MESSAGE
| DATE | 2019-11-06 |
| FROM | Jean Louis
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [Hangout - NYLXS]
|
* Dmitry Alexandrov <321942-at-gmail.com> [2019-11-07 03:07]:
> > I do not see how the aim of creating a harassment-free environment could be construed as making GNU a less welcoming place...
>
> In other words, the only real aim of your ‘social contract’ is to
> impose that last paragraph about ‘harassment’ on everyone, while all
> the software freedom stuff is just a decoration that should not be
> taken seriously?
That is exactly what I see. It is agenda of those people who published
the public shamings page, so it is further continuance and blatant
attempt of corruption of already well organized GNU policies.
"Social contract" has etymology coming from France,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract, "In moral and political
philosophy, the social contract is a theory or model that originated
during the Age of Enlightenment and usually concerns the legitimacy of
the authority of the state over the individual. Social contract
arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either
explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit
to the authority (of the ruler, or to the decision of a majority) in
exchange for protection of their remaining rights or maintenance of
the social order"
Thus it is "other type of politics" that is trying to enter the GNU
project.
The only politics for GNU project is free software politics.
Introduction of Rousseau's concepts of social contract represent
introduction of middle-age French politics into US based, freedom of
speech based project named GNU.
GNU is and was ahead of the future, it should not go back to French
middle-age principles as described above.
More food for thoughts from:
https://medium.com/-at-MichaelRobertCaditz/hobbess-error-and-problems-with-social-contract-theory-%D6%98-bec8bf7ae13c
"One, our only obligations are those defined in the social contract to
which we’ve agreed. There are no moral obligations which are separate
from (or override) our contractual obligations. A problem with this
assumption is that it eliminates the distinction between morality and
law; they become one in the same. But, we know that laws can be
immoral."
-- the above summarizes exactly what is the problem with the subtle
agenda of defectors, they wish to impose new rules and by doing so,
they would cause more damage and discourage contributions to GNU.
There are reasons why GNU project is neutral and should remain neutral
to any kind of other politics, including policing behavior of other
people by means of social contracts.
More quotes from:
https://medium.com/-at-MichaelRobertCaditz/hobbess-error-and-problems-with-social-contract-theory-%D6%98-bec8bf7ae13c
Two, social contracts are not inclusive of all. As Waller states, “If
you can’t join in the contract, and you can’t live up to the demands
of the contract, then you aren’t part of the moral community”
and the above clarifies the contradiction to the purpose that GNU
project is welcoming contributions from everybody. If it starts
imposing "social contract", it would start changing direction of not
being any more neutral, it would start becoming new type of
Thoughtpolice.
More food for thought:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contractarianism-contemporary/
"Social contract" is not any type of contract, it is coercion as it
implies the consent. Consent is not mutual. That type of ruling is not
of any use in GNU.
Would GNU be a project of middle-age France, I would say that is best
they could do at the time, and Social Contract was one of their
solutions.
Etymology does matter. Fundamental principles of terms like "social
contract" do matter.
We are in 21st century. Not in middle-age.
GNU project need no social contract, it is funny seeing people editing
a "social contract" implying this way to the public that it is some
kind of official GNU stance, while it is not.
Jean
_______________________________________________
Hangout mailing list
Hangout-at-nylxs.com
http://lists.mrbrklyn.com/mailman/listinfo/hangout
|
|
