Re: [rain1 at airmail dot cc] Delete abortion joke

[Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>]

On May  3, 2018, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:

> Your extension of the definition of core values of the GNU project is
> a feature creep that risks diluting the original message that the GNU
> project holds up for the Free software movement, which is software
> freedom.

I spoke of core values of the Free Software movement, of which GNU is a
very significant part.  I did not extend them: the same ethical
imperatives that require software to respect users' four essential
freedoms apply equally to documentation and all other sorts of
information for practical use, and the Free Software movement has very
long stood for them applied to all sorts of information for practical
use, despite the more widely known focus on software.


>> to open sores hell: losing the moral backbone, standing for nothing,
>> giving up and betraying the essential freedoms.  What a shame!

> Alex please think about what you're working so hard to defend and
> reinstate here.

> It is a joke.
> That is not even that funny.
> That is not even that effective in communicating its purpose clearly.
> That is barely read by anyone given its place in the manual.
> That not relevant to the manual
> That risks diluting our core message of the GNU project

I agree it's not that funny.  I agree it might not be that effective, if
it triggers such fierce emotional reactions on GNU libc developers.  I
agree it is probably hardly ever read, considering it only goes in
printed versions of the manual.  I don't agree it dilutes our core
message, in that it opposes censorship of information for practical use;
if anything, it reinforces or informs that our goal is not as narrow as
you purport it to be.  That, in turn, makes it relevant to the manual.
I don't think it needs to be a great joke for it to be effective in
bypassing learned mind paths.  Perhaps that's exactly what makes it so
disturbing?

All of these arguments can be easily turned around: why do people care
so much about removing it, and claiming the joke is about abortion, or
that the issue is about taking a stance about abortion, in spite of the
self-evident fact that it's just taking a stand about censorship?  Such
fierce reaction cannot be explained by rational thought alone.  It's so
loaded of emotion, of passion, that there is something else going on
behind the scenes, even if individuals that value rationality so highly
won't admit to it, and might not even be aware of it.

I acknowledge that my reaction to what I'm seeing is visceral.  I
respond very passionately to what smells and tastes and walks and quacks
like censorship to me.

Why are others responding with such passion for the removal of a passage
that is as unimportant as you describe it?  I struggle to understand it.
Can you offer any theory to explain it?

I do know that a few ill-intentioned individuals are occasionally enough
to induce a flash mob and get otherwise well-meaning people to behave in
very disturbing ways.  I don't know that we have that, and I don't want
to assume that we do.  The taboo theory suggested by my wife was not
just the one that made the most sense to me, but also that did not
require assuming bad faith on any of the participants, just a
not-entirely-unusual too-strong emotional reaction to a stimulus that is
in some way related with some taboo or an otherwise very emotionally
loaded subject.

The fierce emotional reactions displayed here might suggest that the
presence of the snippet is harmful, if the target audience could be
assumed to react in the same way the developers have.  But there is a
non-negligible possibility that developers just fear certain undesirable
reactions from the target audience, and pursue the removal out of that
fear.  Some might even advise that certain topics are better left out
from humor, based on such fears.

I ask you all to contrast that, however, with RMS's display of masterful
use of humor to promote Free Software values, while performing Saint
Ignucius and joking about religion, probably the one topic that would be
most strongly advised against in manuals on politically correct humor,
and even humor in general.


> Please think about whether this is worth accusing well meaning friends
> of losing their moral compass.

I hope I didn't get that far; temporary disorientation might be a better
description of the theory that's in my mind, which is supported by the
cognitive dissonance between the fact that nobody claimed to support
censorship (several claimed to oppose it), and the contradictory fact
that this is precisely what's going on with the attempt to mob-impose
the removal of a snippet that the project leader wishes to keep
exclusively in manuals to be printed by the foundation he presides.

If I did get that far, I apologize for not expressing my thoughts and
theories clearly enough, and for the distress my failure to do so may
have caused on any of you.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer