Neil's blog post, for those missing it: https://blog.halon.org.uk/2019/09/gnome-foundation-relationship-gnu-fsf/
For my part, I want to apologize to everyone involved in GNOME for not pushing GNOME to formally sever its ties with GNU a decade ago, which is the first time in my email archives I can find formal complaints about Richard's sexism. (His imperious 'I am the dictator of GNU, GNOME MUST OBEY ME' behavior leaves a nearly 20 year-long trail across my inbox as well.) Focusing on this particular offense is a mistake - there are two decades of offensive, problematic communication and ineffective leadership, of which this is only the latest. I'm glad Neil is taking that step now, am fully supportive, and very sorry that it took so long. Software freedom is central to who we are, and Richard's leadership of GNU has actively set back software freedom, both by running GNU like an ineffective personal fiefdom and by repeatedly offending many people who might have been fruitful contributors. I'm sad about this - there's an alternate history where GNOME is an active part of a strong, healthy GNU project. But GNU is neither of those things right now, and Richard is a huge part of it. It's long past time for us to send a message about it. Neil, I wonder if there's space for coordination with other "peripheral" GNU projects about this? It seems like individuals quitting their FSF membership was important to the board's action there, and perhaps organizations doing the same with GNU might be an effective way of sending the message there. Luis On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 8:10 AM Jake D. Parsons via foundation-list < foundation-list@gnome.org> wrote: > Greetings; > > I attached a text file with the text that gave me my basis for this > accusation > from Neil McGovern' s blog: Liberal Musings. > > I call for Neil McGovern to step down from his position as the Executive > Director of the GNOME Foundation for the betterment of software freedom, > basic civility in the community, ethics, and professionalism between the > community and the world at large. > > It is one thing for someone to not have reading comprehension skills and > it is a magnitude of another to personally jump on the bandwagon to defame, > criminally libel, and outright lie, about what RMS said in the infamous > letter. It is unethical and unprofessional for someone in an Executive > position to do so. Let me be very clear: the words used and how they were > used in this campaign against RMS are grounds for him to sue a lot of > people if he so choosed to do so. His opponents lacking his ethical rigour > know he won' t and mistake his virtue as a weakness and used criminal and > low brow methods against him. Very sore losers since they obviously cannot > argue him. > > First this is what Neil McGovern wrote: > > "This came after the president of the FSF made some pretty reprehensible > remarks saying that the “most plausible scenario is that [one of Epstein’s > underage victims] presented themselves as entirely willing” while being > trafficked." > > This poor victim was already trafficked Neil McGovern (your actions were > so despicable I refuse to call you with any civil salutation), Epstein was > prostituting her. Two separate crimes but you apparently picked one to care > about, the one that brings outrage and people stop analyzing what you are > saying as a whole based on emotion. As anyone who has lived on the > streets, or worked with street people knows, Mr.Stallman was perfectly > right in what he was saying. > > This can be easily observed by driving to a red light district and > pretending to be a client. There is also the thing called Stockholm > Syndrome where kidnapped females after release sympathize and defend their > kidnappers. Romans and the Sabines ~2, 600 years ago. It happens over and > over where the coerced is presented as willing. It is a very documented, > heavily researched, fact that is recognized from psychology too social > workers and your outrage of someone pointing out the obvious in the know > only shows it is you at fault for misinterpretation of easy adult reading > and then going overboard in your reaction. > > McGovern should have consulted prostitutes, rape victims, kidnap victims, > psychologists, people who have experience and professional credentials in > the subject matter before he unethically and unprofessionally threatens > another organization with "...Richard to step down from FSF and GNU and > let others continue in his stead. Should this not happen in a timely > manner, then I believe that severing the historical ties between GNOME, GNU > and the FSF is the only path forward." That is blackmail based on libel. > Two for two in criminal activity here and this is the Executive Director of > GNOME? The resignation of RMS only makes a point more solid; that Neil > McGovern used his professional office to further a personal, or corporate, > the source only known to him or insiders, agenda using a flash point that > had a good amount of social pressure as leverage. Or that his reading > comprehension skills are so low, acted rashly based on subjective pressures > instead of objective analysis makes him incompetent for the position. I > find that he had an anti-software freedom agenda and is willing to use > dirty and unethical tricks to be less insulting than the other which > implies stupidity. Either way it is a remarkable display of unethical and > unprofessional behaviour that should not be allowed in something as far > reaching in the GNOME Foundation and the cause of the effect does not > matter as much as removing the instigator. Neil McGovern with the aid of > those he supported sullied the reputation of the GNOME Foundation and the > community amongst the sober minded who usually are a silent majority. No, > Neil McGovern and the rest of the loud mouthed squeaky wheels you do not > speak for the majority. Especially when your actions weaken the cause and > hands our hard won freedoms to proprietary tyrants. > > Below I' am going to quote the disputed letter in full so people like Neil > McGovern in positions of responsibility but act like dirty politicians have > less chance to manipulate text for their own selfish goals: > > "The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin Minsky: > > “deceased AI ‘pioneer’ Marvin Minsky (who is accused of assaulting one of > Epstein’s victims)” > > The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. The term “sexual assault” is so > vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation: taking claims > that someone did X and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much > worse than X. > > The accusation quoted is a clear example of inflation. The reference > reports the claim that Minsky had sex with one of Epstein’s harem. (See > https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jeffrey-epstein-sex-trafficking-island-court-records-unsealed > .) > Let’s presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it). > > The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some > unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. > Only that they had sex. > > We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she > presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being > coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal > that from most of his associates. > > I’ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it is > absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation. > > Whatever conduct you want to criticize, you should describe it with a > specific term that avoids moral vagueness about the nature of the > criticism." > > Assault is an act of force through violence. Once again a professional > with experience and credentials will tell you that RMS was right. Assault > involves physical violence such as using physical force. I recommend > looking up Susan Ford, AKA Brice Taylor. There is videos of her online > speaking and her book Thanks For The Memories. This is one concrete example > of a pattern. She was prostituted by the elite but she never says she was > "assaulted" or by the rapers. These girl victims are trained to seduce so > it does not take much thought to assume they will present themselves as > willing when their fear of punishment/or programming is far greater than > what some armchair moralist thinks it should be in his chair far away and > disconnected. If those they are told to deceive and seduce do not use > violence then it is not assault, and saying so hides a far more serious and > heinous crime. A victim of the kind Epstien served collaborates what RMS > said in his email, a victim of the very same people and group that pimped > their mind controlled minion to Marvin Minsky to. Following the twisted > views of Neil McGovern and those attacking RMS; Susan Ford, and all the > victims of Epstien and his kind somehow defend Epstien and his kind when > telling of their experience. This is evil and gross, but I' am not the one > saying this. I' am defending truth from the mouth of survivors of this > horrific Satanic practice of the Elite as RMS valiantly did also. What kind > of twisted, evil, malicious, minds, take the experiences of real world > victims and use them as a human shield for politics'? Here is a case of the > accusers being worse than what they falsely accuse the innocent of being. > > The attack on RMS is the most relevant example that evil uses perception > to hide evil. Because of the lies, libel, and all the other shit slinging > around about what RMS said who knew from previous experience donkeys follow > carrots, that it is important words are used carefully and especially > before you accuse someone of horrendous things. Unless you are Neil > McGovern, then you just abuse your important position of an important > organization and criminally bear false witness stating you must do evil as > a good steward of the community. Any honest and capable lawyer will > recognize that RMS advocating the proper use of words was a prudent move > and perfectly legal, and of course it was moral as it is highly immoral to > accuse someone of supporting the rape of minors. > > Luckily we do not have to pay exorbitant amounts of money to hear what a > lawyer would say as we can consult a law dictionary ourselves. Here is the > definition of assault: > > https://thelawdictionary.org/assault/ > > As can be seen Neil McGovern' s accusations of what RMS said are not true > in the text itself and not true through legal definitions. This is a very > bad reflection upon GNOME to involve itself into partisan politics which > the organization has no role in and the basis to do so is an apparent > attack to weaken the resolve of the communities attack from proprietary > attackers by taking out a long standing leader, through deceit. The leader > upon whose work the GNOME Foundation rests. As honesty is essential to > freedom the use of deceiving tactics is a betrayal of the essence of > software freedom itself and civilization. > > The last sentence in the letter that has caused so much turmoil one would > think is common sense in a 'technical' community. RMS is saying to avoid > fuzzy logic, hyperbole, subjectivity, emotional control words the useful > idiots respond too. When a conduct is described through vague terms, or > misused outside of their definition, this obscurity lessons the immorality > of the crime. It leads to situations where the petty and unscrupulous use > this fuzziness as a weapon. Also, when you lesson the immorality of a crime > you do injustice to the victim. Once again political extremists have used > real victims as human shields for their cause and every time one does that > the real victim' s voice is taken a little less serious. > > The question is why is an employee of Google the Executive Director of the > GNOME Foundation? This is a conflict of interest, and one thing RMS never > did that Google did was hand over personal data so that thousands, if not > more, of Chinese were incarcerated. RMS fought for the privacy and software > rights of all and Google sold them to governments so they could operate and > make a profit. Or the heavy amount of censorship Google willingly > participates in while one of their employees plays the talking head with, > "One of the GNOME Foundation’s strategic goals is to be an exemplary > community in terms of diversity and inclusion. " So when an employee of > Google tries to play a moral righteous tune it sounds badly out of tune. > > It is sad that a portion of the technical community has forsaken a love of > truth and decided to follow the whimsical fashions of the social thought > police. > > I hope for a correction of a mistake is made and the GNOME Foundation > removes the Executive Director Neil McGovern or that Neil McGovern resigns > himself. If not it is decidingly in the favour of the observation that the > GNOME Foundation supports a radical anti-freedom advocate who is using his > office to further an anti-free software agenda. > _______________________________________________ > foundation-list mailing list > foundation-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list >
_______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
