And this here is the fundamental issue in this entire conversation. This is barely about RMS to some, and more about screwing over a section of the population that is disliked.
RMS cannot hold the position effectively without drastically reducing the FSF ability to complete their stated mission. Full stop. This has been demonstrated by the very fact that these conversations are happening, as loudly and as presently as they are. And the choice to keep him in place is either horribly shortsighted, or an in
This is barely about RMS to some, and more about screwing over a section of the population that is disliked
Exactly. And the failure for FSF, RMS, or anyone involved on that side to actually address this is why a lot of groups are putting a bit of distance between them and the FSF.
RMS cannot hold the position effectively without drastically reducing the FSF ability to complete their stated mission
The FSF is an advocacy group. If there are people who aren't listening, then you are absolutely fucking right that they will fail at their mission of outreach. You do not have outreach if you do not have groups of people listening to you.
an intentional statement of "fuck the snowflakes" rather than anything about the ability for the FSF to be effective
And as HanzoSpam has demonstrated, this is absolutely the case. I've heard time and time again p
Shows that people like this guy [slashdot.org] are unable to adapt and want to change the conversation from "what's best for the FSF" to "fuck a bunch of snowflakes".
This is a debate between people who are high on the agreeableness scale, and people who are low.
Low agreeable people are the creatives (also high openness), who go against the grain. They are individuals who generally don't care what other people think, and go off and have new and interesting ideas. They are the artists who move into a run-down part of a city and make art, they are the entrepreneurs, songwriters, and playrights.
High agreeable people are group-ists: you value is only to the group, your value
He's fine to have opinions. I mean Christ, I've got nothing wrong with him "having opinions". The thing is, he wants to be in a position to "spread his opinions" and so, the acceptability of his opinions is pretty much the fucking point.
Realize that the other side doesn't hold your opinion not because they're stupid or because they don't understand your point, it's because they're different people.
I'm NOT saying that anyone is stupid. Being different is fine. But being a leader requires a bit of buy in on your thinking, that's kind of how leadership works. The people listening need to believe what's coming out of your mouth hole in order for that leadership thing
But DON'T curtail his ability to interact with others.
There is a difference between just interacting and being a leader. I interact with people all the live long day, but at no point do I assume a position of leadership over those people I interact with.
If all he wants is to just mingle with people, fine by me. But being a leader is way different than just hanging out sharing your ideas casually.
It's not your place to judge
Yes, it's my place and your place and everyone else's place to judge. RMS is taking a public stance. That's what public stance means. To be judge by the public.
Then go listen to him then, no one is fucking stopping you. GNOME, KDE, X.org and so on don't have to listen to him and they have every fucking right to not listen to him just as much as you want to listen to him. So you go do you, but you can go fuck off with this bullshit of telling other people that they just need to fuck off with their first amendment right to say what they want to say about RMS. Clearly you've got "good enough for me, but kiss my ass for everyone else" and in reality that's just an
Again, he isn't there to lead anyone, his role is advisory. Seems to me that all the reasons people claim to want to get rid of him are actually baseless. He doesn't lead the FSF, he didn't harm anyone, didn't say pedophilia is good, all he did was offend someone who wanted to misuse the English language to justify their emotions by correcting them. Something a good advisor should do, ergo, he's doing a good job.
The only person who always got his work done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe.
The RMS "apology" sounds more like... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Good for him. Let the snowflakes go fuck themselves.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And this here is the fundamental issue in this entire conversation. This is barely about RMS to some, and more about screwing over a section of the population that is disliked.
RMS cannot hold the position effectively without drastically reducing the FSF ability to complete their stated mission. Full stop. This has been demonstrated by the very fact that these conversations are happening, as loudly and as presently as they are. And the choice to keep him in place is either horribly shortsighted, or an in
Re: (Score:4, Insightful)
This is barely about RMS to some, and more about screwing over a section of the population that is disliked
Exactly. And the failure for FSF, RMS, or anyone involved on that side to actually address this is why a lot of groups are putting a bit of distance between them and the FSF.
RMS cannot hold the position effectively without drastically reducing the FSF ability to complete their stated mission
The FSF is an advocacy group. If there are people who aren't listening, then you are absolutely fucking right that they will fail at their mission of outreach. You do not have outreach if you do not have groups of people listening to you.
an intentional statement of "fuck the snowflakes" rather than anything about the ability for the FSF to be effective
And as HanzoSpam has demonstrated, this is absolutely the case. I've heard time and time again p
Trait agreableness, from Big 5 personality (Score:5, Interesting)
Shows that people like this guy [slashdot.org] are unable to adapt and want to change the conversation from "what's best for the FSF" to "fuck a bunch of snowflakes".
This is a debate between people who are high on the agreeableness scale, and people who are low.
Low agreeable people are the creatives (also high openness), who go against the grain. They are individuals who generally don't care what other people think, and go off and have new and interesting ideas. They are the artists who move into a run-down part of a city and make art, they are the entrepreneurs, songwriters, and playrights.
High agreeable people are group-ists: you value is only to the group, your value
Re: (Score:4, Interesting)
Allow others to have their own opinions.
He's fine to have opinions. I mean Christ, I've got nothing wrong with him "having opinions". The thing is, he wants to be in a position to "spread his opinions" and so, the acceptability of his opinions is pretty much the fucking point.
Realize that the other side doesn't hold your opinion not because they're stupid or because they don't understand your point, it's because they're different people.
I'm NOT saying that anyone is stupid. Being different is fine. But being a leader requires a bit of buy in on your thinking, that's kind of how leadership works. The people listening need to believe what's coming out of your mouth hole in order for that leadership thing
Simply wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
Allow others to have their own opinions.
The thing is, he wants to be in a position to "spread his opinions" and so...
Yes, exactly.
Do not, do NOT prevent others from speaking. That's what you're tying to do, and it's wrong.
You don't like him, that's fine. You disagree with him, that's fine also. You don't want to interact with him? That's fine as well.
But DON'T curtail his ability to interact with others.
It's not your place to judge.
Cancel culture is simply wrong.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
But DON'T curtail his ability to interact with others.
There is a difference between just interacting and being a leader. I interact with people all the live long day, but at no point do I assume a position of leadership over those people I interact with.
If all he wants is to just mingle with people, fine by me. But being a leader is way different than just hanging out sharing your ideas casually.
It's not your place to judge
Yes, it's my place and your place and everyone else's place to judge. RMS is taking a public stance. That's what public stance means. To be judge by the public.
Re: (Score:2)
I want to listen to him
Then go listen to him then, no one is fucking stopping you. GNOME, KDE, X.org and so on don't have to listen to him and they have every fucking right to not listen to him just as much as you want to listen to him. So you go do you, but you can go fuck off with this bullshit of telling other people that they just need to fuck off with their first amendment right to say what they want to say about RMS. Clearly you've got "good enough for me, but kiss my ass for everyone else" and in reality that's just an
Re: (Score:2)