Create an appendix like the sister site.

[M-i-k-o-t-o]

Like https://rms-open-letter.github.io/appendix, containing arguments as to why one should sign this letter (possibly countering the linked appendix).

By the way I created an issue containing criticism of the appendix of the sister site at https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/issues/951 but despite both parties being civil it ended up being deleted and I got blocked from the repo. I have attached a picture of it before getting deleted.

[M-i-k-o-t-o]

I made a repo where I will include archives of deleted issues of the sister repo https://github.com/M-i-k-o-t-o/rms-open-letter-removed-issues

[purplesyringa]

Do you by any chance have that issue in text format?

[M-i-k-o-t-o]

Sadly not. If you know of a good OCR software for GNU/Linux I would try to extract the text.

[M-i-k-o-t-o]

@imachug ah, I found it

Improve the appendix #951
M-i-k-o-t-o commented 11 hours ago
Regarding https://rms-open-letter.github.io/appendix

My suggestions and issues with it:

Remove the selamjie article as it does a dis-service to this petition by making you seem as dishonest, since the main argument of this article stems from a failed reading comprehension that the author has refused to correct. There have been multiple other inaccuracies to it that were debunked over time (such as the door sign one).

Please elaborate on """In the original publication of the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines, he said “there are various ways to express gender neutrality in third-person singular pronouns in English; you do not have to use ‘they.’”"". The quote seems.. correct? xir is an older gender-neutral pronoun that I remember, the one that stallman invented is another. I do not see what is transphobic about this. I checked both the old and the new version of the guidelines. I am sure that you would not have put that if you had not detected some issue with that text so it is probably a misunderstanding on my part. Would you mind elaborating on it?

Regarding """RMS decries that this is not “sexual assault” because “‘assaulting’ presumes that he applied force or violence”"". RMS is focusing about how most people would perceive the words "sexual assault". The first image that comes to mind when someone tells me "sexual assault" is someone getting forcefully pushed in order to be kissed, it gives the impression that something that did not happen actually did.

Regarding ""where he also shares his views on minors being “entirely willing.”"". He does not seem to make that argument in the linked post. Maybe you put the wrong link? In this specific one he was generally dissatisfied with the vagueness of news articles and again being annoyed with how people often use certain legally/technically correct words that give a different impression to the reader. Just like in the previous case.

Regarding "He regularly and repeatedly makes comments about “the dishonest law that labels sex with adolescents as ‘rape’ even if they are willing". Same as above.

Regarding """He compares United States law to Sudanese law in saying that “US laws that define ‘rape’ to include voluntary sex with under N years of age (where N varies)” and that “both laws falsify the meaning of ‘rape'"""". Again, same as above. Most people think of someone being physically forced or threaten with violence in order to perform sexual acts when someone says rape. He is just an old dude that wants the article that he reads to be honest and clear on their meaning.

Regarding "Stallman has previously expressed opinions that were consistent with the inaccurate portrayal". A link here would be useful.

Regarding "but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing". Well, it would be in the interest of Epstein to tell her to act willing or else. I mean, he would not like the people going to his islands to know that he runs a sex trafficing ring. After all his intention was to blackmail people, not be blackmailed himself. So what RMS says seems likely and even if it was not.. is it that bad to make hypotheses?

Regarding """Of a woman having sex with a minor, he said “I wish an attractive woman had ‘abused’ me that way when I was 14.”""". Including this seems extremely distasteful. Kink-shaming is not cool. Let people have their fantasies.

Regarding """He defended pedophilia, in general, in saying that “there is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.”"". He apologized and withdrew that. I would suggest mentioning it in that page. I presume that you did not know but if you did and did not mention it then that would be dishonest.

He directly addressed child pornography by saying that “making such photos should be a crime, and is a crime, but that is no reason to prohibit possessing copies of the photos.”

afaik, the common reasoning that such images are prohibited is because some think that they could turn people into pedophiles (similar to the argument that "gay culture" or "gay pornography" turns people gay) or that it might cause children to be sexually assaulted (kinda similar to the games cause violence argument). There might be more reasons that I am not aware of but this is not as clear as a case that you make it out to be. It is certainly worth debating over.

Regarding the part about Down’s syndrome, currently it kinda reads like a "pro-life" (read: anti-choice) complain. It would use some tidying up but you can make a case out of it.

I think that it would be better on focusing on harassment (online, verbal, or physical) committed by stallman instead rather than saying that he should be removed for posting about random opinions, thoughts, and comments. I believe that this would give more legitimacy on your campaign.

Thank you for reading my rambling. I hope that it was of use :3`

mollydb commented 10 hours ago

• Regarding """He defended pedophilia, in general, in saying that “there is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.”"". He apologized and withdrew that. I would suggest mentioning it in that page. I presume that you did not know but if you did and did not mention it then that would be dishonest.

Do you have a citation?`

M-i-k-o-t-o commented 10 hours ago
mollydb Here it is https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September_2019_(Sex_between_an_adult_and_a_child_is_wrong)`

neilmcgovern commented 10 hours ago
Folks, unfortunately the phrasing of the letter is now frozen as it's been signed by a number of people. I don't think there's any more fruitful discussion to be had in this issue as we won't be changing it at this stage, sorry.
Also, a huge thank you to those in here who have kept discussion civil, unlike in other ones.

neilmcgovern closed this 10 hours ago

M-i-k-o-t-o commented 10 hours ago
neilmcgovern This issue concerns the appendix which contains arguments on why people should sign the letter and changing it would not modify the contents of the letter itself. Thank you for your kind reply though.

mollydb commented 10 hours ago

mollydb Here it is https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September_2019_(Sex_between_an_adult_and_a_child_is_wrong)

I'm going to make a PR to add an edit (with a note) to the appendix. Thank you.

[M-i-k-o-t-o]

@mollydb @neilmcgovern would you by any chance know the reason behind the deletion of my issue and my block from the repository? This was the only issue that I created.

[M-i-k-o-t-o]

also tagging @ehashman since they may know. I would really appreciate an explanation.

[nukeop]

I don't really want to go into such detail on this. I don't think anyone's interested in a debate on either side. The appendix in open-letter is just filled with deliberate misrepresentations of some of his more controversial points.

[df3423e]

I don't really want to go into such detail on this. I don't think anyone's interested in a debate on either side. The appendix in open-letter is just filled with deliberate misrepresentations of some of his more controversial points.

idk i feel like alot of people only sign the letter against stallman because they dont know the details of the accusations & when they then go to the appendix page they get a false impression. I know it shouldn't matter because at the end of the day its just opinions so even if the accusations were true it shouldn't mean anything, but i think it would help people see how ill-intended the other side is being if we point out that their accusations aren't even true in the first place.

[parazyd]

More:

• https://alirezahayati.com/2021/03/25/fight-against-idiocy-support-rms/
• https://www.wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-web

[ghost]

I also wrote an analysis of the pile of misinformation that is the RMS Open Letter on reddit

[banderlog]

geez, they keep deleting every issue, that does not fit the party line.

[appetrosyan]

I wonder, why has none of the deluge of emails towards GitHub not managed to close their repository down for good? It’s violating the COC and EULA of GitHub. Yet they keep on going. This isn’t that the open letter organisers are in deep cahoots with GitHub, it’s that I can’t trust GitHub anymore.

YouTube-dl wasn’t in violation of any of GitHub guidelines, and yet it went down. The Open Letter is in violation of several points of the EULA (using a repo for personal attack) and definitely a federal crime (defamation), yet it’s still up!

@RealGitHubAdmin why haven’t you taken down the open letter repository? Even if some of what they say is correct, a few of their points have been proven wrong, and they harass signatories of the support letter? This is basis enough for you to step in! How am I supposed to trust you not to selectively enforce the COC?

[M-i-k-o-t-o]

@appetrosyan Please see Occam's razor, do not attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. Github has been known to leave posts against the TOS for months at a time before they decide to take them down. The youtube-dl repo was taken down due to dmca, which is a different thing.

[ghost]

There are some more links debunking the letter and revealing the intentions behind it:

• Libreboot blog post by Leah Rowe (link)
• RMS's own clarification on his values (link)
• Mob Mentality Threatens The Free Software Movement (link)
• Don't fight Stallman, fight Strawmen on /r/freesoftware (link)
• Richard Stallman (RMS) is being re-cancelled after returning to head of the FSF on /r/stupidpol (link)
• In Defense of Richard Stallman - by Lunduke (link)
• Disabled person takes a stance regarding the "ableist" claims against RMS on the Debian Mailing List (link)
• My own analysis of the appendix, which I have already posted above, but I'm too egotistical to not mention again (link)