Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Hey what's up doc,
On 2021-03-25 00:41:41, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting M dB (2021-03-24 23:55:23)
>> A few thoughts:
>> - I don't like the term "cancel" because I think it doesn't mean much
>> anymore and is too loaded.
> Means too little and too much at the same time?!?
> https://www.dictionary.com/e/pop-culture/cancel-culture/ describes it as
> a form of boycott, calling out, and group shaming.
> Wikipedia seems to share that view - what am I missing? Am I in some
> bubble confirming my views, and other bubbles tell radically different
> storis about the meaning of the term?
>> Are we discussing a handful of people leaving volunteer positions?
>> Yes. Are we discussing ruining their lives? No.
> Are we disccussing public boycott and shaming? Yes.
> Do public boycott and shaming ruin lives? Hopefully not, but I wonder
> how you can so confidently dismiss both the term as being meaningless
> and the action as being harmless. Shame on you for not taking
> responsibility for your action.
Did you just "shame" someone because they supposedly call on "shaming"
someone else? Isn't that a contradiction?
> I get a strong impression that this RMS felow is far from a saint, and
> encourage that he be properly tried for his alleged wrongdoings.
So basically, what you are proposing is that, instead of suggesting RMS
simply be expelled from a non-profit, all the witnesses and victims of
his crimes should collectively organise for him to be criminally
prosecuted in a court of law in the United States?
How would that not be public shaming?
Anyways, I think the point here is to get seconders, maybe we should
keep those arguments to the vote and move on. I hope I won't regret
outlining the contradictions here.
Government is the Entertainment division of the military-industrial
- Frank Zappa