everything wrong with free software

 "obedience breeds foolishness"

### another-minor-quibble-with-leah *originally posted:* dec 2021 if you are proposing unity and federation around rebooting a movement that was taken down over false accusations of stallman attacking, hating or oppressing groups of people he didnt attack, hate or oppress, i think its important to get the following (error) right: > if you're from a privileged group, you don't get to bitch about your "freedom of speech" when it relates to a policy designed to empower the very under-privileged group that you are not a part of and have no incentive to feel empathy for ^ first of all, its a circular (hell, recursive) argument. first youre shut out of discussing something to "empower" someone else, and then you also have no right to complain about being shut out of discussing it? please tell me how it empowers anybody, that if you believe youve been wrongfully terminated, you dont even have the right to disagree? that doesnt sound like empowerment, it sounds like zero-tolerance policy. and my general problem with zero-tolerance policies is they almost invariably lead to corruption. in this world leah is describing, being an arsehole is a fire-able offense-- and thats that. i mean, some arseholes certainly ought to be fired. but there are too many good people being painted as arseholes for simply disagreeing. and simply disagreeing being a reason to fire someone may not bode well in many instances. but then again hes an arsehole, so who cares about his rights? i think its just sloppy reasoning. this is the same logic that took down stallman, yet leah defended him. a lot. yeah, blah blah blah history-- seriously, they defended him a lot. plenty, i think. we could have fired stallman for being an arsehole in the NINETIES though. its what esr wanted. it took 20 more years to make it happen. why? because people associated with free software were sticklers for being able to think out loud and collaboratively-- not in a corner, having every snippet of text or speech scrutinised like the huac still exists. free software cant survive that level of hypocrisy-- its not merely "free as in speech", its ONLY free as in speech. no free speech, no free software. free speech means the freedom to be an arsehole. employment rights are not identical to free speech, you cant just tell your boss "hey! go fuck your mother!" your job wont likely outlast that. but your RIGHT to say anything about it? what policy outweighs that? once youre no longer with the company, you retain every right to speak. the policy applies to employees; unless he was contractually obligated to never complain about wrongful termination, and i dont think a reasonable contract can demand that. you have to mix up too many different things for leahs argument to make sense. of course, it wasnt their argument in the first place. they were merely repeating it. i call bullshit! if leah was right, then stallman was rightfully removed. if stallman was wrongfully removed, then everyone has a right to speak about their wrongful removal. broadly speaking, and as far as i can tell, this sort of farcical tribunal of who has inalienable rights and who doesnt is a product of the frankfurt school of communism. even communists dont need that sort of baggage. self-styled "libertarians" that carry it are talking out of their arse. leah is smarter than this, and thats said sincerely. they will come around. but real arseholes dont worry about speaking out of turn. freedom never came from waiting for someone to GIVE you the right to speak. freedom is taken, either by the people who need it, or the people who dont want them to have it-- but either way. you cant give someone whats already theirs. and you cant revoke inalienable rights. (that too is a circular argument, but im not trying to make it stand on its own-- it is a response to the silly people who think that inalienable rights can be cancelled somehow). this is surely because leah is british. whatever you can say in their favour on average, brits on average dont understand this aspect of freedom at all. its sort of "freedom unless otherwise specified" and they have that on both sides of the pond, but brits dont tend to stand up to a stiff breeze on this issue. perhaps because theyre so damned polite. (thats a lie as well, but on average they may well be). finally, the argument uses the word empathy in a way that denies its very definition: > ...that you are not a part of and have no incentive to feel empathy for fucking look up the word "empathy" then. by definition, it is the action of placing yourself in SOMEONE ELSES position. if already being in that same position is a prerequisite, then the word itself is meaningless. there are so many trigger-happy people waiting for an excuse to misunderstand, theyll think im being condescending. i WOULD consider leah an equal, if i didnt think theyre a lot fucking smarter than i am. leahs younger than i am. i could spend the next 15 years trying to catch up, and not get halfway there. leahs a fucking wizard-- im just a tinkerer. theyve got crazy and admirable skills. im content with tinkering. theyve been to more school than i have. and none of that matters here. it doesnt mean theyre right about this. its pisspoor logic, no matter who says it. more importantly, it basically undermines everything leah claims to stand for-- and thats the point! and i still think their motivations are sincere. sadly, being honest doesnt guarantee that youre right anymore than being intelligent does. and this frankfurt school bullshit needs to be challenged, or there will only be more stallmans who cant say anything. because inalienable rights dont exist to those crazy people, and theyre not "human rights" unless THEY SAY SO. the frankfurt school cant take away inalienable rights either. all it can do is make really, really stupid arguments and emotionally blackmail people into thinking they count as logic and thus have validity. like open source, the frankfurt school has a habit of promising global progress with one hand and selling everyone out to monopolists and unmitigated capitalism with the other. fuck all of that, sincerely, and the illiterate horse it rode in on. privilege exists, and you cant (wont) fix that by telling half of the human race to shut the fuck up until theyre asked a question by someone who actually matters. it will however, create enough chaos to keep the slaveowners on top, where they prefer to stay. when leah makes their own arguments, instead of repeating someone elses, they tend to be a lot more reasonable. thats because leah isnt the problem here-- i cant vouch for everyone they hang out with. hell, i cant even vouch for everyone i hang out with. in a free software, free society, we are going to have some friends who are arseholes and/or idiots. and if those arseholes are really (that is, not automatically) bad enough, theyll probably be unsuccessful, as well. yet every true progressive i know is more concerned with helping unsuccessful people, rather than finding new ways to create more of them. at least i prefer that when we make people afraid to say anything by threatening their job, we do so based on sound logic that is possible to defend without recursion or special pleading. only now, for some ridiculous reason i have no right to say this. => https://wrongwithfreesw.neocities.org