The Free Software Foundation needs our help


Askarus

Forum Addict!
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
4,588
Location
Germany
Mozilla:
We can't demand better of the internet if we don't demand better of our leaders, colleagues and ourselves. We're with the Open Source Diversity Community, Outreachy & the Software Conservancy project in supporting

So diversity means all supporting the same people and all having the same opinion.
I did not know that.

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?
That one who wants true diversity has to accept and support diverse and controversial opinions.

At least that is what logic tells me ...
 

pyrat

Very Active Member
Joined
May 20, 2016
Messages
489
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.
 

Null

Velocipede
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
11,151
Website
www.pixelfed.social
WEBSITE
https://elderberry.sdf-eu.org


Oh no, rms how could you? :(
 

λ the β-Redex Reducer

β-Redex Reducing Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2016
Messages
1,012
Age
51
Location
Lambda Centre
RMS did many good things for free software but maybe there are people more qualified than he is to be the public figure of free software.
If that is true, then why are those people all standing in line to hijack RMS's work? Why can they not create their own foundation like RMS did?
 

λ the β-Redex Reducer

β-Redex Reducing Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2016
Messages
1,012
Age
51
Location
Lambda Centre
So diversity means all supporting the same people and all having the same opinion.
The irony is that one must discriminate if one is to guarantee diversity. That is why I hate it when people act like trying to get diversity in race or gender as if it is a noble thing. It is racism and sexism, respectively, and that is not a noble thing. People who are not racist nor sexist do not care about diversity. They form groups based on other criteria that do not involve race or gender in any way. Whether that group ends up racially or genderally diverse or not is just an unimportant accident to them.

The principle that I think ought to be really aimed for is being open to all and egalitarianism in opportunity. That involves not telling people that they cannot join or will be treated as less important because their race or gender is overrepresented, and it involves judging people as individuals who are completely separate from other people of the same race or gender.
 

levi

Still fresh, damnit!
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
13,918
Location
Somewhere off the coast of the EU
The irony is that one must discriminate if one is to guarantee diversity. That is why I hate it when people act like trying to get diversity in race or gender as if it is a noble thing. It is racism and sexism, respectively, and that is not a noble thing. People who are not racist nor sexist do not care about diversity. They form groups based on other criteria that do not involve race or gender in any way. Whether that group ends up racially or genderally diverse or not is just an unimportant accident to them.
So what it the reason a vast majority of CEOs of companies are men? It's probably because going back ten years or so almost all board members were men. Why is that? It seems to me it's either because only men come forward to become board members, or board selectors don't tend to see women as valuable members, which is sexist. Given the increase in female board membership in the past ten years, suggests that women didn't need much of a push to put themselves forward for board membership, so the logical explanation is they were always putting themselves forward but being pushed back by the existing members, who've now seen the problem with their boys club mentality, and accepted qualifications despite of the sex of the applicant.

Measures of diversity can expose issues of sexism and racism.
 

netcat

Very Active Member
Joined
May 3, 2016
Messages
223
Open source has diversity - or specifically lack of discrimination - baked in. All we care about is the quality of your patch. It's true. So sad that RMS is being targeted this way.

Immaterial allegations affecting someone materially is the key issue here. It's entirely unfair.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rSl

λ the β-Redex Reducer

β-Redex Reducing Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2016
Messages
1,012
Age
51
Location
Lambda Centre
So what it the reason a vast majority of CEOs of companies are men? It's probably because going back ten years or so almost all board members were men. Why is that? It seems to me it's either because only men come forward to become board members, or board selectors don't tend to see women as valuable members, which is sexist. Given the increase in female board membership in the past ten years, suggests that women didn't need much of a push to put themselves forward for board membership, so the logical explanation is they were always putting themselves forward but being pushed back by the existing members, who've now seen the problem with their boys club mentality, and accepted qualifications despite of the sex of the applicant.
There is plenty of affirmative action to push women into jobs that are typically held by men so women do get that push. I even personally worked for a CEO who got her job through affirmative action.
Measures of diversity can expose issues of sexism and racism.
Lack of diversity can have many causes and your theory that it is due to a conspiracy to keep women out of high ranking jobs seems to be nothing but a wild guess. E.g. one could just as well assume that women do not want those jobs but now only take them because it is considered to be the cool thing to do, similar to how in the past Barbie was blamed for girls trying to look good. Noticing a lack of diversity does not automatically lead one to it's cause.
 

netcat

Very Active Member
Joined
May 3, 2016
Messages
223
Everyone was up in arms that there were disproportionately few women working in science. Is science male dominated? It's possible. But there were also disproportionately few women enrolled in science programs at universities. And many universities bend over backward to be diverse, literally begging women to join. People do have tendencies and there are correlations with things like sex, intelligence, wealth and race. Sometimes there are benign explanations.
Barbie was blamed for girls trying to look good.
Barbie is the most popular doll of all time. I challenge my daughter (who is not white) on the matter. She just likes her.
 
Last edited:

levi

Still fresh, damnit!
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
13,918
Location
Somewhere off the coast of the EU
Lack of diversity can have many causes and your theory that it is due to a conspiracy to keep women out of high ranking jobs seems to be nothing but a wild guess.
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_representation_on_corporate_boards_of_directors
A survey of more than 4000 directors found that male directors over the age of 55 cited a lack of qualified female candidates as the main reason behind the stagnant number of female directors.[5] In contrast, in the same study, female directors and younger male directors considered the male-dominated networking that often led to the appointment of directors to be the reason behind women's slow progress.[5]
 

Djoga'Ro

moonstruck
Joined
Apr 3, 2016
Messages
1,840
female directors and younger male directors considered the male-dominated networking that often led to the appointment of directors to be the reason behind women's slow progress
If that's true, the fact that those in the networks tend to be sexist is secondary to the fact that networking is the deciding factor before merit. Further, the networking wouldn't allow for estimates on the (direct) involvement of sexism.
 

levi

Still fresh, damnit!
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
13,918
Location
Somewhere off the coast of the EU
If that's true, the fact that those in the networks tend to be sexist is secondary to the fact that networking is the deciding factor before merit. Further, the networking wouldn't allow for estimates on the (direct) involvement of sexism.
Do you want to rephrase that? I'm having trouble following your logic there.
 

Djoga'Ro

moonstruck
Joined
Apr 3, 2016
Messages
1,840
If there's a more or less closed group administering the pool of manager positions, that be a bigger problem than sexists controlling those positions.
And when there are not many women in such a group, not many women will get manager positions - sexists or no sexists.
 

λ the β-Redex Reducer

β-Redex Reducing Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2016
Messages
1,012
Age
51
Location
Lambda Centre
A survey of more than 4000 directors found that male directors over the age of 55 cited a lack of qualified female candidates as the main reason behind the stagnant number of female directors.[5] In contrast, in the same study, female directors and younger male directors considered the male-dominated networking that often led to the appointment of directors to be the reason behind women's slow progress.[5]
That just confirms my point; different people have different theories because the the data that they have does itself not lead to a conclusion thus allowing anyone to go with whatever conclusion they want to believe in if they are OK with making huge leaps in logic.
 
Top