Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>]

On May  9, 2018, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:

> On 05/10/2018 05:20 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On May  9, 2018, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> On the contrary I claim that you're confusing the FSF agenda with the
>>> GNU core values, something RMS also conceded are distinct, just that
>>> he doesn't see the problem with the ambiguity.
>> 
>> Ok, I guess I should have elaborated on that point before, since you've
>> stated that misunderstanding before and I chose not to pursue it.
>> 
>> The FSF is exclusively about freedoms and rights related with software,
>> including human rights that are affected by software.
>> 
>> GNU is about developing software for the ethical reasons behind the Free
>> Software movement, reasons that make essential the four freedoms that
>> apply equally to software, documentation, and any other kind of
>> information for practical use.
>> 
>> So, you see, the GNU agenda is broader, not narrower, than the FSF's, in
>> spite of the *means* to advance that agenda being narrower, namely,
>> developing and publishing software and its corresponding documentation,
>> rather than all sorts of political and social activism.
>> 
>> For this reason, GNU might advance agendas that are slightly out of
>> scope for the FSF.  This is one such case: opposition to censorship laws
>> about information for practical use is in scope for GNU, but if the
>> information is not in some way related with software or its
>> documentation, and their users in their uses thereof, it is probably out
>> of scope for the FSF.

> Do you not see how this relates with what I'm trying to say?

Yeah, exactly, but you got it backwards.  You suggested that the stance
taken by the joke would be in scope for the FSF, but not for GNU, but
it's exactly the other way round.

>> What's to everyone's advantage (including our enemies) is that Richard,
>> warts and all, is so predictable and consistent.  We can count on him to

> I don't assume that because I am not a friend

Friend or not, he's a human being that deserves respect as such.  He
didn't get that from this community to begin with.

> and I don't see him as infallible in the context of Free software
> messaging.

I don't think anyone is.

> In my perception he is currently compromising on messaging for Free
> Software principles because of his insistence to include content on
> censorship (that is vaguely worded and touches a subject that many
> have expressed to be an emotional trigger) that is not at all related
> to software.

I respect your opinion, although I disagree, but nevertheless I stand
for your right to express it.

As for the emotional trigger, there's plenty of speculation, but is
there any other actual report about the emotions it actually brings to
someone who has been traumatized by a miscarriage or an intentional
abortion, other than mine?  Or is that not longer relevant because it
supports the opposite of the majority opinion?

And then, since we're among a technical community, shouldn't we even
ponder whether there's any science behind the majority opinion?  Maybe
it is all speculation, anecdotes, and negative reactions induced by the
initial framing, and the joke actually brings about an outcome in line
with GNU goals among the target audience (which is not us)?

-- 
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