Richard Stallman has resigned from the Free Software Foundation and MIT

Quoting: Patolathere is no discussion

Quoting: PatolaBy the way, weren't you who said the comments should not even had been opened? That seems to prove exactly what I said, if it depended on you there was still another discussion cancelled. Fortunately was Liam who decided on this and so far it is still open.

Patola, aren't you a university graduate/academic (or do I remember this wrong)?
We are in a discussion you stated could not happen.
You're self-contradicting.

@monnef
May I suggest taking that conversation to the following thread: An Open Letter to Liam Dawe on Censorship

I predict that the topic at hand will generate a lengthy debate as it is without crossing the streams, so to speak.


Last edited by Salvatos on 17 September 2019 at 6:17 pm UTC

Quoting: Salvatos@monnef
May I suggest taking that conversation to the following thread: An Open Letter to Liam Dawe on Censorship

I predict that the topic at hand will generate a lengthy debate as it is without crossing the streams, so to speak.

Yes, please direct any more posts about closing/opening comments to the Forum. I will not discuss it here any more as it's nothing to do with the article.

Wait. So paraphrasing RMS he said "how about using a less guilt implying term" when it came to accusing a deceased (i.e. not able to protect themselves) faculty member that hasn't actually been accused by the victim of the crime... further along the discussion gave a dispute of a difference between moral and lawful definition of rape as an argument supporting that idea (because there are differences and if there weren't the law around the world would be unanimous on the subject)... and was forced to resign? For asking someone to change the wording of a Facebook event so that it'd represent the truth about the situation and not an opinion? Or am I missing something.

@monnef, I see you have strong opinions connected to many philosophical concepts. Most people (including me) are too lazy to try to have a respectful conversation discussing and explaining the intricacies of those concepts with each next guy who hasn't consumed enough varied sources (videos, or preferably books). I recommend learning more about the topics of ethics and morality. Otherwise we would spend a lot of energy and time arguing about basic concepts and questions that other, more smart people (philosophers) have already explained and solved. Since you will probably accuse my sources of having a liberal agenda (as almost all scientists and artists and thinking people seem to have), I recommend consuming information from varied sources, but being equally skeptical of all of them. And giving all of them a fair chance of explaining themselves. I don't expect you want to spend a lot of time though, so I will just mention a single video that deals with slightly related topics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ESU5ONMMxs&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNgK6MZucdYldNkMybYIHKR&index=29

Quoting: KithopKind of off-topic here, but I mean, 'mouth pieces of the public opinion because they want to get re-elected' is pretty much modus operandi for politics, isn't it?

It is, nobody likes it, yet we got so accustomed to it that we think it's better for everyone to follow that line of behavior. Makes no sense to me. That's why I'm baffled.

Quoting: KithopAlso, I'm a bit confused here, on 'shitty social rules'.

I'm referring to the behavior mentioned above as shitty social rule.

Quoting: KithopIf you're the spokesperson for an organization, be it a non-profit or a C-level exec of a megacorporation, the opinions you air in public reflect on that organization, no matter how much you try to qualify it as personal vs. professional. That's part of being a public figure and spokesperson. Yeah, it sucks [...]

I know how it sadly is right now. It shouldn't be. Everybody can decide on how to act: Make your footprint on society as a silent person, or someone who speaks out loud for what he thinks is right. I absolutely know how chilling the pressure can be, and that's why I wish it wouldn't be there.


Last edited by Doc Angelo on 17 September 2019 at 6:51 pm UTC

Quoting: tonRSometimes, it's better to keep your mouth shut than say something that will stirring up many hornet nests.

This is gold. Thank you.

Quoting: cprnWait. So paraphrasing RMS he said "how about using a less guilt implying term" when it came to accusing a deceased (i.e. not able to protect themselves) faculty member that hasn't actually been accused by the victim of the crime...

The word you are looking for is: allegedly

--

Blame the Media for being Entertainment and not Genuine Journalism or News.

Blame Richard Stallman for socially being a dumbass and putting his foot in his mouth (figurateively and literally apparantly from videos
:\ )

Everyone is debating whether or not the Individual's freedom of speech superceeds the freedom of a group.

I think it's clear that when an individual suchas RMS accepts a lofty position -- say at MIT: they agree to exchange some of their freedoms to fit the required behavior of the role.

This is why CoC exist, because at places like M.I.T. trending social political science issues are not within the scope of of the institutions mission and are just noise distracting from keeping a functional and productive forum.

The institutions mission and scope is technology.

RMS on the other hand has always personally had those additional activist opinions that are inappropriate in the context of his job.

He has "foot in mouth syndrome" and based on the things he has said the institution is probably affraid someday a RMS Scandal will come to light and they want nothing to do with it.

Edit: Also, the last thing MIT wants is for someone to stir the pot on what sounds like a possible Sexual Assault Scandal at MIT, they just fucking noped out of that -- so they took away any representation power he had in relation to their name so they don't come under fire for dumb shit he says and loose millions of dollars.

Edit 2: Also noteworthy, in regards to freedom of speech -- he had the right to say it, and he did. But he didn't have the right to say it and keep his privilege of position partially representing M.I.T.

Freedom of Speech and Responsibility of Leadership are somewhat mutually exclusive, this is why Liam Dawe is held to a higher standard than the rest of us plebs and we can get away saying things he could NEVER say from his podium and come away completely unscathed. It's a shitty thing, and bless him for doing what he does, but it's the truth.


Last edited by ElectricPrism on 17 September 2019 at 7:18 pm UTC

Quoting: GustyGhostDon't be surprised if in the next few days, articles are published detailing: John Smith, CEO/PR Rep/Analyst/whatever of Microsoft has graciously assumed the role of president of the FSF.

This is exactly what I think, too.
There is a lot more going on behind the scenes.

I also read every day linux news form "lxer.com". There you can read some more "facts" what is going on at FSF - I really don't like it.
I simply can't understand how it is possible that such companies like MS or Apple can even get a seat at FSF?! Something bad is going on IMHO.

Quoting: johndoe

Quoting: GustyGhostDon't be surprised if in the next few days, articles are published detailing: John Smith, CEO/PR Rep/Analyst/whatever of Microsoft has graciously assumed the role of president of the FSF.

This is exactly what I think, too.
There is a lot more going on behind the scenes.

I also read every day linux news form "lxer.com". There you can read some more "facts" what is going on at FSF - I really don't like it.
I simply can't understand how it is possible that such companies like MS or Apple can even get a seat at FSF?! Something bad is going on IMHO.

Frankly, I think that's tin-foil hat level stuff there.

I'm not sure if this can not be understood as some kind of an insult.