you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 16 points 10 hours ago* (2 children)

What the fuck? Like, no discussion or explanation of their rationale, just "must be YES" as if that's obvious? Come on... Free software really shouldn't be Slave Labor GNU/AI Slop Linux.

There's so much public attention on the enshittification of everything in computing and growing momentum around free software alternatives... I do wish the people behind big free software projects would not say this sort of shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 9 hours ago (1 child)

    the screenshot cuts off the next paragraph:

    Any other answer is a first step towards splitting our community along the many lines of political and ideological divides that have nothing to do with software freedoms. Right now we have contributors from all over the world, despite the differences in their regimes and political systems, differences in ideologies, and even in the very interpretation of the notion of "freedom". You are suggesting to subject the contributors to some examination of the principles they uphold, the ethics of their day-to-day activities, their views on matters of policies and important international events, etc. This will immediately fracture our community into many different enclaves. And that's exactly my point, and the main reason why I must reject the "Human Emacs" initiative, as it is presented to us.

    i don’t like this argument as i reject nationalism (while accepting geographic self-determination) but it seems most people agree with nationalism, so i’d like to hear others’ thoughts on this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 8 points 6 hours ago

    You might enjoy Davi Ottenheimer's take in GNU Maintainer: Slave-Made Code? “YES”.

    Wollstonecraft answered the divisiveness claim even more clearly in 1790. Burke had argued that inherited institutions must stay beyond ethical examination, because a society that judges its own foundations fractures. Her reply applies to “fracture our community into many different enclaves” word for word: “the whole tenor of his plausible arguments settles slavery on an everlasting foundation.” In her second edition she spelled out the consequence. On Burke’s reasoning, “the slave trade ought never to be abolished.”

    Sounds familiar, no?

    A rule that forbids ethical examination of provenance protects whatever provenance is already inside the system. That held for sugar. It holds for emacs.

  • source
  • parent