[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


From: Alexandre François Garreau
Subject: RMS and GNU
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 06:11:24 +0100

Le lundi 4 novembre 2019 05:50:09 CET, vous avez écrit :
> 1 : of, relating to, or marked by hysteria hysterical conditions
> 2 : feeling or showing extreme and unrestrained emotion hysterical fans
> … the paper did not hesitate to appeal to racial passions in hysterical
> headlines and rabid editorials. — The New Yorker

Thank you!

So I guess it’s the second one, since the one is either recursive (then a 
tautology… what is hysteria otherwise?), either refers to a biological 
condition you were told wasn’t possible.

I guess you’re going to be better understood, maybe as less insulting, that 
way, so it’s more easy to keep the discussion on with more people in it rather 
than less…

Definitions helps keeping stuff less irrational)

Personally I think Sandra must have restrained her emotions as a bunch of 
still civil persons here.  The most notable thing was how she seemed 
misguided, and she didn’t explained herself much at the end (neither about the 
opinion change, nor about how an opinion can justify kicking a founder 
philosopher out of so much respected places).

So yes it must be irrational, but not to a “crazy” level I believe.  In the 
end each person has per principles, per axioms, that aren’t necessarily 
explained, and are prioritized so that to justify decisions, sometimes baked 
by the term “morality” (so to give a less arbitrary look and a more social 
one).  To her, opinions about pedophilia, like for so much people 
unfortunately, go beyond free speech, defense against slander/difamation, and 
maybe good of GNU, since she didn’t that much talked about rms’ capabilities 
of leading GNU, otherwise.  So they are prioritized (over defending rms).  For 
us, defending rms may be more a priority (over matching global thinking about 
these issues… including *past* thinking ><).  That may be irrational too (as 
we’re not prophets able to predict the future of free software (yet rms has, 
as already widely remarked, been a pretty good prophet in regards to 
predicting future until then). 

The question in the end is how can we agree for free software.

I believe Richard is doing nothing wrong and was anyway already prone to piss 
off and/or disgust some persons before just as well (like I commonly do, too), 
it has worked until now, it could work again a long more.  I’d be happy such 
persons might be kept in, because I like him, and being alike, I’d like not 
being kicked off one day for opinions or for being found disgusting or pissing 
off people.

On the other side, software hacking seems quite distant from global population 
thinking about mores/customs.  I doubt, like sometimes stated on twitter, 
people will really less use GNU software or free-software because of some past 
rms opinions (in the long run, that look sooooo distant).  Especially as 
because the discomfort that would could cause (I even doubt that’s nowadays 
possible… bash is shipped even on Windows nowadays…)… People already distant 
from our ideals, that we’d like to attract, are more often —unfortunately for 
them— prone to prefer comfort to morality.  And yet, the other, I hope, will 
know how to keep their freedom, I hope.

I just hope that won’t make more people argue in favor of BSD, LLVM and such, 
that would make people face greater risks to be trapped into proprietary 
software, and, worse, providing them better proprietary software and badder 
free software in the end…

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]