Very balanced take on the #Stallman debate:
I do not agree with all of it, but I can get behind the criticism of specific passages in the open letter and the judgment on the fitness for leadership of rms is shared.

@zacchiro Yeah; I appreciated that one as well. It noted several of the things about the open letter that I was extremely uncomfortable with, like citing items as absolutes or patterns with only one specific example. I'm aware, of course, through personal conversations, of other examples (and their numbers), but I get really hung up on rhetoric — a sword that has double (or more) edges and easily backfires. If I can mix those metaphors....

@zacchiro Just as importantly, I think that article does a good job of keeping focus on behavior and actions. Other critiques often slipped quickly between the list of objectionable actions and labelling RMS as person (if somebody "does" bad vs somebody "is" bad), which I think is rhetorically dangerous. i.e., once someone "is" bad, nothing they can do can restore them. When in reality, he could have changed his behavior, but he didn't. It feels less satisfying, but it's provable.


@zacchiro (Also I suspect that the "is" rhetoric probably stirs up the more vehement reactions and conspiracies, but that may just be entirely my imagination. Anyway, back to procrastinating....)

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!