> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-March/235091.html>I had heard that RMS was ‘difficult’, or ‘socially awkward’.
He is evidently on the spectrum. The letter is careful to avoid mentioning this. The entire letter reads like a request to have people on the spectrum excluded, swept under the rug, kept somewhere we don't have to interact with them. Nathan Sidwell would not take that position towards blacks or gays, but if it's people on the spectrum then apparently the "we don't want them anywhere near us" attitude is suddenly OK.
>1. 'skeptical that voluntarily [sic] pedophilia harms children.’
Nathan Sidwell repeats the pattern of rms-open-letter >>7344
of lying by exclusion, by omittinghttps://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September_2019_(Sex_between_an_adult_and_a_child_is_wrong)>Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it. Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why.
The exclusion seems disqualifying. As a bonus, in rms-open-letter >>7294
existing signatures are repeatedly brought up as justification for not accepting corrections that they do not dispute are corrections, but https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September_2019_(Sex_between_an_adult_and_a_child_is_wrong)
is quietly edited in without invalidating existing signatures. Can't possibly have the moral backbone to come out and explicitly say: "we have this huge, material correction so previous signatures are invalidated and we invite everyone to see whether they still wish to sign after this huge, material correction".
>That list is no where near exhaustive, nor is it prioritized.
Feeling the need to sneak this in is the standard giveaway that what Nathan Sidwell thought to be the accusation with most weight was put in first place: the accusation with the gross lie by omission of information.
>So many are pointing in the same direction that you cannot ignore the implication.
1. Nathan Sidwell fails to mention that the entire previous Minsky campaign for removing rms was based on every one of the early articles, without exception, replacing pretended to be willing under coercion
with was willing
. All those articles were also "pointing in the same direction", towards a lie.
2. If numbers and homogeneity and momentum are sufficient even when based on a lie, then Nathan Sidwell must have supported Trump's "stop the steal" campaign to steal the election. Here's a hint about the substance of truth behind those numbers, homogeneity and momentum. It's a subtle hint so you'll have to pay close attention. When the lawyer who spearheaded the election fraud claims on behalf of the Trump campaign was sued for libel by one of the voting machine companies, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/23/sidney-powell-trump-election-fraud-claims
her defense at the trial was that she did not offer her claims as facts, that “no reasonable person” could have mistaken them as facts, and that she herself did not believe what she was saying. Those claims also gathered some numbers, homogeneity and momentum.
>Membership in the steering committee is a personal membership. Affiliations are listed for identification purposes only; steering committee members do not represent their employers>Generally speaking, committee members were chosen to represent the interests of communities […], not companies
If this is Nathan Sidwell's genuine position then it shows a level of naivety that amounts to a complete disconnect from reality. The entire point of the anti-rms campaign is corporate subversion of the next (A)GPL and use of "or (at your option) any later version" https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html
but they must get control of the FSF first due to "as published by the Free Software Foundation".
>The rules of the SC are not immutable laws of the universe, nor does humanity have immutable laws cast in stone.
The author of this post and Nathan Sidwell both agree that "adults having sex with children is wrong" is one of those immutables. I hope Nathan Sidwell uses better syllogistic logic in his gcc contributions, which he is not above using as an appeal to authority ("I present some bona fides
"), than stating there is no X after having just given an example of X. The entire letter is high on hubris and low on consistency of reasoning.