacy Russell you can't just attack someone's
opinion by overextending it like that.
You think that's a logical fallacy and an over extension, how so? Is it
because a multinational corporation can spin itself off into other corporations and sever the past associations or change operations to a country of convenience, or all the other tools of making big money?
Or don't you believe IBM made money from both sides of the second world
war? That's pretty much a historical fact for survivors of the holocaust.
So I'm still trying to figure out what conspiracy theory I was accused
of propagating. I don't think what I said about IBM's acquisition of Red Hat is
a logical fallacy at all. I think it's all just business as usual for dominating US based corporate profiteers.
But that's just my opinion. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy Your comparing IBM's holocaust to RM's case meaning one is easier to defend.
That's my final thoughts on this, Nick
Thanks for sharing.
Nick > > Dhaval > > Russell > > “Th’ newspaper does ivrything f’r us. It runs th’ polis foorce
an’ th’ banks, commands th’ milishy, controls th’ ligislachure, baptizes th’ young, marries th’ foolish, comforts th’ afflicted, afflicts th’ comfortable, buries th’ dead an’ roasts thim aftherward.” F. P. Dunne
> > --- > Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org <mailto:talk@gtalug.org
> Unsubscribe from this mailing list
https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk < https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk>
>
-- Russell
-- Russell