bonifartius 𒂼𒄄 @bonifartius@social.cleverlibre.org

good thing with outrages like the current rms stuff is that one knows who to trust and who is likely to backstab you :)

@alexl@mstdn.io i think that by being part of a mob people become themselves guilty. it should be clear that if you repeat accusations against someone, you better check twice if they are true.

that said, i applaud your kindness. mine tends to be stretched thin :)

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org
> I can't think of anything that was unfounded that he was accused of.

as i've said, i haven't read up on everything which is said. the point isn't if i think he is or isn't "guilty", but the methods used.

>> they are the codified morale system

> There is no such thing as a law with no basis in morality. It's all the same.

yes.

> Many people oppose current laws. There will never be a time where all laws represent the morales of everyone. Going through the legal system is not a solution, it's an excuse for inaction.

they may be opposing the laws, but are aware of them, which is what i've meant with "on the same page".

the legal process is a cornerstone of civilizations. it no doubt has it's share of problems. that it is regarded as "excuse for inaction" is a disheartening view. removing it is a good way to weaken our pluralistic societies.

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org

> Morals are subjective, I can't do that. However, I think that misogyny, harassment and defending pedophilia are unlikely to be good to most people.

i don't have read everything about every accusation, as at some point it was clear that it's mostly unfounded/not verifiable. that said, rms tends to say things which have to be taken very accurately, or are misunderstood. he with no doubt could fix his communication and isn't infallible.

> Laws are no different, it's just imprinting a certain moral onto the people.

laws aren't virtual particles created from the vacuum. they are the codified morale system which grew over many centuries, often out of customary law.

with laws, everyone knows the same rules, contrary to "morale" which is different for each.

> Then you're back to the moral question, no better than you started.

it is of course still a philosophical problem, but as i've written: it is then codified so everyone is on the same page.

i know that the law-route takes a long time, which may be unsatisfactory. doing otherwise will damage everyone though, as the tide can turn at every time. everyone can be next.

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org

> Removing someone from a position of privilege when they've proven to be a disgusting human being and refuse to change is the most sensible thing to do.

define a "disgusting" which works for everyone.

> I don't see why morals need to transcribed in law for it to be something someone should do.

because morals tend to differ radically on whom you ask. the pope has different morals from me, you have different morals than joe biden. as we are in the "i read the biography and use that as weapon"-state: you are interested in philosophy. what moral and amoral is, is discussed since millenia, without getting to a final answer.

> That some laws are unjust? You'd just push and say that whatever law makes him guilty would be unjust.

the same as you could fix the laws that make one guilty. that's why laws don't work retroactive.

> Stop trying to solve social ills with technical means as you'd say.

i don't know if i'd call a largely philosophical art (cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisprudence) technical, but ymmv.

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org i don't know, dismantling of a person and stripping him of his lifes work because of accusations kind of feels like bloodlust. go before a court with it if it's _that_ bad. the laws aren't providing for it? either reflect about if maybe, just maybe, it isn't that bad. or get involved in making a new law! 10k possibilities, but people choose the outrage.
he could apalogize all he wants, it would be laid out against him: "see, he was guilty all the time!"

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org
no, criticism of rms existed for a long time. it should have been handled properly, but wasn't. wrongdoings don't justify the bloodlust though.
because it's the same tactics used by oppressive governments.
what reaction do you expect of him after being canceled once? he could say anything and it would be wrong, why should he bother anymore? either you are with him or against him, another side effect of canceldom is (ironically) the virality of accusations.

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org we don't disagree in the end but in the means used to get there? history had it's fair share of mobs longing for instant action against "bad" (whatever "bad" is today) people. it never has ended well (mc carthy, witch hunts, etc.), it would be rather surprising if it is different with the cancelmobs. additionally, it's the same thing we criticize in dictatory regimes. it's hypocritical to use the same methods. it doesn't matter who uses them, they are inhumane.

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org still not happening, sorry. people should be held accountable, but the end doesn't justify the means. you'll only become what you despise.

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org no, why would i do that?