Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.vote > #1930 > unrolled thread

Re: Willingness to share a position statement?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.vote

Contents

  Re: Willingness to share a position statement? Gerardo Ballabio <gerardo.ballabio@gmail.com> - 2021-03-24 12:50 +0100
    Re: Willingness to share a position statement? Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2021-03-24 13:40 +0100
      Re: Willingness to share a position statement? Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> - 2021-03-24 17:50 +0100
      Re: Willingness to share a position statement? Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2021-03-24 20:30 +0100
      Re: Willingness to share a position statement? Gerardo Ballabio <gerardo.ballabio@gmail.com> - 2021-03-25 21:40 +0100
        Re: Willingness to share a position statement? Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2021-03-25 22:40 +0100
          Re: Willingness to share a position statement? Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2021-03-25 23:30 +0100
            Re: Willingness to share a position statement? Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2021-03-25 23:30 +0100
              Re: Willingness to share a position statement? Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2021-03-25 23:40 +0100
                Re: Willingness to share a position statement? Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2021-03-26 00:00 +0100
                  Why does Debian Care about the FSF Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2021-03-26 00:20 +0100
                    Re: Why does Debian Care about the FSF Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2021-03-26 09:30 +0100
                      Re: Why does Debian Care about the FSF Simon Avery <digdilem@gmail.com> - 2021-03-26 23:10 +0100
                Re: Willingness to share a position statement? Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> - 2021-03-26 00:40 +0100
                  Re: Willingness to share a position statement? Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> - 2021-03-26 01:30 +0100
              Re: Willingness to share a position statement? Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2021-03-25 23:50 +0100
          Re: Willingness to share a position statement? Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> - 2021-03-25 23:40 +0100
            Re: Willingness to share a position statement? Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2021-03-27 11:20 +0100
          Re: Willingness to share a position statement? Gerardo Ballabio <gerardo.ballabio@gmail.com> - 2021-03-26 10:30 +0100
            Re: Willingness to share a position statement? Ulrike Uhlig <ulrike@debian.org> - 2021-03-26 11:30 +0100
            Re: Willingness to share a position statement? Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2021-03-26 17:00 +0100
        Re: Willingness to share a position statement? Ulrike Uhlig <ulrike@debian.org> - 2021-03-26 00:40 +0100
      Re: Willingness to share a position statement? Philip Rinn <rinni@inventati.org> - 2021-03-26 00:20 +0100
      Re: Willingness to share a position statement? Dmitry Smirnov <onlyjob@debian.org> - 2021-03-31 00:40 +0200
        Re: Willingness to share a position statement? Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2021-03-31 01:00 +0200
        Re: Willingness to share a position statement? Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2021-04-01 01:20 +0200
        Re: Willingness to share a position statement? Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2021-04-01 11:00 +0200
          Re: Willingness to share a position statement? Dmitry Smirnov <onlyjob@debian.org> - 2021-04-02 03:10 +0200
            Re: Willingness to share a position statement? Tiago Bortoletto Vaz <tiago@debian.org> - 2021-04-02 03:50 +0200
              Re: Willingness to share a position statement? Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2021-04-02 21:00 +0200
            Re: Willingness to share a position statement? Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2021-04-02 14:10 +0200
              Re: Willingness to share a position statement? Dmitry Smirnov <onlyjob@debian.org> - 2021-04-03 03:30 +0200
                Re: Willingness to share a position statement? Zlatan Todoric <zlatan@riseup.net> - 2021-04-03 10:30 +0200
                Re: Willingness to share a position statement? Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2021-04-03 14:10 +0200
                  Re: Willingness to share a position statement? Milan Zamazal <pdm@debian.org> - 2021-04-03 15:50 +0200
                    Re: Willingness to share a position statement? Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2021-04-03 17:40 +0200
    Re: Willingness to share a position statement? Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2021-03-24 13:40 +0100

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#2087

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 10:05:44AM +0100, Gerardo Ballabio wrote:
> Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > We *entirely* have the freedom to discriminate based on
> > what people say and do around us. We're not a government.
> 
> So only governments should not discriminate people?
> 
> > Try a simple thought experiment: if you think that only the law (which
> > country?) has any bearing here, is spam filtering allowed? Should we
> > be allowed to block people from our mailing lists or BTS for sending
> > lots of messages saying "Free Software is awful"?

> You have the right to choose which mail messages you receive.
> You haven't the right to choose which mail messages I send.
> Can you see the difference?

Debian as a project has a right to block your mails so they are not
dissemminated via our servers.

> Similarly, if you don't want to listen to me, you have the right to
> walk away. You haven't the right to silence me.
> If you don't want to work with me, you have the right to quit. You
> haven't the right to get me fired.

Obviously false.  You do not have a right to be the most obnoxious person in
your place of work who drives other people to quit, and people have a right
to demand a work environment free from harrassment.

And why are we having this conversation?  You're not a Debian developer, you
told Debian you were leaving because you disagreed with our policies, and
you don't get a vote.  Do you think you're persuading someone here?

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                   https://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2044

Hi!

On 25.03.21 21:18, Gerardo Ballabio wrote:
> Steve McIntyre wrote:

>> Do we really have to go through this argument *again*?
>> Freedom of speech does *not* mean freedom from consequences.

> The point is who decides what the consequences are.
> That should be up to the legal system, not to some random group of
> people who gather together and decide to enact summary punishment.
Protest is part of the democratic tool box as much as the legal system 
you mention. The open letter is a public protest happening online.

If that protest is reasonable is something that you and me may have 
different opinions on, the only fact that we can currently agree on is 
that the actions of the FSF are causing dissent. Protestors are 
requesting accountability not only from RMS but also from the part of 
the board that reinstated him.

Accountability means to take responsibility for one's actions or words, 
to accept that they have consequences, and to acknowledge these 
consequences. Accountability does not mean that someone is being 
punished, it's a device demanding people to clean up their own mess 
instead of expecting people to wade through, ignore, or clean up the 
mess for them.

Being accountable is a starting point, not an end.

Therefore, what the consequences are is entirely up to the FSF itself. 
There is a not-so-small protest in front of them, now it's up to them to 
decide how _they_ want to deal with it - and it's also _up to them_ to 
deal with the consequences resulting from the actions they will or will 
not undertake.

That some of us agree with this protest and some don't, and that the FSF 
may _decide for themselves_ how they want to react to that is exactly 
the f-r-e-e-d-o-m you conjure.

Cheers,
Ulrike

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2040

On Mar 24, 2021 at 12:38:25, Steve McIntyre wrote:
 > Freedom of speech does *not* mean freedom from consequences.
 >
 > If you say unpopular, controversial things then it's entirely
 > reasonable that people around you may evaluate you based on what
 > you've said. They may decide that they don't want to listen to you any
 > more. They may decide that they don't want to work with you any more,
 > or have you in a position of power in a project. Words have power.
 >
 > Decrying this as a "political correctness storm" is a favourite
 > argument of the morally bankrupt who want the freedom to spout hate
 > without being called on it.

thanks Steve for stating that so clear. The only thing I can add is a graphical 
summary: https://xkcd.com/1357/


Best,
Philip

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2245

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wednesday, 24 March 2021 11:38:25 PM AEDT Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Freedom of speech does *not* mean freedom from consequences.

Here is a good reply to this very statement:

~~~
"Freedom of speech is supposed to imply freedom from quite a wide range
of possible consequences; mostly consequences like fines or incarceration,
but the spirit of it applies more broadly than that. If I were to say that
[whoever] is free to speak, but I wouldn’t guarantee there would be no
consequences for that speech, wouldn’t it be fair to interpret my words
as a veiled threat?

The only valid “consequences” for an act of free speech is a solid rebuttal.

If you think otherwise, then I suggest that you haven’t quite grasped the
point of the concept, or that you simply have tyrannical tendencies
(as many do).
~~~

Taken from the following conversation:

  https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2021/02/07/friendly-atheist-defends-censorhip/

-- 
All the best,
 Dmitry Smirnov
 GPG key : 4096R/52B6BBD953968D1B

---

It's a nonsense assumption that you can get rid of terrorism with war.
Terrorism is taking the lives of innocent people to gain your objective.
War is basically the same thing on a larger scale.
    -- Gene Sharp

---

Your Facebook friends are wrong about the lockdown. A non-hysterics's guide
to COVID-19 by Tom Woods.
    -- https://wrongaboutlockdown.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2248

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 09:12:24AM +1100, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
>On Wednesday, 24 March 2021 11:38:25 PM AEDT Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> Freedom of speech does *not* mean freedom from consequences.
>
>Here is a good reply to this very statement:
>
>~~~
>"Freedom of speech is supposed to imply freedom from quite a wide range
>of possible consequences; mostly consequences like fines or incarceration,
>but the spirit of it applies more broadly than that. If I were to say that
>[whoever] is free to speak, but I wouldn’t guarantee there would be no
>consequences for that speech, wouldn’t it be fair to interpret my words
>as a veiled threat?
>
>The only valid “consequences” for an act of free speech is a solid rebuttal.
>
>If you think otherwise, then I suggest that you haven’t quite grasped the
>point of the concept, or that you simply have tyrannical tendencies
>(as many do).
>~~~
>
>Taken from the following conversation:
>
>  https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2021/02/07/friendly-atheist-defends-censorhip/

Rather than pick on one sentence of what I wrote and quote random
people on the internet as a "rebuttal", how about reading and
responding to the rest of that mail too? I'm not talking about fines
or incarceration, I'm not talking about "threats", I'm talking about
the *effects of the speech* itself here.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
You lock the door
And throw away the key
There's someone in my head but it's not me 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2279

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 09:12:24AM +1100, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> On Wednesday, 24 March 2021 11:38:25 PM AEDT Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > Freedom of speech does *not* mean freedom from consequences.

> Here is a good reply to this very statement:

> ~~~
> "Freedom of speech is supposed to imply freedom from quite a wide range
> of possible consequences; mostly consequences like fines or incarceration,
> but the spirit of it applies more broadly than that. If I were to say that
> [whoever] is free to speak, but I wouldn’t guarantee there would be no
> consequences for that speech, wouldn’t it be fair to interpret my words
> as a veiled threat?
> 
> The only valid “consequences” for an act of free speech is a solid rebuttal.
> 
> If you think otherwise, then I suggest that you haven’t quite grasped the
> point of the concept, or that you simply have tyrannical tendencies
> (as many do).
> ~~~

That's why facebook and twitter are full of well-informed people engaged in
reasoned discussions, right?

Oh no wait, it's the exact opposite, because it's far cheaper to disseminate
stupid and toxic ideas than it is to convince people of complicated and
accurate ones.

Turns out the marketplace of ideas is actually the Home Shopping Network.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                   https://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2305

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Le mercredi 31 mars 2021 à 09:12:24+1100, Dmitry Smirnov a écrit :
> On Wednesday, 24 March 2021 11:38:25 PM AEDT Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > Freedom of speech does *not* mean freedom from consequences.
> 
> Here is a good reply to this very statement:
> 
> ~~~
> "Freedom of speech is supposed to imply freedom from quite a wide range
> of possible consequences; mostly consequences like fines or incarceration,
> but the spirit of it applies more broadly than that. If I were to say that
> [whoever] is free to speak, but I wouldn’t guarantee there would be no
> consequences for that speech, wouldn’t it be fair to interpret my words
> as a veiled threat?
> 
> The only valid “consequences” for an act of free speech is a solid rebuttal.
> 
> If you think otherwise, then I suggest that you haven’t quite grasped the
> point of the concept, or that you simply have tyrannical tendencies
> (as many do).
> ~~~
> 
> Taken from the following conversation:

Freedom of speech is one of the theoretically most beautiful ideas
Humans ever created. So is Communism.

The thing is, as soon as there are humans in the equation, both these
ideas become a huge truckload of mess, violence, hatred and sorrow.

Trying to grab it as a cane in all discussions is to me a proof of lack
of sensible arguments.

-- 
Pierre-Elliott Bécue
GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528  F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2
It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2371

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thursday, 1 April 2021 7:56:12 PM AEDT Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> Freedom of speech is one of the theoretically most beautiful ideas
> Humans ever created. So is Communism.

Communism (i.e. fascism + marxism) is an ultimate "cancel culture" that
terminated at least 100 million lives in 20th century.
Communism can not tolerate criticism and that's why communism is
incompatible with free speech.

We need free speech to defeat communism and prevent it from raising
its ugly head again.

The following book is a good read to understand the matters better:

  Friedrich A. Hayek "The Road to Serfdom"
  https://mises.org/library/road-serfdom-0

-- 
Regards,
 Dmitry Smirnov
 GPG key : 4096R/52B6BBD953968D1B

---

Journalists don't sit down and think, "I'm now going to speak for the
establishment." Of course not. But they internalize a whole set of
assumptions, and one of the most potent assumptions is that the world
should be seen in terms of its usefulness to the West, not humanity. This
leads journalists to make a distinction between people who matter and
people who don't matter.
    -- John Pilger

---

Israel: Why Is All-Cause Mortality Increasing?
 -- https://swprs.org/israel-why-is-all-cause-mortality-increasing/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2373

On 2021-04-01 9:01 p.m., Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> defeat communism and prevent it from raising
> its ugly head again.

Option 6:

"Debian will fight hard to defeat communism and prevent it from raising
its ugly head again, whatever this GR is about".

Come on folks, we can do better than that!

--
Tiago

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2409

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Le jeudi 01 avril 2021 à 21:48:53-0400, Tiago Bortoletto Vaz a écrit :
> On 2021-04-01 9:01 p.m., Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> > defeat communism and prevent it from raising
> > its ugly head again.
> 
> Option 6:
> 
> "Debian will fight hard to defeat communism and prevent it from raising
> its ugly head again, whatever this GR is about".
> 
> Come on folks, we can do better than that!

Seconded.

-- 
Could you sign your mail please? I'd like this option in the ballot to
vote for it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2385

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Le vendredi 02 avril 2021 à 12:01:39+1100, Dmitry Smirnov a écrit :
> On Thursday, 1 April 2021 7:56:12 PM AEDT Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> > Freedom of speech is one of the theoretically most beautiful ideas
> > Humans ever created. So is Communism.
> 
> Communism (i.e. fascism + marxism) is an ultimate "cancel culture" that
> terminated at least 100 million lives in 20th century.
> Communism can not tolerate criticism and that's why communism is
> incompatible with free speech.
> 
> We need free speech to defeat communism and prevent it from raising
> its ugly head again.

Thanks for arguing for my point: Communism was a beautiful theoretical
idea which was implemented by humans and therefore was a miserable
fuckup in the end.

I still think the concept is really interesting, but I can't see a
working implementation as soon as there are humans who would want to be
leaders in such regimes.

I don't see a connection with free speech here, anyway.

With best regards,

-- 
Pierre-Elliott Bécue
GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528  F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2
It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2434

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Friday, 2 April 2021 11:09:42 PM AEDT Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> Thanks for arguing for my point: Communism was a beautiful theoretical
> idea which was implemented by humans and therefore was a miserable
> fuckup in the end.
> 
> I still think the concept is really interesting, but I can't see a
> working implementation as soon as there are humans who would want to be
> leaders in such regimes.
> 
> I don't see a connection with free speech here, anyway.

What a nasty disgraceful style of debating you have, Pierre.
You understood very well what I'm saying and I'm is not confirming your
point. Communism is a bad ideology that does not work (and could not work
even in theory) - that's why it should be "cancelled".
Free speech is a beautiful working practice but it is in the way of terrible
ideas and that's why they want to "cancel" free speech.

-- 
All the best,
 Dmitry Smirnov
 GPG key : 4096R/52B6BBD953968D1B

---

Hay smells different to lovers and horses.
    -- Stanisław Jerzy Lec

---

How Many Excess Deaths Are Due to COVID-19?
    -- https://lockdownsceptics.org/how-many-excess-deaths-are-due-to-covid-19/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2438

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 4/3/21 03:26, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> On Friday, 2 April 2021 11:09:42 PM AEDT Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
>> Thanks for arguing for my point: Communism was a beautiful theoretical
>> idea which was implemented by humans and therefore was a miserable
>> fuckup in the end.
>>
>> I still think the concept is really interesting, but I can't see a
>> working implementation as soon as there are humans who would want to be
>> leaders in such regimes.
>>
>> I don't see a connection with free speech here, anyway.
> What a nasty disgraceful style of debating you have, Pierre.
> You understood very well what I'm saying and I'm is not confirming your
> point. Communism is a bad ideology that does not work (and could not work
> even in theory) - that's why it should be "cancelled".
> Free speech is a beautiful working practice but it is in the way of terrible
> ideas and that's why they want to "cancel" free speech.
>
I have hard time to take people seriously if they don't read. You seem 
to be conflating communism (ideology) and communist party.

The two don't tend to be really connected.

Communism is a stateless society, living on self-governance to secure 
and protect basic human needs such as universal healthcare, education 
and equal pay. In same vein as anarchism but I assume anarchy for you is 
"chaos, trashing the stores etc".

So, Pierre-Elliot was correct when he said that communism is a beautiful 
theoretical idea.

Z

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2459

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 12:26:56PM +1100, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
>On Friday, 2 April 2021 11:09:42 PM AEDT Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
>> Thanks for arguing for my point: Communism was a beautiful theoretical
>> idea which was implemented by humans and therefore was a miserable
>> fuckup in the end.
>> 
>> I still think the concept is really interesting, but I can't see a
>> working implementation as soon as there are humans who would want to be
>> leaders in such regimes.
>> 
>> I don't see a connection with free speech here, anyway.
>
>What a nasty disgraceful style of debating you have, Pierre.

You might disagree with him, but please stop attacking the
person. It's not necessary and only lowers the tone of debate.

>You understood very well what I'm saying and I'm is not confirming your
>point. Communism is a bad ideology that does not work (and could not work
>even in theory) - that's why it should be "cancelled".
>Free speech is a beautiful working practice but it is in the way of terrible
>ideas and that's why they want to "cancel" free speech.

And other people disagree with you on those points. Please accept that
and leave it there?

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
Into the distance, a ribbon of black
Stretched to the point of no turning back

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2471

>>>>> "SM" == Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> writes:

    SM> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 12:26:56PM +1100, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
    >> On Friday, 2 April 2021 11:09:42 PM AEDT Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
    >>> Thanks for arguing for my point: Communism was a beautiful
    >>> theoretical

    >>> idea which was implemented by humans and therefore was a
    >>> miserable fuckup in the end.
    >>> 
    >>> I still think the concept is really interesting, but I can't see
    >>> a working implementation as soon as there are humans who would
    >>> want to be leaders in such regimes.
    >>> 
    >>> I don't see a connection with free speech here, anyway.
    >> 
    >> What a nasty disgraceful style of debating you have, Pierre.

    SM> You might disagree with him, but please stop attacking the
    SM> person. It's not necessary and only lowers the tone of debate.

Yes, please.

    >> You understood very well what I'm saying and I'm is not
    >> confirming your point. Communism is a bad ideology that does not
    >> work (and could not work even in theory) - that's why it should
    >> be "cancelled".  Free speech is a beautiful working practice but
    >> it is in the way of terrible ideas and that's why they want to
    >> "cancel" free speech.

    SM> And other people disagree with you on those points. Please
    SM> accept that and leave it there?

Please note that some of us who suffered from communism and got both
theoretical and practical training in marxism-leninism may be quite
sensitive to claims that communism was a beautiful theoretical idea or
putting some kind of equations between communism and freedom of speech.
I had to hold off myself to not respond to those claims, which were not
helpful and the intended points could be illustrated in better ways.

Regards,
Milan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2480

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Le samedi 03 avril 2021 à 15:41:43+0200, Milan Zamazal a écrit :
> >>>>> "SM" == Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> writes:
> 
>     SM> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 12:26:56PM +1100, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
>     >> On Friday, 2 April 2021 11:09:42 PM AEDT Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
>     >>> Thanks for arguing for my point: Communism was a beautiful
>     >>> theoretical
> 
>     >>> idea which was implemented by humans and therefore was a
>     >>> miserable fuckup in the end.
>     >>> 
>     >>> I still think the concept is really interesting, but I can't see
>     >>> a working implementation as soon as there are humans who would
>     >>> want to be leaders in such regimes.
>     >>> 
>     >>> I don't see a connection with free speech here, anyway.
>     >> 
>     >> What a nasty disgraceful style of debating you have, Pierre.
> 
>     SM> You might disagree with him, but please stop attacking the
>     SM> person. It's not necessary and only lowers the tone of debate.
> 
> Yes, please.
> 
>     >> You understood very well what I'm saying and I'm is not
>     >> confirming your point. Communism is a bad ideology that does not
>     >> work (and could not work even in theory) - that's why it should
>     >> be "cancelled".  Free speech is a beautiful working practice but
>     >> it is in the way of terrible ideas and that's why they want to
>     >> "cancel" free speech.
> 
>     SM> And other people disagree with you on those points. Please
>     SM> accept that and leave it there?
> 
> Please note that some of us who suffered from communism and got both
> theoretical and practical training in marxism-leninism may be quite

Theoretical, with small "reviews" from the party. Which means not
theoretically accurate at all.

> sensitive to claims that communism was a beautiful theoretical idea or
> putting some kind of equations between communism and freedom of speech.
> I had to hold off myself to not respond to those claims, which were not
> helpful and the intended points could be illustrated in better ways.
> 
> Regards,

I explained in what way I compare both. You may consider it was not the
best way to illustrate my point and I'm eager to take that remark, but
this connection is not, /per se/, absurd.

-- 
Pierre-Elliott Bécue
GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528  F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2
It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1932

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Quoting Gerardo Ballabio (2021-03-24 12:32:31)
> Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> > Inclusivity and tolerance does not mean we have to accept every opinion as equally valid.
> 
> Equally valid -- no.
> Legitimate to express -- yes.
> 
> I am really worried about the increasing trend (not specific to
> Debian) towards demanding that people who hold "dissenting" opinions
> be removed from their positions, excluded from the public debate, and
> even fired from their jobs, which if universally applied would make
> them unable to earn a living. That is what dictatorial regimes do --
> often while maintaining a facade of freedom: "Nobody is being
> prevented from speaking, we're just making their life miserable
> because we don't like what they're saying". That's exactly what's
> happening with the current political correctness storm. Say one bad
> word and your life might be ruined.
> 
> Just yesterday I happened to read this quotation (on a Debian mailing
> list!). I believe it is very much to the point:
> "Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves
> exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves
> only the unanimity of the graveyard. -- Justice Roberts in 319 U.S.
> 624 (1943)"
> 
> What happened to "I don't agree with what you're saying, but I'll give
> my life to defend your right to say it"?

Very well said, Gerardo - but there is a piece missing:

Question is not if legitimate for RMS to have and share opinions.

Question instead is if RMS mixes personal opinions with official roles.

I sometimes sneeze.  If I worked at a restaurant, then I served a role 
as a servant where it is absolutely unacceptable to sneeze.

If I failed at understanding that sneezing while acting in my role as 
servant was unacceptable, then it would be reasonable that management 
fired me.  And it would be sensible to sign a petition to have the board 
of the restaurant step down if they failed to fire me.

Now imagine that I blogged about my sneezing, shared videos of sneezes 
in slow-motion, and argued in talk shows that my sneezing was special 
and could cure COVID-19, not spread it.  The restaurant managers fired 
me, but later changed their mind and hired me back again.

Should I be fired again, or the management be shamed? Depends on whether 
I sneezed at work, not if it was public knowledge that I was a sneezer 
and clueless about how viruses spread - those features have *nothing* to 
do with my ability to serve food at a restaurant (regardless of my very 
presence in the restaurant might make sone guests vomit because they 
remembered some slow-motion video they once saw, produced by me).


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.vote

csiph-web