Richard Stallman and the GNU project

Posted Oct 8, 2019 14:12 UTC (Tue) by LtWorf (subscriber, #124958)
In reply to: Richard Stallman and the GNU project by smurf
Parent article: Richard Stallman and the GNU project

> That's your problem. Kindly let the rest of us get on with at least trying to make our corner of the world more inclusive.

So inclusive by exclusiveness.

Seriously, it'd be really nice to know if there is some hard data on demographics of contributions to see if code of conducts and such have actually changed anything.

Richard Stallman and the GNU project

Posted Oct 8, 2019 14:29 UTC (Tue) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]

> Seriously, it'd be really nice to know if there is some hard data on demographics of contributions to see if code of conducts and such have actually changed anything.

I doubt it. Not because CoCs or such are inherently useless, but because this the sort of social change that happens on a generational timeline.

Richard Stallman and the GNU project

Posted Oct 8, 2019 22:18 UTC (Tue) by ebassi (subscriber, #54855) [Link] (12 responses)

So inclusive by exclusiveness.

I'd recommend you read the paradox of tolerance.

it'd be really nice to know if there is some hard data on demographics of contributions to see if code of conducts and such have actually changed anything.

There's a whole study on the topic.

Richard Stallman and the GNU project

Posted Oct 9, 2019 0:41 UTC (Wed) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link] (8 responses)

I'd recommend you read the paradox of tolerance.

I think this is probably the best response I've ever seen to the general idea of the paradox of tolerance: Tolerance is not a moral precept. The basic argument is that tolerance is not a moral absolute. It is a social agreement intended to allow different people to live together, and people who violate that agreement lose its protection by doing so.

Richard Stallman and the GNU project

Posted Oct 9, 2019 12:52 UTC (Wed) by LtWorf (subscriber, #124958) [Link] (7 responses)

Remember we are not talking about nazis here, we are talking about unappreciated jokes or advances.

Can you point me at one human being which has never said an unfunny joke or made one unwelcome advance? I don't think that exists.

Please remember the context.

Richard Stallman and the GNU project

Posted Oct 9, 2019 14:02 UTC (Wed) by tao (subscriber, #17563) [Link] (6 responses)

I've made inappropriate jokes and unwelcome advances. But when told they were inappropriate I took a hint. It affected my future actions. That is what's lacking in this case. Making mistakes *can* be acceptable if you learn from them instead of repeating them over and over.

Richard Stallman and the GNU project

Posted Oct 9, 2019 16:13 UTC (Wed) by LtWorf (subscriber, #124958) [Link] (3 responses)

But what is completely unacceptable for one person could be a very welcome advance to someone else.

I agree that persisting on the same person is certainly unwanted behaviour, but surely you don't expect someone to never make any jokes or advances ever because they upset one person.

And I haven't seen reports indicating that the same person was harassed more than once.

Richard Stallman and the GNU project

Posted Oct 9, 2019 16:18 UTC (Wed) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link] (2 responses)

There's still a pattern - if the majority of people reject your advances, then at some point, you have to accept that what you're doing is unwanted to most people, and find a better way to target your advances.

Similar applies if you tell your racist joke to lots of different people, and they're all uncomfortable - the fact that each person only hears it once from you does not mean that you are faultless, rather it means that you're failing to learn from the failures.

Richard Stallman and the GNU project

Posted Oct 9, 2019 17:13 UTC (Wed) by LtWorf (subscriber, #124958) [Link] (1 responses)

> There's still a pattern - if the majority of people reject your advances, then at some point, you have to accept that what you're doing is unwanted to most people

I agree. Any indications that this was not the case for rms?

And even then, not everyone is skilled on social cues, so it might take a while before they independently figure it out.

If they are calmly explained what they did wrong it is another situation.

Richard Stallman and the GNU project

Posted Oct 9, 2019 20:16 UTC (Wed) by karkhaz (subscriber, #99844) [Link]

> If they are calmly explained what they did wrong it is another situation.

mjg59 and dkg both stated that they have already done so on several occasions in a different thread: https://lwn.net/Articles/800042/

Richard Stallman and the GNU project

Posted Oct 11, 2019 10:55 UTC (Fri) by zenaan (guest, #3778) [Link] (1 responses)

> I've made inappropriate jokes and unwelcome advances. But when told they were inappropriate I took a hint. It affected my future actions. That is what's lacking in this [RMS] case.

Let me repeat the relevant part of the quote:

"That is what's lacking in this case."

Over and over, and over, again, allegations and innuendo are made, assumed, propagated, in this massive and public discussion re RMS.

Facts, people, facts are what you need if you want to shift the world and if you want anything resembling due process and not a mob rule witch hunt!

Richard Stallman and the GNU project

Posted Oct 13, 2019 23:54 UTC (Sun) by flussence (guest, #85566) [Link]

The relevant part of the quote is the entire quote.

Between you quoting it and you selecting a soundbite from it to push your agenda (two lines), you seem to have forgotten the rest of what it said. Go back and read it again, until you understand.

Richard Stallman and the GNU project

Posted Oct 9, 2019 11:48 UTC (Wed) by evad (subscriber, #60553) [Link]

From your link:

" In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise."

John Rawls (a philosopher) made it even more clear:

"While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."

As far as I am aware, none of this applies to the situation. We're not debating a dangerous movement/philosophy that wants to end tolerance - so the paradox of intolerance is not relevant here.

Richard Stallman and the GNU project

Posted Oct 10, 2019 20:47 UTC (Thu) by flussence (guest, #85566) [Link] (1 responses)

I'd recommend reading about the Petrie multiplier as well.

Especially for anyone claiming this is all about “opportunist political agitators” trying to “destroy” someone. That article turns six years old this week.

Richard Stallman and the GNU project

Posted Oct 10, 2019 22:31 UTC (Thu) by jebba (guest, #4439) [Link]

This is great read, thanks.