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

[Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>]

On May  2, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 05/01/2018 08:30 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> To the best of our knowledge, terminating a program by calling this
>> function is not against the law in any jurisdiction, but there are
>> some jurisdictions considering laws to censor information about such
>> procedures.  Regardless of your opinion on the procedures, we hope you
>> will support our opposition to censorship.

> This is now satire

Nah, it was just tongue-in-cheek.

Satire is my following fake proposal of change over yours, see below.

> +The authors of this manual would like to take the opportunity to
> +ask you to oppose @strong{censorship} of human abortion related
> +information. Regardless of your opinion on the topic of human
> +abortion, we hope you will support our opposition to censorship
> +in all forms.

To be accurate, it is now evident that it has to be reworded like this:

  Some of the authors of this manual would like to take the opportunity
  to ask you to oppose @strong{censorship} of information related with
  human abortion.  Regardless of your opinion on the topic of human
  abortion, some of us hope you will support the opposition to
  censorship that we wish all of us shared, but others among us condone
  and practice censorship just like the politicians trying to pass the
  denounced censorship bills, using such tricks as creating fait
  accompli, criticizing straw men and pretending the debate is about a
  different topic.  We now return to your regular programming.

See?, this is satire!  Bitter satire, even.  :-/


Now, I don't think the above is true; at least I hope it isn't, in spite
of the damning appearance, that nobody else thought of contacting the
project leader that appointed each one of the official maintainers, the
same person who left a note for the snippet to not be removed; that the
patch was rushed in after less than 48 hours of debate when most of us
know his email cycles are often longer than that, and that the person
who installed the patch, in spite of expressing regret for not
contacting RMS first, does not offer to correct the mistake and allow
for consensus to be built, insisting on the fait accompli until someone
else offers to revert the change.  To me, offering to correct the
mistake would show good faith, correcting the appearance of rushing the
patch in, but if that's what it takes, I offer to reverse the patch
myself, if the person who pushed it in doesn't do so in the next few
days, so that we can then seek consensus without the fait accompli
artificially shifting the baseline.

-- 
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