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.

I understand the overall argument. I'm not 100% sure of how well this argument fits with not doing anything about LLM contributions, but OK. You don't want to add too many goals to your already established group or that could easily create fracturing between its members. If everyone sticks to a single goal, old members won't complain about the group changing direction in ways they don't agree with, the group might bring more people in (because anyone that agrees with that single goal might want to contribute), and the resources won't be spread thin.

Claiming to accept contributions that result from slavery is way fucking beyond that though. I don't know about you, but I'd expect that every group I work with would at the very fucking least agree to follow the goddamn Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And in the GNU Foundation's particular case, I'd also expect them to do it, especially with them having being founded is the US, the country where the UN is headquartered.

Also, is it just me, or do the GNU Foundation's leaders keep forgetting how to be human? This is far from the first time they've said stupid stuff like this.

This meme is actually my response to that discussion. Eight slaves and constantly swapping? Maybe edit.com isn't so bad.

thank you for the source!

Because it's horrendously unethical and utterly awful to coöperate with slavers.

First, there is the Is–ought problem, in which an observation that the GPL is compatible with code originating from slave labor or AI is magicked into the moral imperative that such code must be accepted.