For context, I think it's an answer to this open letter from GNU developers: https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-pr...
The notion that empowered means shielded from opinions you might disagree with seems odd.
https://twitter.com/TheEllenShow/status/1181395164499070976
Basically, it's okay to be friends with people we disagree with (and really, we ought to).
Ironically, she didn't catch flack for George being president of the Iraqi war, she caught flack for George's stance on LGBT issues when he was president.
Also, isn't this post a copy/paste of one that you just posted? Simply repeating it doesn't make it true, guy.
Ironically, she didn't catch flack for George being president of the Iraqi war, she caught flack for George's stance on LGBT issues when he was president.
Not all of us lied to get Congressional authority to use force with explicit conditions, and not all of us declared those conditions to be met and applied the force so authorized in knowing bad faith.
In fact, exactly one of us did that, and his name is George W. Bush.
Whatever guilt anyone else has in that matter is far less.
Is that something the US should be doing? I think not, and it frequently ends badly, but Presidents keep trying. Like Obama in Libya or the elder Bush and Clinton in Somalia and Bosnia.
Bosnia was different. Clinton was 100% correct (and too slow) to act, because it was genocide. He already Rwandan blood on his hands by his inaction.
Love thy neighbour folks!
(EDIT: this doesn't mean i don't have a problem with GW Bush's needless war, as pointed out by a few sibling comments. It's more like, I think that if people mingled a bit more with people from other camps, then there would be more understanding and, ultimately, less hardship in the world. So much of the shit in the world comes from lack of communication!)
EDIT: I misread, it’s not a letter of support to Stallman. Sorry.
> Yet, we must also acknowledge that Stallman’s behavior over the years has undermined a core value of the GNU project: the empowerment of all computer users. GNU is not fulfilling its mission when the behavior of its leader alienates a large part of those we want to reach out to.
> We believe that Richard Stallman cannot represent all of GNU. We think it is now time for GNU maintainers to collectively decide about the organization of the project. The GNU Project we want to build is one that everyone can trust to defend their freedom.
These are not supporters and the page isn't made in support of RMS.
That'd classify as being against RMS. You can argue semantics all you want, but with someone else as I am not interested.
> Support free software.
> Don’t support Stallman.
https://twitter.com/mattl/status/1177355118829854720?s=20
In any case I think it’s clear the letter is against Stallman retaining the leadership role and therefore in a binary supporter/adversary framing, the signers should not be considered “supporters” of RMS.
The second half of that sentence pits you directly against RMS, who has made clear he does not intend to leave his position with GNU.
You should read and understand what you sign, before you do.
> Yet, we must also acknowledge that Stallman’s behavior over the years has undermined a core value of the GNU project: the empowerment of all computer users. GNU is not fulfilling its mission when the behavior of its leader alienates a large part of those we want to reach out to.
> We believe that Richard Stallman cannot represent all of GNU. We think it is now time for GNU maintainers to collectively decide about the organization of the project. The GNU Project we want to build is one that everyone can trust to defend their freedom.
This is not a list of people in support of RMS, they are against RMS.