These instances of being forced to step down from corporations due to non-adjudicated claims need to be prevented in corporate bylaws which cannot be amended or removed without re-incorporation.
This would provide needed backbone to board members. On Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 8:40 AM Zenaan Harkness <[email protected]> wrote: > Heated mega discussion ongoing at LWN at the moment. > > Here's a fundamental: > > > Richard Stallman and the GNU project > https://lwn.net/Articles/801933/ > Posted Oct 10, 2019 7:34 UTC (Thu) by zenaan (subscriber, #3778) > > "dkg": > >> Richard has persistently, willfully ignored the impact of his > >> sexist behavior (and dismissal of other contributors when they > >> disagree with him). Can you see why this is might be an > >> indicator that a leadership role isn't the right role for him if > >> we want a healthy, growing, vibrant community that will defend > >> everyone's Freedoms? > > "frostsnow": > > His leadership role was created and earned by his dedication to > > the cause of Free Software. I am not convinced that any of these > > agitators are both able and willing to bear that burden. > > OK "frostsnow" - I am fully on board with your position, and you > missed a fundamental - miss the fundamental and your "give me > convenience and bugger off with your freedom politics" opponents > WILL walk all over you! > > NOTE: The ground was laid by your opponent with these words: > "Richard has persistently, willfully ignored the impact of his > sexist behavior"; these words epitomize the endemic disregard for > freedom of speech in the world today, and the widespread > "snowflake" demands to "consider the feelings of those who hear or > might hear your words, and don't speak if they might get upset". > > This ground is absolutely abominable - on the surface it sounds > nice and fluffy "consider the emotions of others", but inherent is > the implicit DEMAND that the world cower to emotionally and/or > psychologically weak, damaged or ill people who need emotional > and/or psychological healing, counselling, etc, just to function in > society. > > SUCH IS AN UNFAIR TACTIC - a tactic used by those who cannot > properly defend their own position otherwise, a low blow against > basic human rights - the right to freedom of communication, which > implies the right to say things which other's may find offensive. > > Give up freedom for "safety or safe spaces", and you WILL > eventually lose both! > > The strong (e.g. RMS) are asked to water down everything they say > that might be "sexist" "racist" or in any other way "emotionally > too challenging", so that "those who are weak and timid might find > the safe space to contribute to our community". > > This demand, and the faux "consider the weak" so called > "principle", is the sledge hammer used to suppress free expression, > to suppress free speech, and to suppress views, positions and > arguments which "differ from mine, but I cannot defend without > unfair tactics". > > THIS IS AN ENDEMIC PROBLEM we see all throughout the mainstream > media today. > > The strong and the principled are pummeled into submission under > the excuse of "think of the weaklings" which is just the modern day > variant of "think of the children" - a pathetic attempt, usually > successful, to appeal to base or raw emotional instinctive > reactions thus bypassing the critical and reasoning faculties of > the human mind. > > "Discrimination" used to be an admired thing. Now discrimination is > "evil" in the popular consciousness, and those who discriminate are > evil patriarchy. > > And the true evil is that the vilification of "those who > discriminate" is effectively to justify evil - in this "RMS case", > the evil 'means' of "vilify RMS, humiliate him by causing his > resignation from the FSF which HE FOUNDED, and effectively destroy > his present career" is justified by the ends "we will finally have > our utopian 'community' where everyone is welcomed, even > emotionally crippled and psychologically ill humans - yay for > community!" > > RMS implicitly asks all who cross his path to be robust enough to > hear contra views, contra positions, to be willing to be challenged > in their thinking, to be possibly offended in the hearing of > something they did not expect to hear - words, not sticks and > stones! > > Those who cannot challenge RMS' "freedom politics" (really, his > principles so true, so fundamental that these principles cannot be > successfully challenged), have stooped to using snowflake > technology to belligerantly hammer Stallman and those like him into > the ground, whilst feeling powerful with the mob of much of the > main stream world behind them, heedless of the candles of truth and > righteousness they snuff out with their egotistical will to destroy > "freedom politics" in the name of "muh convenience and muh better > software." > > If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything. > > Create your world, > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 05:38:16PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 11:26:23AM -0400, Ric Moore wrote: > > > On 9/17/19 9:56 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > > > > > > > RMS, founder and originator of the Free Software Foundation, did not > > > > have sufficient support for his simple and straightforward words > > > > about words used to conflate or mislead readers (or listeners) about > > > > Epstein or anyone else for that matter, and RMS has now resigned from > > > > the FSF. > > > > > > Would you trust RMS to babysit your 8 year old daughter? I bet not. His > > > biggest problem is that he has spouted off for way too many years > without > > > being hauled to task for what comes forth from his mouth. He's an > idiot, plain > > > and simple, for ignoring "convention" and separating himself from > "polite > > > society". No need for me to go into detail, it's all just a google > away. Ric > > > > Actually yes and without hesitation - I hosted RMS in Sydney some 20 > > years ago (spent a few days with him in total), and despite him being > > a little "conversationally confronting", including to me personally, > > he was principled, precise, and caring of other humans, all to a > > fault. > > > > He gets taken the wrong way sometimes and I get that - haven't we > > all? > > > > So I did a google for "rms stallman egregious" and came up with the > > below -- all I can see is talk of "precise", email, discussion, and > > -implications- therein. > > > > And some people got upset or felt confronted and ultimately hold that > > RMS "should be taken down" and that "it's good RMS lost his job at > > the FSF, who gives a rat's arse if he founded it". > > > > Neither robust, nor permitting of robust conversations, nor > > "intellectually honest", as far as I can tell! > > > > > > I believe it is NOT appropriate that we lynch anyone merely for > > differing points of view! > > > > This is freedom of speech at its absolute most basic. > > > > Either we hold to the principle, or we are sluts to safe spaces, > > cowering pathetically to the snowflakes of the world. > > > > > > No, thank you, but no. Really, no! That is not me. > > > > > > Here's to the right of not only RMS, but you, I and everyone else, to > > say and argue for and against, whatetever they bloody well choose to. > > > > This is the world -I- want to live in. > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.reddit.com/r/StallmanWasRight/comments/d7v1kf/a_reflection_on_the_departure_of_rms/ > > > > > While it is true we should not treat Minsky unfairly, it was > > > not — and is not — a pressing concern, and by making it his > > > concern, RMS signaled clearly that it was much more important > > > to him than the question of the institution’s patterns of > > > problematic coddling of bad behavior. > > > > RMS did merely take part in a mailing list discussion, it's the > > media that blew it up. It's not like he stepped on a pedestal, > > creating big signals. It's about as public as talking to people in > > a coffee shop with a journalist eaves dropping in the background. > > > > It's a shame really, we can only have those slick politician like > > lizard tongue PR people in leading positions. The most important > > quality today is being dishonest and persuasive at the same time, > > getting away with it. > > > > That's how we got the corporate landscape today, that late stage > > capitalism where politics, media and industry are all alike, all > > keeping each other in position rather than in check, all infected > > with the disease of our times. It's disgusting, one ticket to the > > moon please... > > > > [And the 3rd comment, most poignant indeed:] > > > > I don't understand why society has accepted this concept of "you > > said a thing I don't like so you don't get to have a job anymore". > > Like what does one's personal opinions have to do with their job, > > as long as they're doing their job why does it matter. > > > > [And perhaps most telling - the "ba da bing, ba da BOOM":] > > > > Per Wikipedia, this guy [A KEY RECENT COMPLAINTANT ABOUT RMS] was > > fired by Stallman in 2001 for failing to perform any work or > > respond to emails. > > Did he last speak to Stallman 18 years ago? If not, when? > > I'd take this account with a huge grain of very salty salt! > > > > > > > https://www.reddit.com/r/badlinguistics/comments/cr2en6/i_generally_support_stallman_but_come_on/ > > > > > > > > > > > > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21055756 > > > > That's what makes me so furious at the morons who deplatformed RMS > > over some silly devil's advocate defense of Minsky on an internal > > mailing list. The guy has an important idea that he put most of > > his life into developing. In the process, he made programming much > > more inclusive than anyone could dream about in the days of > > proprietary operating system with compilers that sold for > > thousands of dollars. So even if having to deal with a difficult > > old man makes you feel a little less inclusive, it's not too crazy > > to give him some breaks. The kids who ran him out of town only > > know how to destroy, not how to create anything comparable to what > > he did. > > > > ... > > It wasn't just this incident. RMS alienated so many women from > > open source and free software over the last 30 years, and we've > > lost all of those potential contributions. He's been getting > > breaks for 30 years. > > > > That he has also done some very good things isn't a good > > argument for continuing to tolerate his harmful behaviour after > > he's been asked to fix it for literally decades, and hasn't. > > > > ... > > > Which things specifically, and in what way? > > > > Saying that we shouldn't call sexual assault "sexual assault", and > > implying that there's any way a rich, famous, 73-year-old man can > > "have sex with" (rape) a 17-year-old girl, whom he has extraordinary > > power over, and who, in in this case was his friend's trafficking > > victim. > > > > The idea that Minsky's "honour" is in any way more important than > > harm in what happened to Giuffre perpetuates rape culture. It > > perpetuates the idea that women are worth less than men, and that > > it's okay for famous men in CS to rape girls. That emboldens other > > rapists and makes CS very unwelcoming for rape victims. > > > > Minsky should have known. Implying there's any way what he did was > > okay creates an unwelcoming environment for women, especially young > > women and girls at MIT. > > > > (Background and links from > > https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21... ) > > > > ... > > > implying that there's any way a rich, famous, 73-year-old man > > > can "have sex with" (rape) a 17-year-old girl, whom he has > > > extraordinary power over, and who, in in this case was his > > > friend's trafficking victim. > > > > ...what are the scare quotes for? Is "have sex with" not a > > definitional superset of "rape"? As far as I can tell, Stallman > > does not assert that Giuffre was not raped, only that Minsky would > > probably not have known. (As far as he knew, she could equally > > have been one year older and legally, voluntarily engaged in > > prostitution...?) You could argue that (and I think that if Minsky > > did indeed have sex with her, you would have a very good case) > > that Minsky was extremely naive and/or irresponsible to not > > suspect anything amiss in the setting, but sexual (or any other) > > assault, in the view of many people, requires intent to harm > > someone against their will. > > > > Here, it seems that the intent, and hence the primary guilt for > > the assault, most likely was squarely with Epstein and his > > associates: if a gun salesman takes you to his shooting range and > > tells you to fire a weapon at a target that he actually secretly > > tied a person to the back of, and you shoot that person dead, you > > are not on the hook for murder even if you should really have > > known that something is off and recall hearing muffled screams > > from somewhere at one point in hindsight. > > > > > The idea that Minsky's "honour" is in any way more important > > > than harm in what happened to Giuffre > > > > Where did Stallman claim that? > > [NEVER GOT ANSWERED] > > >
