Francesco Florian <francesco.flor...@gmx.com> writes: > On Fr, 04 Jun 2021, quil...@riseup.net wrote: >> If I were to weigh how much hurt Red Hat, Google and Cannonical (your >> past employers) have done to the free software community and with which >> you have collaborated, I would say it would be better to remove you >> instead of him. > > "The sins of fathers will fall upon their sons" is something in which few > pople believe nowadays (I think...) > Even less the sins of the employers should fall upon theirs (former) > employees.
No. That is not my perspective. My point is that the benefit I obtain from an employer is directly related to their actions. So I am responsible for working and helping hurtful organizations. Of course that it is not always possible to work where you want. But certainly choosing more ethical organizations is possible, even by having less pay. > I had previously decided not to answer this thread, since I actually > represent nobody, and I should have no say in what happens in the fsfe > council (or whatever organization was involved in this election). You can certainly represent yourself. > Maybe Matthew Garrett is not fit to fill the role for which he was the > only candidate. Or maybe he is. I don't (and I shouldn't) have a say > in that. But it made me sick to read so much hatred coming from > people that probably are, just like me, not involved enough in the > said organization to have any right of decision on its internal > organization. (If they were, they probably wouldn't have to resort to > rants on the mailing list to express their opinion.) Why do you think expressing opinions is hate? Positions are not necesarily hate. And expressing hate is not bad either. It makes clear what feelings are happening, instead of hiding them. That someone hates something or someone does not say anything of that something or someone. It says something of the person expressing it. It is just an opinion which should not hurt anyone. If the person is over 18 years old, the way another thinks should not affect them. If the person is not mature enough to realize that people are all different and that everyone has a right to feel any way they want, then that person should receive some support instead of taking an institutional stance of reprimanding expressions of others. What is dangerous is a hidden agenda carried by way of diplomacy. That will not provide people freedom to decide what to do. It will manipulate them. I have never seen a hostile scammer. Google quietly and subvertly controls the politics and the economy of the whole World. Apple decides what the richest do with the lives of the people which depend on them. Amazon decides what people are going to read. Microsoft controls every aspect of computing and politics. Facebook decides what friends people have and how they will interact with each other. These are important issues; not how people express their feelings. Representation is always the cause of lack of autonomy. It should be banned. It is the method the elites control the minorities and divide them. Agency and collaboration are not the elite's friends. We should unite and unity only comes by accepting others as they are, by not feeling hurt by what they feel and express, by avoiding the politicians to make parties that make the lower ranks attack each other to benefit the masters. The masters and their highest ranked officers are the only benefited. Free software of which Richard Stallman has been a great contributor encapsulates agency and collaboration by protecting them. If some people have personal problems with him, it is not the best. But that does not justify taking him down, especially by people who are financed by these megacorporation which are involved in acts way more immoral than just expressing opinions. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
