Mozilla:
So diversity means all supporting the same people and all having the same opinion.
I did not know that.
No, that's a perversion, not the real idea of diversity.
If one is for true diversity doesn't that person in consequence have to support (to a healthy degree of course) anti feminists, racists and sex with children supporter?
No but yes. The problem is previous. Diversity means that you should not support or cease support of anyone, because all humans are equal in rights no matter how diverse they may look to you.
But you can still question ideas. Ideas aren't people and don't have rights. And some ideas are against diversity, so you can't construe diversity as
to include ideas opposed to diversity, because that's just introducing a logical contradiction that will void the concept of diversity of any meaning.
You can't accept ideas and practices that lead some women, racialised people or children to be excluded (not heard, not allowed to participate, violented, whatever) and pretend to defend diversity.
But you don't have to prosecute people for what they are. You prosecute ideas (expressions) and then don't share them or write against them, or you prosecute
acts (and in mild cases that may mean just interrupting them, but that may mean bringing them before court, because to prosecute acts, people should be fairly judged).
In some cases you can indeed remove people from power because of racism, machoism or other abuse, because you fear that their racism, machoism or pedophilia or whatever
may probably cause them to do their job wrong, and you can't judge them for something they haven't done. If a hospital director thinks women are stupid and hires only men, then
you may or may not be able to prove misconduct in a court but you may still want someone that hires better and remove the director. But in this case you have to do something as close to a fair trial
as possible (preventive fair judgements are not possible, but save what you can) and you need some evidence. You cannot just take declarations out of context, or dig into all what
someone has ever done or said to find the single thing to prove your point, because that's witch hunting. If the problem is you don't like a person, don't marry that person, if you
don't like an opinion argue, if you can't work with someone then try to work with someone else. But you need to recognize when there's a crime that needs prosecution and when
there's a person you happen not to like. You can (often) work with people you don't like, you can argue with people you don't want to marry, and you can like people you would never want to work with.
And there are so many topics to have an opinion about that you will most likely never find someone that have the same opinion as you in evertything (unless you insist so much in that quest that
you abandon all your ideas to those you find more common and substitute imitation for reasoning, then you might find other people who have done the same, but I may doubt your opinions are yours).
In RMS case, the accusations are unfounded. It's just that they don't like him. Or it could also be that they don't have arguments to argue with the free software ideals he defends and still want
to remove him because that's more lucrative for them, so they argue about age of consent or whatever because it's a much easier argument and if they can have him removed they won't need to
argue with him about what he's right about. An they're augmented with automatism like social networks, and helped by all those that just need something to imitate.
That one who wants true diversity has to accept and support diverse and controversial opinions.
Diversity is about diverse people. Diverse opinions don't have to be accepted as your own, and accepting an opinion as someone else's opinion is almost a nop.
But yes RMS is grilled because they don't accept him, not because of his opinions. His opinions are the excuse.
3600 votes FOR him, 2800 votes AGAINST him.
Yet, and that is what i find very interesting, all the articles are written like EVERYONE wants him to be removed.
The positive voices mostly will be ignored.
Years ago I decided for myself that "political correctness" is the great thread a free society in this century.
Well, I'm happy that there're more "votes" for him, but internet polls, elections or signatures are mostly entertainment. It's very easy to falsify them and there's no way to tell what all those people have to do with the organisation we want to influence, so the arguments are always more interesting than the numbers. It's more important that once organisations decide something each one of us decides what to do with that organisation.
