Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

Hello,

I usually refrain from answering to messages on this mailing list that
in my eyes disqualify themselves as nonsense; but maybe sometimes one needs
to do so, as I wonder if they do not end up influencing people.

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 07:29:45AM +0000, Alex Taylor wrote:
> The first part is the four freedoms established by Stallman many years ago.  No
> problem there, we all agree with those.
> The second part talks about basic cooperation on technical and practical
> matters within GNU.  That seems sensible too.
> Finally the text has a non-discrimination clause.  Surely nobody could be
> against that either?   Well personally I'm not.
> (...) I also think if they want to support anti-apartheid,  the suffragette
> movement, pro-choice movement, animal rights, plant breeders' rights, nuclear
> disarmament, pro life movement or whatever other movement ...   then that's
> great too.   But  I will not insist upon it nor imply that non-support is
> somehow morally deficient.

Okay, so you seem to be more or less in agreement with the content of the
Social Contract, with a few reservations on the non-discrimination clause.
Fine. So in case you are a GNU maintainer, I would say you should endorse
the document!
 
> Finally "endorsing" the text would give the rebel group a legitimacy which they
> neither have, nor deserve.

But then your only argument for not endorsing it, and inciting others to not
endorse it are ad-hominem attacks towards the authors, by gratuitously
qualifying them as "rebels"? (Hm, is that an insult or a compliment? That
generally depends on your position towards the topic at hand...)

> It's instructive to look at the track record of
> these renegades.   The Guile and Guix projects have both excluded and/or
> vilified people who disagree with the people in power (the same people who push
> the "social contract").

Can you substantiate these claims? I have been part of the Guix community
since almost its beginnings, and do not think there has been any such
incidence.

> If you choose to endorse this text, bear in mind
> that the words are imprecise so don't be surprised if, sometime down the road,
> your endorsement is used as a weapon against you when you fall out of favor
> with the powermongers.

And another ad-hominem attack. Can you substantiate the claim of us being
powermongers?

Andreas