Very balanced take on the debate:
I do not agree with all of it, but I can get behind the criticism of specific passages in the open letter and the judgment on the fitness for leadership of rms is shared.

stefano, would you spell out what passages of the letter you signed you can now "get behind" in criticism? I suppose some people might never forget that you signed it, even if you were to publicly retract it altogether (we've both seen how honest retraction is framed by distrusting opponents), but others might have some of their trust in you restored by your spelling out your own more balanced analysis of the letter and of the situation. I suggest it because I assume you're not pushing for a schism in the movement; feel free to ignore otherwise

@lxo Alexandre, this is so passive aggressive ("people might never forget [you]", "[you're] pushing for a schism in the movement [if you ignore this]", etc.) that I will indeed ignore it. But I'm letting you know that I'm doing that on purpose, without validating any of the implicit defaults in your message.

· · Web · 1 · 1 · 0
noted. I wish you'd paid as much attention to the language of the hate- and lie-filled letter while it was still in drafting, instead of agreeing to sign that which you admit to criticizing, but weasel out from detailing. it isn't too hard to guess what it is, from the article you qualified as balanced, but I can imagine various reasons for you to prefer not to own up the partial retraction, and to keep on insisting that it's someone else who can't be trusted

@lxo Nice try with the "partial retraction" and the "someone else". Kthxbye

are you now backpedaling on your retraction?
or denying that the criticism to specific passages of the open letter you (presumably co-drafted and) undersigned, criticism that you later claimed you could get behind, amounts to a (partial) retraction?

@lxo I have never retracted anything, nor I intend to do so. As one of the first signers I stand behind what is written in the open letter.

I hope that is clear enough.

(I deduce from your messages that you cannot reconcile this with what I wrote in the message that started this thread. And I can live with that.)

I'm still curious as to what it is that you agree with that article when it comes to getting behind criticism of the open letter, while also standing behind the letter. it sounds a little contradictory to me, and I expect your stating what it was that you criticized would have made it clear, but I get and respect that you won't wish to specify what the criticism you also partially undersigned was, and prefer to leave it up for speculation. I acknowledge and appreciate the self-criticism you imply with this combination of actions. o-o
Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!