* Dmitry Alexandrov <321...@gmail.com> [2019-11-07 03:07]: > > I do not see how the aim of creating a harassment-free environment could be > > construed as making GNU a less welcoming place... > > In other words, the only real aim of your ‘social contract’ is to > impose that last paragraph about ‘harassment’ on everyone, while all > the software freedom stuff is just a decoration that should not be > taken seriously?
That is exactly what I see. It is agenda of those people who published the public shamings page, so it is further continuance and blatant attempt of corruption of already well organized GNU policies. "Social contract" has etymology coming from France, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract, "In moral and political philosophy, the social contract is a theory or model that originated during the Age of Enlightenment and usually concerns the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual. Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority (of the ruler, or to the decision of a majority) in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or maintenance of the social order" Thus it is "other type of politics" that is trying to enter the GNU project. The only politics for GNU project is free software politics. Introduction of Rousseau's concepts of social contract represent introduction of middle-age French politics into US based, freedom of speech based project named GNU. GNU is and was ahead of the future, it should not go back to French middle-age principles as described above. More food for thoughts from: https://medium.com/@MichaelRobertCaditz/hobbess-error-and-problems-with-social-contract-theory-%D6%98-bec8bf7ae13c "One, our only obligations are those defined in the social contract to which we’ve agreed. There are no moral obligations which are separate from (or override) our contractual obligations. A problem with this assumption is that it eliminates the distinction between morality and law; they become one in the same. But, we know that laws can be immoral." -- the above summarizes exactly what is the problem with the subtle agenda of defectors, they wish to impose new rules and by doing so, they would cause more damage and discourage contributions to GNU. There are reasons why GNU project is neutral and should remain neutral to any kind of other politics, including policing behavior of other people by means of social contracts. More quotes from: https://medium.com/@MichaelRobertCaditz/hobbess-error-and-problems-with-social-contract-theory-%D6%98-bec8bf7ae13c Two, social contracts are not inclusive of all. As Waller states, “If you can’t join in the contract, and you can’t live up to the demands of the contract, then you aren’t part of the moral community” and the above clarifies the contradiction to the purpose that GNU project is welcoming contributions from everybody. If it starts imposing "social contract", it would start changing direction of not being any more neutral, it would start becoming new type of Thoughtpolice. More food for thought: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contractarianism-contemporary/ "Social contract" is not any type of contract, it is coercion as it implies the consent. Consent is not mutual. That type of ruling is not of any use in GNU. Would GNU be a project of middle-age France, I would say that is best they could do at the time, and Social Contract was one of their solutions. Etymology does matter. Fundamental principles of terms like "social contract" do matter. We are in 21st century. Not in middle-age. GNU project need no social contract, it is funny seeing people editing a "social contract" implying this way to the public that it is some kind of official GNU stance, while it is not. Jean
