SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Thomas Bushnell, former maintainer of GNU Hurd until his dismissal by Richard Stallman, has opined in a biased blog post that the forced resignation of Stallman from MIT and the Free Software Foundation is deserved.
https://medium.com/@thomas.bushnell/a-reflection-on-the-departure-of-rms-18e6a835fd84
So Richard Stallman has resigned from his guest position at MIT and as President of the Free Software Foundation. You can easily find out all you need to know about the background from a web search and some news articles. I recommend in particular Selam G's original articles on this topic for background, and for an excellent institutional version, the statement from the Software Freedom Conservancy.
But I'll give you a personal take. By my reckoning, I worked for RMS longer than any other programmer.
[...]4) RMS's loss of MIT privileges and leadership of the FSF are the appropriate responses to a pattern of decades of poor behavior. It does not matter if they are appropriate responses to a single email thread, because they are the right thing in the total situation.
5) I feel very sad for him. He's a tragic figure. He is one of the most brilliant people I've met, who I have always thought desperately craved friendship and camaraderie, and seems to have less and less of it all the time. This is all his doing; nobody does it to him. But it's still very sad. As far as I can tell, he believes his entire life's work is a failure.
6) The end result here, while sad for him, is correct.
The free software community needs to develop good leadership, and RMS has been a bad leader in many ways for a long time now. He has had plenty of people who have tried to help him, and he does not want help.
MIT needs to establish as best it can that paramount are the interests of women to have a safe and fair place to study and work. It must make clear that this is more important than the coddling of a whiny child who has never reached the emotional maturity to treat people decently.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @06:38PM (3 children)
A peacock is not able to defend himself or his family against predators. Primarily this is because of his investment in signaling. The large loud feathers he carries with him in hopes of attracting a mate are a liability once mating is successful.
The same is true of the modern human male who has turned to virtue signalling in order to demonstrate to prospective mates that he is fit to procreate. Perhaps the reason for this turn of events is that women do now have equality. As a result, having a mate who is wealthy and powerful and therefore able to actually protect her, is no longer the lure that it once was. Women are free now to be more selective in their mates, even chosing no mate or a mate of the same sex. And while this may seem all well and good for her given the present set of circumstances, these circumstances can and do change.
I find it ironic that the submissive male is now held out by women as an ideal mate and yet the primary methods of attracting a mate remain the same. Women want a good looking man who will be at least their equal. A man who is wealthy or at least financially well off and women will still friendzone any other male.
We now have the derogatory term, "incel" for any male who is unable to attract a mate. I do not agree with this term, and yet I see time and again this term applied to men in the way that spinstress used to applied to women who were unable to find a mate.
This would not be so bad, except that countries which maintain an emphasis on traditional gender roles are rapidly catching up to the west on the world stage. Perhaps they will adopt our values, but considering the Islamification of the west, I dont hold out much hope.
Isnt if ironic that the response of the Muslim world to the wests attempts to impose modern western values has been to radicalize further into Islamic law, even declaring Jihad or holy war against us.
At the moment it is a non-issue, but should these people who follow Sharia Law decide to impose it upon us as a response to further efforts to westernize their culture, I wonder if any real man will be able to muster the will to resist.
Wouldnt it be ironic if our grandchildren look back at this era and instead of seeing us as enlightened and progressive, they wonder how and why we were rejecting the core tenets of Abrahamic faith, and how it was possible we didnt foresee the downfall of western civilization that would ensue.
Give it 50 years and I think we will be able to see pretty easily where the current path led. It will be marked by the radicalization of young men, who unable to find their place in this world decide to appeal to their God for relief from this unnatural order, and it will also be marked by women who having no desire to anything but their faith, support these men and as a result we will see the same sea changes occur in the west that occured 50 years ago in the east.
Its time for men to put down their soy lattes and man up. You really want to protect women, to give them a safe space? You want women to feel that they can be completely free from men seeking a mate?
Insist on strict gender segregation in all spaces, not just the bathrooms. Not because it is backwards, but because it is forwards.
It is what women are telling us that they want. They dont want to have to deal with "men just being men", they want the comfort of other women at all times unless they are with their selected mate.
It works for the men too. What man wants to constantly worry that despite his best attempts to virtue signal he is only one remark, one glance or one misunderstood kindness away from losing his livelyhood, his home, his family and maybe even his freedom.
The women have it right here, give them their safe space and leave them alone. If you want to marry one, ask her brother or her father or her uncle, a man she is comfortable with, one whom she respects and trusts.
In short... Do you want Sharia Law? Because this is exactly how to end up with Sharia Law and although I am not muslim, recent times do demonstrate the wisdom of such things. So lets not wait for it to happen to us, to be imposed upon us, lets give it to them now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @07:20PM
The problem everyone is having is assumptions about how the rest of the world is operating outside of their narrow little worldview.
I had the same problem from being unable to attract a mate IRL. There were three parts to my problems: the first was social structures instilled by school/parents/media/upstanding public figures that didn't match with reality. The romantic multi-decade true love story is bullshit told to tell tickets/merch. Anyone from childhood you will either be dating/married to by your 30s, or you will each have tried other people and get married as divorcees in your 40s, unless one or the other focused on their career and remained single until very late. For a guy that isn't a big deal, but for a woman who wants children it is a huge deal. I've been having discussions with men and women from other cultures and backgrounds, as well as people from my parent's generation (boomer) that had kids when they were younger. 18-30 is the worse time financially/experientally to have kids but also the time when you can most enjoy having them. 30-50 makes it harder and riskier to have kids, on average, and while you are more financially set you are also more detached from their interests and common culture and don't have the energy to match up with all the activities they want or need to do. Moving into the 'grandparents' age, that usually only works with an older guy and a younger woman, or more recently with an older women utilizing a surrogate and a younger man, so one parent is young and spry enough to shore up the energy needs of young to teenaged children. Unless they have stayed particularly focused on modern cultural progression however, those parents are also most likely to brign up their children vastly out of date to societal norms, which may hinder them later on in life, depending on their own ability to learn beyond what they are taught. There is lots more like helicopter vs negligent parental responsibility, but that is a discussion for another time.
In regards to the dangers of the modern out of touch societal actions: These are just the loudest groups with the publicity from hollywood other elite owned outlets. This is mostly a misdirection campaign to keep people from seeing the seedier aspects of society all around them, most of it hidden under 'puritanical' activities (religion being the most public example.) Even the SOSTA/FESTA bullshit is just to misdirect people from the actual sex trade and trafficking avenues, and it is working as the libtards focus on the adult sex markets instead of looking at the feeders for the underage ones. Same with the right-wing nutjobs,claiming to think of the children while helping 'upstanding' hebe and paedophiles get into office preaching family values. The rot is deeper than you all realize and the path forward is one you each need to think long and hard about so that the cockroaches of society can be purged before they scurry into another wall.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @07:41PM (1 child)
Lol, the "submissive male"....
Big cringe for morons like you who equate equality with "losing" somehow. It isn't about being submissive, it is about not being domineering.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @10:45PM
With the current "women are always right" propaganda, that is not equality.
Equality would treat men and women as individuals, not as one class against another.