Re: Support RMS> to Deb, all

[Danny Spitzberg]

   On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 10:30 PM <[1]quiliro@riseup.net> wrote:

     Danny Spitzberg <[2]stationaery@gmail.com> writes:
     > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 9:34 PM <[3]quiliro@riseup.net> wrote:
     >
     >  Danny Spitzberg <[4]stationaery@gmail.com> writes:
     >
     >  > A great deal of assertions are flying around this list.
     >  >
     >  > People are selectively ignoring dozens of personal stories and
     >  > experiences, apparently assuming it is all a massive conspiracy
     that
     >  > has been boiling for decades. That seems to prevent productive
     >  > communication, and it adds to an atmosphere that prevents happy
     >  > hacking.
     >
     >  No. People just feel that some persons should not control others'
     >  decisions by way of harrassment.
     >
     >  I did not receive the below email. It is not in my spam directory
     >  either. I will respond to it inline.
     >
     >  > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 6:13 PM <[5]quiliro@riseup.net> wrote:
     >  >
     >  > Deb Nicholson <[6]deb@eximiousproductions.com> writes:
     >  >
     >  > > Gregor could've saved us all a ton of time and just said that
     he doesn't
     >  > > care if women, or really anyone who would rather not be
     bullied,
     >  > > participates in free software.
     >  >
     >  > I feel you are bullying us, Deb.
     >  >
     >  > In what way do you feel bullied?
     >
     >  You keep insisting in imposing your views. They are clear. Some
     people
     >  agree and others don't. Insisting gets you nowhere. It is firing
     up
     >  the environment. It is making people get divided. If that is what
     you
     >  wanted, congratulations because you have achieved it. It shows
     who is
     >  who in the end.
     >
     >  You also keep accusing RMS without hard proof.
     >
     > What counts as "hard proof," a written testimony signed by a
     lawyer or notary public?
     Hard proof for asking him to step down would be that those people he
     has
     scared from activism would promote freedom and not open source.
     Another hard proof would be that they use free software in their
     machines and not just pieces of free software.
     Another hard proof would be that they resist corporations more than
     RMS.
     Another hard proof would be that they would have rejected as much
     money
     as him from corporations, instead of working for them.

   What you are saying so far is that people's grievances about personal
   and organizational dynamics are **only** valid if they make substantial
   contributions to advancing free/libre software and/or fighting
   extractive for-profit corporations.

     Another hard proof would be that they work for consensus in the
     community, not division (like corporations want).

   It is unkind of you to dismiss the efforts of many like Deb who over
   the years have tried time and again to propose interventions and seek
   consensus, to label it all "division" and "attacks."

     I can go on with the list indefinitely.

   This is your list of what counts as "hard proof"? In that case, perhaps
   we need to define our terms; I expected you to say something like
   "evidence -- particularly documentation or photo or video of harm or
   dysfunction, submitted under oath, and confirmed by at least one
   third-party."

     But I am getting tired of
     distracting my work on HyperbolaBSD.  Many hackers are being
     recruited
     and guided for learning to write the new kernel.

     > More importantly: why do you doubt what Deb says, and what so many
     other women and femme individuals say? Do you think Deb stands to
     benefit financially? (See below for a point
     > about the original "Witch Trials")
     >
     >  Those are the ways I have felt bullied by you because I am part
     of the
     >  community and because I have studied the facts of the case. I
     suggest
     >  you take the legal route, if you really have a case against FSF
     or
     >  against RMS. Stop the harrassment to the community and stop
     dividing
     >  the movement.
     >
     > It saddens me that you continue to attempt to suppress these
     > conversations, instead of offering anything constructive -- as so
     many
     > others have done, with grace. Like Aaron and Thomas and so on.
     (Thank
     > you all for that!)
     I am not responsible for your happiness.  I have offered solutions.
     But
     you will not take them.  Harrassment continues.

   What you've offered would not **solve** the problem of people finding
   it difficult or impossible to be in the community around FSF. However,
   I can see how it would help ignore it, which I suppose can be helpful
   for some.

     >  If you really want to help the free software movement, look for
     common
     >  objectives, not cancelling people. Work with what you can of RMS,
     >  instead of focusing on what he is not able to provide for your
     >  objectives. If you have no common objectives, work with others
     instead
     >  of continuing this divisive attitude.
     >
     >  > Should I abandon my values and stop promoting freedom?
     >  >
     >  > My understanding is that Deb expilained an important pattern of
     >  > responses by many people who have the right to their
     psychological and
     >  > personal safety in community spaces. So this does strike me as
     >  > somewhat ironic.
     >
     >  It is ok to express those feelings. It is not ok to harrass by
     >  insistence on something that she knows will not be accepted for
     whatever
     >  reason and making us look gloomy. It is not ok pressing others to
     >  persecute people for their thoughts and expressions.
     >
     > These comments are clearly being shared in the interest of
     improving
     > the community. It's a shame you can't see that. But I can say
     > personally that I've benefited immensely from seeing these
     narratives
     > emerge, and the vision has been inspiring. We can treat people
     better
     > -- up to a point.
     Attacks are never in the benefit of the community.  They divide it
     and
     benefit corporations.

   Yes indeed. Some say, "debate ideas, not people." We might say here,
   "dismantle unhealthy dynamics that result in fear and harm, don't
   attack people."

     >  We are not OK with a witch hunt. This was in the way it used to
     be in
     >  Massachusets. But witch hunts are a thing of the past ...
     >
     > Do you know the actual history of witch hunts? They started
     because
     > men who owned land and were in power got "called out" by women for
     > adultery, philandering, and illicit business dealings. They talked
     > amongst themselves, as women tend to in communities, and word got
     > out. And as a way of seeking retribution, these same men began
     rumors
     > that the women were evil and needed to be killed, by fire. And the
     > rest you probably know.
     Interesting story.  There are male witches and female witches.  The
     gender does not matter.  There is persecution for a hidden agenda.
     Follow the money and the beneficiaries, so you can find the hidden
     agenda.

   Ideally, yes -- all people are equal and get equal treatment, dignity,
   respect, power, wealth, and life.
   And, as you suggest -- women in the earlier centuries were far less
   powerful than (land-owning) men. Follow the money.
   And in our context, yet again, people who are not in positions of power
   -- serving on boards of nonprofits, as staff, etc. -- are writing their
   narratives, ending their donations, and leaving FSF to collaborate
   elsewhere. If you've noticed **the vast majority** of them are women/
   identify as female.
   For a much more interesting review of the scholarship on this topic,
   see this article: "Most witches are women, because witch hunts were all
   about persecuting the
   powerless" [7]https://theconversation.com/most-witches-are-women-becaus
   e-witch-hunts-were-all-about-persecuting-the-powerless-125427
   An excerpt:
   “Witch hunt” – it’s a refrain used to deride everything from
   impeachment inquiries and sexual assault investigations to allegations
   of corruption.
   When powerful men cry witch, they’re generally not talking about
   green-faced women wearing pointy hats. They are, presumably, referring
   to the Salem witch trials, when 19 people in 17th-century Massachusetts
   were executed on charges of witchcraft.
   Using “witch hunt” to decry purportedly baseless allegations, however,
   reflects a misunderstanding of American history. Witch trials didn’t
   target the powerful. They persecuted society’s most marginal members –
   particularly women."

     I do not want to continue this conversation because I will be very
     busy
     with HyperbolaBSD.  I ask you do not talk about me while I cannot
     defend
     myself or that you attack the Hyperbola project because of me.

   Good luck! Happy hacking! Let us know how it goes?

References

   1. mailto:quiliro@riseup.net
   2. mailto:stationaery@gmail.com
   3. mailto:quiliro@riseup.net
   4. mailto:stationaery@gmail.com
   5. mailto:quiliro@riseup.net
   6. mailto:deb@eximiousproductions.com
   7. 
https://theconversation.com/most-witches-are-women-because-witch-hunts-were-all-about-persecuting-the-powerless-125427