>I recall I left Mozilla before the same-sex marriage fight, but I'm familiar with it.
Ah, thanks for clarifying. I wasn't sure about that timeline. I just remember you left early-ish.
>Just as I wouldn't call Brendan or gerv a psycho-sadist, I also wouldn't call the people who called for their resignations names, nor group them all together.
You must have skipped the comments from the community and outside then that included gems such a wall of "FUCK YOU"s or the literal wishes for gerv to die of cancer.
I also remember the side-dramas e.g. over the term "homozillians" which was claimed to be homophobic and prompted similar vitriol (nevermind that it was the name a group of LGBTQ+ people within mozilla gave themselves)
[Another edit: to be clear, not everybody who demanded or favored their resignation falls into the psycho-sadist stasi group, either.]
>I think name-calling, especially of a large group which shares only one thing in common is antithetical to building inclusive human communities. Literally we're excluding people and calling them Stasi members because we disagree with them.
No, we're excluding them and call them sadists and stasi because they act with the same mindset of stasi: observation, propaganda, demagogy, and the stated goal of "destroying" other people, and because they joyfully celebrate whenever one of their perceived enemies gets banished, not dreading the anguish that was caused (maybe unavoidably) but enjoying the pain and anger they caused. I've seen plenty such giddy stasi-sadists rummaging around in everything RMS ever wrote and celebrating victory when he resigned from the FSF (some going so far to publicly wishing him to become homeless and freezing to death in the next winter).
This is where we should draw the line and where the "paradox of tolerance" actually makes sense: at the extreme fringes, be it racists and white supremacists on one side, and yes, as hurtful at this truth is, the extremes of what we both probably would consider our side as well.
>WRT Linus, I personally know many talented people who wouldn't touch Linux development specifically because of him.
That's fine. Their decision. I know a lot of people I wouldn't want to work with either.
>[Linus has] also made a lot of people's lives worse.
Utter bullshit and baseless allegation. Why would you say such a thing without providing any shred of evidence?
>Where's their due process?
Due process? For what? Perceived offense? Unsettling remarks somebody made? "Wrong" opinions somebody holds? There is none and there won't be and there shouldn't be.
And as you may or may not know, people criticized him for his erratic behavior, and while it took quite some time, he tried to improve his manners (not just since the Sharp-thing). But no matter how much or little he has and/or will change, there will be always people who want his head.
The "due process" is (where we didn't cross into criminality): you criticize people for their behavior in a constructive way, if they listen and work on themselves great, if they don't then they don't and it's up to you to decide if you want to work with them or if their behavior is too much.
> In fact he was allowed to stay for years, despite harassing women and acting inappropriately in his position
Again bullshit. Even worse bullshit, as it perpetrated the lie he was a major harasser.
>But also: What makes you think he wasn't given due process? He says he was "pressured" by MIT and resigned. Do you think he couldn't have fought it? It sounds like he decided not to fight it. That's different than not being given due process.
Right, you go ahead and demand due process and stand your ground when the internet mob comes for you with pitchforks. This is naïve thinking. at best. It's outright victim-blaming at worst. "Why didn't he just answer long and public why he had a matress in his offide? Why didn't the rape victim answer long and public why she thought it was OK to wear sexy clothes and makeup?"
>The Epstein email was a last straw.
You mean the Minsky email, where he called Epstein a criminal, and suggested that Minsky himself might not have known what was going on?
[Edit: Yes it was an uneasy read, and maybe rather flawed thinking, and deserving of criticism (not his head) but many people claimed he defended child abuse, which he did not]
>Again with RMS, it's clear that his behavior was deeply upsetting to a lot of people.
So he is a weird guy and can put people in unease. He has had a mattress in his office, and he awkwardly hit on some women because he is a bit of a social retard. Big fucking whoopdie-doo. Some of the bullshit that blog post (and others) accuse him of isn't even first-hand experiences, just off remarks like the "if he hits on you, say you're a vi user" remark. What's the conclusion here? That because RMS is awkward in social interactions he better not try to date ever, he doesn't deserve relationships and a sex life because he might make people unwelcoming of his initial advanced uneasy?
>It's cool that Linus has made your life better.
> But also: What makes you think he wasn't given due process?
By the way, now you're putting words in my mouth I never spoke or wrote.
>>[Linus has] also made a lot of people's lives worse.
> Utter bullshit and baseless allegation. Why would you say such a thing without providing any shred of evidence?
Are you actually saying, without irony, that it's bullshit and baseless that Linus Torvalds, one of the most famously abusive OSS maintainers in history, had made people's lives worse by way of these actions?
Linus himself has said that he recognizes he hurt people.
> [RMS] awkwardly hit on some women because he is a bit of a social retard. Big fucking whoopdie-doo.
Not a big deal to you. Cool.
Suppose it was a huge deal to other people. I mean, it's not a hypothetical, I've provided citations.
Are the feelings of other people illegitimate when they disagree with you?
>Are you actually saying, without irony, that it's bullshit and baseless that Linus Torvalds, one of the most famously abusive OSS maintainers in history, had made people's lives worse by way of these actions?
Yes, at least on any scale that matters. He might have (temporarily) upset some people, but that doesn't even come close to what I'd consider "made lives worse".
> one of the most famously abusive OSS maintainers in history
Nice ad hominem by the way. Also bullshit. He was outspoken to the point of being considered rude sometimes, and he was what I would consider abusive in his language on some occasions (like the infamous "abortion" rant; if you never had a bad day and said something regretful, feel free to cast the first stone).
You however make it sounds that he raped a lot of people. Or murdered his wife (hello Hans). Or at least was like this all the time (which he was not, he was mostly polite and professional if maybe a little to direct for some cultural backgrounds).
Get a grip. Some feelings were hurt, some egos got nicked, he crossed the line verbally on a few occasions, got criticized for it, learned from that it seems, some people - which, again, is perfectly fine - decided not to work with him. Linux lost some contributors maybe. In order words: life.
If you expect utter perfection from everybody always, you'll be in for a big surprise.
>Suppose it was a huge deal to other people. I mean, it's not a hypothetical, I've provided citations.
You provided some one-sided hearsay, from mostly anonymous stories, nothing that even amounts to harassment either, let alone sexual harassment. That's the evidential standard of a kangaroo court and the kind of "crime" dictators use to silence their most outspoken dissidents, not due process (which you seem really fond of by mentioning it all the time).
Regardless, that RMS made some people uneasy - while a bit problematic and surely something he could and should have improved - does by far not warrant the way people punch down on him, destroyed his reputation and negated his entire life's work, called him names, fabricated false allegations such as that he was defending Epstein.
Where is your empathy for his humanity and plight? Or is that reserved to people who are slightly irked out and/or offended to see he had a mattress in his office (which he used to sleep on, because he was essentially living in his office, btw)?
>Are the feelings of other people illegitimate when they disagree with you?
Their feeling are legitimate - which by the way does not mean they always have legitimate cause to feel that way, nor does it mean they never have a legitimate cause - but matter a lot less than facts or actions.
Ah, thanks for clarifying. I wasn't sure about that timeline. I just remember you left early-ish.
>Just as I wouldn't call Brendan or gerv a psycho-sadist, I also wouldn't call the people who called for their resignations names, nor group them all together.
You must have skipped the comments from the community and outside then that included gems such a wall of "FUCK YOU"s or the literal wishes for gerv to die of cancer.
I also remember the side-dramas e.g. over the term "homozillians" which was claimed to be homophobic and prompted similar vitriol (nevermind that it was the name a group of LGBTQ+ people within mozilla gave themselves)
[Another edit: to be clear, not everybody who demanded or favored their resignation falls into the psycho-sadist stasi group, either.]
>I think name-calling, especially of a large group which shares only one thing in common is antithetical to building inclusive human communities. Literally we're excluding people and calling them Stasi members because we disagree with them.
No, we're excluding them and call them sadists and stasi because they act with the same mindset of stasi: observation, propaganda, demagogy, and the stated goal of "destroying" other people, and because they joyfully celebrate whenever one of their perceived enemies gets banished, not dreading the anguish that was caused (maybe unavoidably) but enjoying the pain and anger they caused. I've seen plenty such giddy stasi-sadists rummaging around in everything RMS ever wrote and celebrating victory when he resigned from the FSF (some going so far to publicly wishing him to become homeless and freezing to death in the next winter).
This is where we should draw the line and where the "paradox of tolerance" actually makes sense: at the extreme fringes, be it racists and white supremacists on one side, and yes, as hurtful at this truth is, the extremes of what we both probably would consider our side as well.
>WRT Linus, I personally know many talented people who wouldn't touch Linux development specifically because of him.
That's fine. Their decision. I know a lot of people I wouldn't want to work with either.
>[Linus has] also made a lot of people's lives worse.
Utter bullshit and baseless allegation. Why would you say such a thing without providing any shred of evidence?
>Where's their due process?
Due process? For what? Perceived offense? Unsettling remarks somebody made? "Wrong" opinions somebody holds? There is none and there won't be and there shouldn't be.
And as you may or may not know, people criticized him for his erratic behavior, and while it took quite some time, he tried to improve his manners (not just since the Sharp-thing). But no matter how much or little he has and/or will change, there will be always people who want his head.
The "due process" is (where we didn't cross into criminality): you criticize people for their behavior in a constructive way, if they listen and work on themselves great, if they don't then they don't and it's up to you to decide if you want to work with them or if their behavior is too much.
> In fact he was allowed to stay for years, despite harassing women and acting inappropriately in his position
Again bullshit. Even worse bullshit, as it perpetrated the lie he was a major harasser.
>But also: What makes you think he wasn't given due process? He says he was "pressured" by MIT and resigned. Do you think he couldn't have fought it? It sounds like he decided not to fight it. That's different than not being given due process.
Right, you go ahead and demand due process and stand your ground when the internet mob comes for you with pitchforks. This is naïve thinking. at best. It's outright victim-blaming at worst. "Why didn't he just answer long and public why he had a matress in his offide? Why didn't the rape victim answer long and public why she thought it was OK to wear sexy clothes and makeup?"
>The Epstein email was a last straw.
You mean the Minsky email, where he called Epstein a criminal, and suggested that Minsky himself might not have known what was going on?
[Edit: Yes it was an uneasy read, and maybe rather flawed thinking, and deserving of criticism (not his head) but many people claimed he defended child abuse, which he did not]
>Again with RMS, it's clear that his behavior was deeply upsetting to a lot of people.
So he is a weird guy and can put people in unease. He has had a mattress in his office, and he awkwardly hit on some women because he is a bit of a social retard. Big fucking whoopdie-doo. Some of the bullshit that blog post (and others) accuse him of isn't even first-hand experiences, just off remarks like the "if he hits on you, say you're a vi user" remark. What's the conclusion here? That because RMS is awkward in social interactions he better not try to date ever, he doesn't deserve relationships and a sex life because he might make people unwelcoming of his initial advanced uneasy?
>It's cool that Linus has made your life better.
> But also: What makes you think he wasn't given due process?
By the way, now you're putting words in my mouth I never spoke or wrote.