GNU misc bullshit - Andy Wingo
Andy Wingo used some realy strong words
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2020-02/msg00465.html
GNU misc bullshit - Andy Wingo
> In the meantime I think that GNU maintainers that are unhappy with the present situation have to effectively treat the more official leadership lines as damage, and route around them.
That's a pretty good way to put it, I think.
GNU misc bullshit - Andy Wingo
it sounds like matter of factly but I think this is huge
Actually it's an out out. The reasons for our unsatisfactions be removed, or else... what ?
This could be the precondition for a schism
Interestingly, Mike Gerwitz replies about himself, not about anything else
Andy Wingo had been clear on his personal blog already but on the mailing list it impresses me more. somehow
GNU misc bullshit - Andy Wingo
@AbbieNormal The schism is already there. There are people who prefer to keep their innocent worldview and claim that they can go on some more without any moderation, and people who call bullshit on that and ask for direct action.
What we are seeing right now is the process of that schism becoming apparent and obvious, with the issue of moderation being the dividing line.
GNU is already divided, we're just beginning to see the effects of it now.
GNU misc bullshit - Andy Wingo
GNU misc bullshit - Andy Wingo
@AbbieNormal I could call it fascinating, but it does not surprise me much. Not all of GNU contributors and members share Stallman's childlike idealism on social matters, even if they share his childlike idealism on software matters; we see this becoming evident now.
So basically you think #FreeSoftware (or #GNU?) was/has been/is childish.
Or maybe #Stallman is childish.
Or maybe #hackers are childish.
Let's assume you are right: what's the "adult" alternative? #LinuxFoundation? #Mozilla? #Google?
@Shamar To be precise, I think that the idea that everyone can get along with each other and therefore moderation is unnecessary in all situations is childish. It also means that GNU, which AFAIK follows this ideal quite heavily, is currently facing the results of following it.
Your extrapolation of my words onto #FreeSoftware or #hackers sounds like attacking a straw man. In the discussion with @AbbieNormal I literally said that FOSS ideals are orthogonal to moderation issues.
Sorry didn't intend to make you feel attacked. I've had a bad day in a bad period.
Also I've read your words in my reference framework, and that didn't helped either.
Yet, apparently our perspectives are very different, and assuming we are both in good faith, I wonder why and if we can learn something interesting from each other.
Since #freedom is the core value of #FreeSoftware (as defined by #Stallman and #GNU, not me: I think freedom is ancillary to #curiosity, but let's take this for a different debate 😉) freedom of expression and code freedoms are not orthogonal at all: software is a form of expression and we want to keep it free just like any other form.
Yet, if this is childish, I'd like to know what's the "adult" alternative.
And if they are orthogonal (of which I'm not convinced at all), I'd like to know the adult alternatives to each of them, to construct your ideal "adult" value system.
@Shamar @AbbieNormal Yes, thank you; no harm was done, I am also having an exhausting day that makes it hard to focus. [>>]
@Shamar @AbbieNormal The GNU definition of freedom is based on freedom of expression, and therefore one can argue that anything that infriges on that freedom is non-free. One issue with that approach is that one person's expression can harm another person's well-being, and therefore, the ability to express themselves - this makes freedom of expression possibly nonfree and contradictory from its very definition! [>>]
@Shamar @AbbieNormal One solution to that issue that has recently surfaced is a different kind of freedom - a freedom of muting, or filtering, or moderating, or, in other words, limiting what and who I am interacting with. In a way, this is a form of my expression, too, isn't it? [>>]
@Shamar @AbbieNormal The difference between these two definitions can be summed up in the following: you are free to speak, and I am free to not listen. You are free to submit your posts to my mailing lists, and I am free to delete them. If a given community trusts me, I am free to set up rules for what is allowed in that community, and you are allowed to disregard them, and I am allowed to execute the consequences for that, as defined by the community, or me, as its trusted moderator.
As far as I can tell, there is an unsound logical step in this reasoning.
The freedom to #speak and the freedom to #ignore are both #individual freedoms: they counters one another and are so equivalent that they can both be contemporarily used in a community of #peers.
I totally agree that these are fundamental freedoms we should all learn to respect.
But then you add #trust to turn ONE of these freedoms to a form of #power: the freedom to ignore becomes freedom to mute.
Moreover such power is not over an individual, but over a community: when a moderator #censor a user, he doesn't just restrict the freedom to speech of such user, but he is also restricting the freedom to listen of ALL other users. AND by doing so, the moderator also restrict their freedom to ignore.
So such power over a community is never balanced with the freedoms of individuals.
To me, trust can justify power only if its scope is very well delimited and if its overly easy to clearly identify and instantly dethrone whoever abuse such power.
I'm not sure that EVERY
communication channel of GNU provides such guarantee.
Does gnu-MISC-discuss provide such clearly defined scope?
the abuse of power and the censorship are happening already
In fact, censorship can happen by excess of communication
The so called censorship by noise
If you search on line you' ll find some interesting materials
The idea that allowing every word, even the most vitriolic, is the highest level of freeodom achievable is naive
What will happen is that who screams the most will make all decent people fly
And that' s what's happening already on the public GNU mailing lists
the abuse of power is already going on and you don' t realize that because you' re among the priviledged and you're not damaged by it
But tons of women have expressed disgust for the GNU environment
Those are the people being censored
Also men who feel disgusted by some words, like when pathetic men scream that they do real work and women get recognition just because hey' re women, not because they matter
I read his in the misc mailing list myself and that's just an example
That' s a gatuitous attack on women and actual censorship
GNU shouldn't be the home of the small men
and this idea of the pure freedom serves that goal
It's like free markets. They don' t exist in nature. Regulation is necessary
Because lack of regulation will end up in oppression
You don' t get the because you' re not among the oppressed
there should be a mailing list opened to writing only to GNU stakeholders and open to reading by all
The fact that random freedom taliban go there to harass people doing the actual work is unfair and counterproducive
Also it's requiring that people doing nothing dictate decades old mantainers what to do
@AbbieNormal @Shamar One could say that such moderation meets the exact definition of a spam filter, where spam is understood as unwanted an unsolicited messages. The users trust the filter to perform in a way they expect well enough to have a nice experience using the service.
Do you use a spam filter on your mail client? Does your mail server check SPF, DKIM, and/or DMARC information for incoming mail? Does it validate incoming mail against spam domain blacklists?
If yes, why?
I can ensure you I care about oppressed people, just like you do.
So why we disagree on the way to maximize actual freedom?
I think that the fundamental issue is about context.
Whenever there are people oppressed there are oppressors that get advantage from the #oppression itself. Usually they rationalize such oppression as natural, necessary and so on. As #Freire used to say, the oppressed people also tend to internalize the oppression so much that they actively work to preserve it.
Now, you might argue that I'm an oppressed myself defending my oppression or that I'm an oppressor defending something that give me some sort of advantage.
But I'm not from any of the oppressed groups that populate US-people remorse: I'm not a woman, I'm not gay, I'm not a person of colour and so on... I've been part of oppressed groups that were oppressed in Italy, but apparently this doesn't qualify me as an oppressed these day.
So maybe I'm an oppressor?
I'd say I'm not, as I've never joined gnu-misc-discuss (or any other GNU list, as far as I can remember), I'm not a #Stallman fanboy (I think that he got #freesoftware wrong!) and I don't even like many of his past arguments. What could I have to gain as an oppressor?
But I see a logical contradiction in what you both say (not this specific post) followed by a rationalization of it.
You argue that giving too much freedom cause oppression so you need a power structure and censorship to counter this effect.
Note that I'm in no way against moderation, but I think it should always be bound to the context. The context of gnu-misc is only defined by #freedom of #GNU. So much that Andy Wingo is free to openly attack the current moderators.
And indeed, if you look at what's happening from this perspective, you can see who is gaining trust and visibility and who is, ultimately, looking for power.
Now I'm pretty sure that Andy will succeed to break GNU and will build something new that is more "oppressed friendly" (for the oppressed that he like and who like him).
BUT they won't solve the issue you are talking about: they will just collect the power to setup a more centralized oppression system, just against someone else (weirdos anyone?).
that's a fact of life
weirdos and other oppressed categories probably can' t live together in the same organization
so if the future GNU will be less weirdos friendly, weirdos will have to set up heir own place in the way that they deem fit
That GNU is for all is illusory. Currently it's not
The current GNU is for weirdos (if not worse)
But weirdos will be free to set up spaces with weirdos friendly rules
> weirdos (if not worse)
Try to restate this with another oppressed category.
> women (if not worse)
> black (if not worse)
> gay (if not worse)
> gypsy (if not worse)
Are you fine with what you wrote?
I'm not.
To me, such pattern sounds very offensive: being weird is not a defect, just like being woman, black, gay, gypsy or whatever.
> that's a fact of life
No, this is just what your own culture qualify as a fact of life. In another age you would have taken slavery as a fact of life (from ancient Egypt to early US).
> The current GNU is for weirdos
Let's assume this is true.
So someone who today is less weird to #mainstream people decided that weirdos do not deserve access to what they created.
But think for a moment about what is "weird" to mainstream people.
Women who wanted to vote were very weird in the early 20th century.
To many, #LGBTIQ looks very weird.
One could even argue that, from a sociological perspective, all oppressed groups you like spawn from the ever changing and always marginalized group of weirdos.
So you are arguing to take a space from a weak and unrecognised marginalized group to give it to stronger ones who deserve it more.
And, you argue, that's because these stronger marginalized groups have less spaces to meet and organize.
Are you sure this is wise?
You are reproducing the oppression that you suffered.
Even if you don't give a shit about weirdos, are you sure this is politically wise?
When you will win against weirdos you'll open the road for other to win against you!
> Currently, the class of oppressed Andy likes (and I do too) have very few places
And weirdos?
How many place we have?
You know why Andy want to divide and conquer #GNU?
Because it was successful.
If it was just a weird place, he wouldn't give a shit.
But since it's successful, well visible and well known, he (and people like him) want to overtake it.
you just made up a huge straw man
With "if not worse" I didn' t mean to disparage weirdos
I meant to disparage maschilists, people hostile to women, to lgbt etc
Stallmann himself managed to make GNU impracticable to most women and to some extent also to lgbt people
Much of the victimhood expressed by oppressors on the gnu misc mailing list is outright discriminatory and right wing
So I believe you have no title to feel offended at all
Also weirdos didn't create GNU
In fact the mantainers who signed the document that is aoutraging the Stallman crowd have been devoted their lives to GNU and they have been raising the problem of the ridiulous governance model for at least 10 years
"that they created" is an astounding expression of presumption and blindeness towards people othen than you and your likes
>> So you are arguing to take a space from a weak and unrecognised marginalized group to give it to stronger ones who deserve it more
this is pure victimhood juice
you are delirious
pampered white straight males are marginalized and the stronger groups are women and lgbt ?
You are being delirious
Exactly the same way when you say that weirdos created GNU
Ypu simply do not (want ?) to see other people
Oh one last thing
a community cannot be for nazis and jews
it cannot be for POC and racists
it can' t be fpr homophobes and lgbt people
it can't be for creeps like Staòòman and for women
To me this is a fact of life
If it' s cultural then what you are promoting is harassment, discrimination, segregation
Apparently you know the #Truth (TM).
Dogmas are not for hackers, so I'm not sure I'm able to follow all you said.
But you think I'm childish or what not, so it's even difficult to communicate on this ground.
Yet I'd suggest you to read this thread (and your posts) again and look where insults came from.
______
Just to clarify (I see you don't care, but other readers could be fooled by your depiction of my words): I didn't intend that slavery is comparable to the marginalization of weird people like me, #Stallman or #TerryADavis.
But I think that it's overly short-sighted for a marginalized group to marginalize a weaker one.
And being weird has nothing to do with people's gender or colour: it's just that you are far from what most people expect and want from you, so much that they find you "disturbing" in a way or another.
Weird people are always disturbing: we spread doubts.
So people who hold the #Truth (TM) don't want to live with us.
you depict yourself as liberators but you are simply oppressors
Stallmann is making women uncomfortable
that's the kind of "discomfort" you are touting
the one Trump exporessed when he said "grab them by the pussy"
You learned this retorical trick by the Russian propaganda
using the retoric of civil rights for oppression
And these are not insults. these are facts
Oibò. 😂
Sei italiano anche tu?
Ci conosciamo?
E' la prima volta che vengo definito "rossobruno", ma anche se l'hogià sentito in altri contesti (partito pirata) non mi è chiara la storia di questo termine. Se hai riferimenti sono felice di leggerli.
On the #QOTO instance I think you are reading its home page according to your prejudices.
@freemo once wrote a great post about the reasons behind QOTO and its policies.
I can't find it anymore, but QOTO is basically a place to learn from each other with an open mind.
That's why I find it actually great. I think that's how the #fediverse should be.
That's why I'm talking with you.
I'd like to _understand_ your perspective and whenever I see something I don't understand, I underline it to let you clarify.
This whole conversation looks like just biases being expressed.
Sure you can look at a ToS and misconstrue all sorts of stuff to assume it might mean hate speech or prejudice is tolerated, but in the end I dont see anyone actually pointing to anything anyone has said on QOTO that is oppressive or hateful or prejudice.
If someone is speaking in such a way that they are being respectful it means their top priority is not to insult, offend, or hurt the person they are talking to, that is the nature of being respectful. So if someone says something that may be oppressive, or racist if they are being respectful then by virtue of that fact it means it was accidental. It also means it presents an oppertunity for the person to learn and change that behavior (since obviously they have a motivation not to do harm). That is what we mean, and its kinda hard to misconstrue that as something evil IMO.
"unintentionallu harmful" is bullshit
The language in your TOS is clear, I'm not miscontruing anything
I asked my admin to block your toxic instance
@AbbieNormal I will contact your admin and try to follow up and see how we can come into compliance with your concerns. I'm sorry you feel that way and if you feel attacked I'm doubly sorry.
If you dont want to recognize that some people may sometimes cause harm unintentionally I dont know what to tell you, but I think its pretty clear that it happens sometimes.
and your TOS supplies coverup so it can happen again by the same people
take your sorry ass out of my reactions
@AbbieNormal No, if there is reason for us to think it isnt accidental, for example if it happens again as you state, we would ban them. We DO ban for hate speech as our ToS explicitly states...
Again do you actually have an example of anyone on our system actually participating in hate speech or is this all some abstract what if?
Anyway I will disengage with you, please dont contact me again either, thank you.
@Shamar @phoe
you are professional gaslighters
"you have the thruth TM"
No, we' re not the talibans, you are
"unpopular opinions expressed respectufully are ok" yeah right
We all know what this is
> for a marginalized group to marginalize a weaker one.
a weaker one ? Ah ah good one