You're obviously posting in good faith, and I appreciate your perspective. But I already said I don't really agree with Stallman's position on pronouns, and I completely understand why people think it's stupid. So I don't need to be convinced of that stuff.

That may be, but none of those "good reasons" are mentioned in Red Hat's statement. Furthermore, when RMS resigned from MIT and the FSF in 2019, that shitstorm had everything to do with his defense of Minsky, and really nothing else.

The authors of the open letter list their "good reasons" in an appendix. A few of the claims made there I judge to be accurate, but there is so much wrong with so many others I really wouldn't know where to begin.

I'll just note that at the end of the open letter appendix shit list, the authors make the claim that "RMS has spent years on a campaign against using people’s correct pronouns. This is poorly disguised transphobia". As proof of this claim, they point to the GNU Kind Communications Guidelines, written in 2018, at the bottom of which appears the text "There are various ways to express gender neutrality in third-person singular pronouns in English; you do not have to use “they”". Then there's a link to Stallman's piece (also written in 2018).

That's it. One sentence on gnu.org with a link to Stallman's piece written in the same year. That's their "proof" Stallman spent years campaigning for the use of the wrong pronouns. That's their "proof" Stallman is transphobic.

When people make multiple claims that are blatantly dishonest, it's hard to take anything they say seriously.

The "they" in this instance being Red Hat leadership and all the notable signers of the open letter. I would expect people like that would be rational and intelligent enough to not latch on to things that have no basis in fact. These presumably intelligent people get a pass for saying stupid things and making unfounded statements, but the object of their ire does not. What should be the penalty for people who make demonstrably false claims about someone in order to get them fired? Seems to me there is no penalty for that type of behaviour these days. That's probably why so many are engaging in it.

The only views on sexual assault I'm aware of are the ones Stallman expressed on the CSAIL mailing list, where RMS was defending his dead friend and mentor from completely unfounded accusations of sexual assault. My reading of his view can be summed up as "if no coercion, physical contact, or physical force is involved, it shouldn't be considered assault". Personally, I find nothing objectionable with that line of thinking. At all. Especially since there is absolutely no evidence that Minsky even touched the young woman, much less had sex with her. There are reports of eyewitnesses to the encounter saying Minsky *rebuffed* the girl in question.

Maybe you could tell me exactly what you think is wrong with Stallman's view on sexual assault, or why my "take" on what Stallman said is wrong. Or maybe you're aware of some other instance where Stallman expressed objectionable views on sexual assault. If so, I'd like to hear about it.

Now, I'm aware that Stallman expressed some idiotic thinking on statutory rape on the CSAIL list, and that's definitely on him. But statutory rape and sexual assault are two different things.

Personally, I find little to object about men or women being "horndogs", massive or otherwise. If you have some evidence that Stallman hit on women "in professional contexts", I'd like to see it. That is actual objectionable behaviour, not just "he said/wrote objectionable opinions".

The title of the open letter is "An open letter to remove Richard M. Stallman from all leadership positions". In it, the authors say:

"Richard M. Stallman, frequently known as RMS, has been a dangerous force in the free software community for a long time. He has shown himself to be misogynist, ableist, and transphobic, among other serious accusations of impropriety. These sorts of beliefs have no place in the free software, digital rights, and tech communities.
...
It is time for RMS to step back from the free software, tech ethics, digital rights, and tech communities, for he cannot provide the leadership we need. We are also calling for Richard M. Stallman to be removed from all leadership positions, including the GNU Project."

IMO, that's clearly a call to deny Stallman his vocation. The authors of the open letter don't want him in any tech community, period. Relegating Stallman to contributing code to some unknown project under a pseudonym is not what I'd call "letting him keep his vocation".

When I wrote "does someone who occasionally wanders outside the area of their expertise and say something stupid deserve to be denied a position that is quite clearly inside their area of expertise?", you replied "Of course not". If you can only point to bad things Stallman said/wrote but can't point to actual objectionable behavior, I don't see how you can justify removing him from the entire tech community. If you can cite a credible source that says he hit on someone at work as you claim, I'm more than ready to have my mind changed. But right now the only thing I see that Stallman might be guilty of is thoughtcrime.

If you can tell me what bullshit you think I'm supporting, I might just stop supporting it. Right now, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Well, I kinda mischaracterized what Stallman actually wrote. My bad. In his piece, I don't see him unequivocally claiming that people who use "they" to refer to a single individual are "no exceptions" incorrect, he says "they" is often used in a way "that is confusing in practice as well as jarring."

Now I don't really agree with that statement, and I understand the argument that what he said is stupid. But people seem to be ignoring Stallman's second sentence, where he says:

"Previously we needed a way to cover both male and female; nowadays some people state that they don't want to be considered either of those, and I believe in respecting their wishes."

Too many people are ignoring that clear statement and labelling Stallman as a "transphobe" based on what I consider to be the thinnest of pretexts.

I agree with pretty much everything you say. But the primary question for me is "does someone who occasionally wanders outside the area of their expertise and say something stupid deserve to be denied a position that is quite clearly inside their area of expertise?" IMO, they do not.

I know I've said stupid crap in the past that might've offended someone, and I would hazard a guess that you have as well. Do you think you or I deserve to be denied our chosen vocations? Or any vocation? I hope not.

The secondary (yet very important to this controversy) question for me is "did something RMS said qualify as "transphobic?" It appears we both agree the answer to that question is "no", at least regarding the content of the piece in question.

Stallman's copyright on the piece says "Copyright (c) 2018, 2019", with the last edits being in 2019.

Absolutely true. My use of the word "objected" was inaccurate. Should have said he thought the use of "they" could be problematic in certain circumstances.

No it's in the body of the piece, 9 paragraphs up from the section listing "Subsequent notes:"

For Stallman to be doing that, you have to believe that all trans people insist on being referred to as "they", "them". etc. I know for a fact not all of them want to be referred to as "they". It makes perfect sense to me that a man who has transitioned to a woman would want to be referred to as a woman.

You'd also have to believe that Stallman's proposed alternate to "they" (the pronoun "perse") is somehow offensive to trans people. If you want to believe such a thing, fine. I prefer to base my beliefs on evidence whenever possible, and I see no evidence that the invented pronoun "perse" is offensive to anyone.

Your argument, which you've again repeated, absolutely rests on the notion that trans people are a monolithic group that have the same preferences, that *none* have transitioned from one gender to another, rather they *all* have transitioned to "some sort of duality". That is why I gave the example I did. It's simple logic. I suggest you review the definition of what constitutes a "strawman argument".

This resource, from an organization devoted to "Advancing LGBT Health Care Education", says:

"Trans-feminine and female-presenting patients will typically use female pronouns. The same is true for trans-masculine and male-presenting patients with male pronouns. "

This survey, conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality, says:

" Respondents reported a wide range of pronouns that they asked people to use when referring to them and could select more than one pronoun. The most widely used pronouns were “he/his” (37%), “she/her” (37%), and “they/their” (29%). "

The actual data, gathered by actual trans advocates, shows the vast majority of trans people prefer the pronouns of the gender to which they transitioned.

Obviously, *you* are treating trans people as a singularity. There are words for people like you who presume to speak about a diverse group in absolute, inaccurate terms. I'll be gentle and say your statements are "ill advised". I'll further be gentle and say you're doing a...disservice to those you claim to speak for.

LOL! Sure, bud. Whatever you say.

Many in the mob say he *is* a transphobe because of the very piece I cited. I don't suppose you've told any of them they're wrong.

Red Hat's CTO is quoted in TFS as saying the problem with Stallman is one of "diversity and inclusion", and there is no mention in TFS/TFA that I can find about any problems with Stallman's communication skills.

I have heard Stallman speak (though not recently) and have read many of his writings. I see no problems with his communications skills. I simply don't agree with the notion that "Stallman said some objectionable things, therefore he's a failure as a communicator".

If you learned that all trans people insist on being referred to "they" because they all transitioned to "some sort of duality" in one of your "re-education classes", you may want to contact the instructor and re-educate them on the facts. If you paid for your re-education, I'd suggest getting you money back.

No, he was telling people they were wrong about the nature of the word "they", which in his opinion is a pronoun used to refer to a group of two or more persons. That's an opinion held by a lot of people, not just bigoted transphobes.

I only know two trans people, both trans women. Both prefer she, her, hers, etc. - not "they". So I don't think your implication that all trans persons insist on being referred to as "they" or "them", or feel insulted or offended by "she" or "her" (for trans women).

Here is what Stallman said.

"Previously we needed a way to cover both male and female; nowadays some people state that they don't want to be considered either of those, and I believe in respecting their wishes.

There is pressure to respond by referring to a single person as "they", but that is confusing in practice as well as jarring. Therefore I have adopted a method of making English gender-neutral while still distinguishing between singular and plural."

Stallman then goes on to propose the gender neutral pronouns promoted by Marge Piercy, a far left activist, feminist, environmentalist, and marxist. He proposes a slight variation of Piercy's terminology, inventing the pronoun "perse".

I read nothing in Stallman's piece that denies or derides anything about the trans experience. He simply thinks using the pronoun "they" to refer to a single individual can lead to confusion, and he proposes a compromise of sorts to avoid miscommunication. In a nutshell, it's "don't use an existing pronoun and change its meaning, use this pronoun instead".

I've been to over half a dozen classes directly covering the "new and approved" way of using pronouns. I still see nothing transphobic about Stallman's position. Maybe my re-education didn't take. Or maybe Stallman wrote or said something I'm not aware of. If you can provide a direct quote from him that you think qualifies as transphobic, maybe I'll change my opinion. Can you? Thanks in advance!

The "controversy" being that even though Stallman promoted the use of gender-neutral pronouns, he objected to the pronoun "they" being used to refer to a single individual.

He was immediately labelled a transphobe, and #cancelstallman ensued.

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. My question was "are you saying it's legal to ban in-person worship in cases of quarantine?" I believe that's what you said at first, but I can't really tell what your answer is from your reply.

I'm not aware of any court ruling that allows the government to ban in-person worship during a quarrenteen - or at any other time. There's the recent South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom case, and there's the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo case from last November. IANAL, but both those rulings seem to point away from the notion that the government can legally ban indoor worship in cases of quarantine.

So do you still maintain it's legal? If so, why?

Did some digging. Looks like the plaintiffs in the case used the "you're treating us harsher than other entities" as one of their arguments for injunctive relief, but I don't believe SCOTUS used that argument as the sole basis of their ruling. In fact, Justice Roberts writes:

"At the same time, the State’s present determination—that the maximum number of adherents who can safely worship in the most cavernous cathedral is zero—appears to reflect not expertise or discretion, but instead insufficient appreciation or consideration of the interests at stake"

Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but Roberts' statement leads me to believe that the state would have to have some "expertise or discretion" (science-based rationale?) to support a complete ban on indoor worship, regardless if the state bans other businesses from serving customers indoors. Churches simply aren't treated the same as other organizations under the law. Deserved or not, houses of worship get special considerations, even in times of emergency.

We can? Where in the US was that done?

I know Newsome tried it in California, but SCOTUS ruled his ban unconstitutional. IIRC, SCOTUS did say last May that limits on attendance could be imposed on church services, but outright bans?

Hate to break it to you, but nothing I say on this site will change my living conditions or financial position one little bit. It's a testament to your irrational lunacy that you could actually believe otherwise.

You live in a world of your own delusions, and you are clearly dissatisfied. Despite admitting to making grave mistakes that have negatively impacted your life, your made up reality says you're a victim, and the target of your blame game is inevitably "billionaires" and/or people who don't share your politics.

Whenever someone comes along and questions your reality, you immediately resort to ridiculous responses like "you're just a paid tool of billionaires!" or "you're a right wing troll!" or any number of other bullshit responses. Anyone who doesn't agree with your foaming at the mouth hyperbolic rantings just HAS to be a right wing tool of the "ruling class".

THAT'S what's really sad, dude. The reality you've made for yourself.

I don't suffer fools gladly. On this site, I generally allow idiots like you 2-3 stupid replies before becoming annoyed. You surpassed my limit for "comments that repeat the same ludicrous shit over and over and over" some time ago.

Looking at your posting history, my limit looks quite a bit more generous than yours. Here's you calling someone stupid, a moron, and an idiot, using CAPS and bolded words in your FIRST fucking reply to them. Now you're whining about me "ranting" after enduring your idiocy quietly for several posts? Tell you what, add "hypocrite" and "douchebag" to the list of your many character issues.

Christ, I said you act like a stupid cunt, and here you are proving it yet again. Since your awareness of a common insult is nil, I'll try to educate you:

Cunt (/knt/) is a vulgar word for the vulva or vagina and is also used in a variety of other ways, including as a term of disparagement.
...
As a broader derogatory term, it is comparable to prick and means "a fool, a dolt, an unpleasant person – of either sex".

Get it now? Probably not. Simple things like this are obviously beyond your limited mental capacity.

Yesterday there was ONE comment made by another user. Today, the ONLY comments are from you and I. This discussion is dead as a doornail, you're just too fucking retarded to realize it. On the outside chance anyone is still reading this discussion, here's something they might find interesting. You said:

SMH. I've got some more bad news for you. When BioNTech was founded in 2008, there hadn't been a single case of SARS reported in four years. The last reported case of SARS occurred in 2004. MERS wasn't even identified until 2012, four years AFTER the founding of BioNTech.

Yet according to the all-knowing angel'o'sphere, BioNTech was created to cure one disease that was eradicated years before it was founded, and another disease that didn't even exist until years after it was founded.

CLEARLY there is something seriously wrong with you.

But you go ahead and keep on keepin' on. I'm more than happy to help you advertise your severe mental defects. The evidence so far points to low IQ + delusions + personality disorder, but there's certainly room for other issues to be in your mix of afflictions.

Can't wait to see what turd of a post you lay next.

Uh huh. Here is what you said:

Your own source refutes your claim, as frequently occurs when you post a "citation" supporting some hyperbolic statement you've made.

Now, if you had said something like "the CPI doesn't accurately reflect the true cost of living for certain segments of the population, particularly the young", we wouldn't be having this discussion.

But you didn't say anything like that. You said inflation doesn't include the price categories you listed. That is nowhere near "more or less the same thing".

Your source has some inaccuracies, but I generally agree with the thrust of it. There is no question in my mind that things are a lot tougher for people these days, especially for young people. But that doesn't mean it's OK for people to wildly misrepresent facts, as you frequently do on this site.

This is a technical forum, and accurate wording and facts matter. Oh wait...what am I saying? Silly me, this isn't really a technical forum anymore. You and people like you have turned it into a political forum, with partisan monkeys constantly flinging shit at one another.

Or, AC is pointing out the fact that the basket of goods used to measure inflation actually includes all the components you say it doesn't include.

For instance, you claim housing costs aren't represented in "the basket of goods", when in fact housing costs are the highest weighted component in the CPI at ~42%.

Of course, anyone who disagrees with you is automatically labelled as part of a "political other", a divisive, weak-minded tactic designed to shut down rational debate. I'm sure there a YouTube video on it if you'd like more info.

I'm not sure what you're reading, but what I see is rsilvergun claiming that "inflation" doesn't include housing, healthcare, education or used car prices.

Whenever you see "inflation" or "basket of goods" talked about in the US, 99.9% of the time what's being referred to is the CPI. The CPI uses a basket of goods to determine price changes from period to period, and it most definitely includes the prices of every single one of the things in rsilvergun's list.

There are some measures of inflation that exclude certain price data for various reasons, but they are only really used in esoteric/academic areas of study.