muckrights-sans-merde
bonum fabula frat
### muckrights-fluffs-itself
other pages:
=> clarification-regarding-earlier-today.html clarification-regarding-earlier-today
*originally posted:* sep 2021
muckrights has written another fluff piece about itself. this practice is far too common to single out muckrights for it; though the distance roy is willing to go for that purpose is notable.
the timestamp is interesting; the article itself says it was written at 4:49 pm (presumably utc) but the only event i can connect it to happened later. perhaps daylight savings plays a role somehow (not for utc, of course).
whether or not the article was (or even could have been) based on events of the same day, the enormous discrepancy between what muckrights SAYS and what it DOES is there all the same; it isnt just a fluff piece, its a lying-out-of-the-arse piece.
lets compare muckrights to reality, once again: http://techrights.org/2021/09/05/defensive-freesw/ ("Social Engineering and the Danger of Focus on Semantics")
the url is probably an afterthought, but lets start there: "defensive free software"
as ive noted repeatedly this year, roy does not allow contributors to defend themselves. he expects to have zero accountability for what he does, and any protest is "flippant" in his view. this includes complaints that he has misrepresented you, or even directly plagiarised your work (by copying it in a way that is incredibly obvious to a person without any special training) or insinuated credit where none applies (as more than one former contributor to muckrights has complained about).
roy disingenuously conflates publishing with co-authoring, and this is not a nitpick but it becomes particularly egregious when he starts to tell other people that work he had nothing to do with (yet he insinuates otherwise) supports things it in fact does not, or refutes things it in fact does not. at this point it is appropriation in one of the worst senses of the word-- roy shamelessly co-opts and then marginalises his own contributors. hes not just the boss who takes credit for every idea, hes the boss who takes credit for every idea and then projects every fault of his own onto you. david brent is a saint by comparison:
=> how-to-do-the-scooby-doo-maneuver.html how-to-do-the-scooby-doo-maneuver
you dont need to imagine the voice of david brent (ill take it over roys more german-sounding accent) when you read these quotes, but i find it difficult not to, "yeah?"
> Summary : Contrary to what corporate media wants ordinary folks to think, the Free software community is far more amicable, welcoming and polite than the proprietary software companies which command that media; if you come to cause trouble and inflame feuds, however, we'll respond accordingly (and defensively )
so it starts off by mischaracterising the movement. not all feuds in free software were started by trolls (some certainly are), many were started over legitimate differences-- that doesnt seem to be accounted for here, though it really should be because it would change the very nature of the argument. and "troublemakers" are not (originally, at least) an out-group to free software, as roy tries to insinuate here. free software was founded by a troublemaker, and free software is often (when it does its job) the best kind of troublemaking. roy enjoys making trouble as much as anybody, but here he is staking a claim to his monopoly on the practice by forbidding anyone else.
not that every step along the path of free software has to be (or even should be) contentious, but even serious reformers (let alone revolutionaries) are not afraid to cause minor amounts of strife. the job of the shill (and defender of the status quo) is to INVERT every protest with a good reason into a petty excuse for troublemaking. i would say dishonestly exploiting your contributors is a good reason for protest, and maybe roy will agree, provided its not a protest aimed at him personally. muckrights is sacred, and will not be besmirched by facts or reason.
> To some people, computer code isn't readable; they're not fluent at it because they weren't trained to do so. It doesn't make them bad people. But for the same reason I stay away from chemistry (which I only studied at school) it makes sense for people who lack coding competencies not to lecture coders on supposedly 'offensive' variable names (they're usually not offensive at all, but for those who cannot understand code only the English words stand out).
i agree with this paragraph, and thats the point. its an anchor, to make sure the reader can relate to the piece and (by extension, hopefully) whatever crap is said next:
> In IRC, we recently had some very lengthy discussions about this. Nothing rude or anything, and moreover it's all public (we release unredacted logs on a daily basis; redactions are rare).
roy and i differ on our concept of rudeness. i consider it extremely rude to lie to people all day long, day after day, year after year. roy (like many people, sadly) seems to think it is possible to politely lie to someones face. i think it is a contradiction. there are some legitimate reasons for lying, of course. i dont think lying under extreme duress is "rude". when it is a habit, with the goal of manipulating and exploiting people, i think it is one of the ruder things there is. when lies cost lives, "rudeness" no longer even covers it. but i still think it is extremely rude to constantly and dishonestly manipulate people. unless youre roy of course, then obviously its okay.
> Free software welcomes everyone, not just developers. We need documentation, art, users' feedback, et cetera et cetera.
roy knows more latin than i do, but i think "et cetera et cetera" (the king and i?) as used here means "...as long as the feedback doesnt hold us accountable for anything".
> But let's remember not to step on the toes of people whose expertise differs greatly from ours.
lets not step on any of roys toes by complaining that he stepped on our toes, then. lets simply let him decree that there will be no toe stepping and be done with it.
> Overstepping boundaries leads to infighting and when the fighting is sponsored by companies like Google, IBM, and Microsoft the fighting is potentially intentional (by design).
mmhmm, and making yourself a co-author not by actually writing or contributing to a work but by co-opting and exploiting and misrepresenting it is not overstepping a boundary, it is only being flexible and open-minded. and lying about the person who complains about this classically dishonest act is merely self-defence.
> Free software is already very inclusive and diverse (compared to other areas in the realm of computer science -- a realm long dominated by coders who are male). We don't discriminate based on job interviews. We don't "fire" people.
thats an interesting argument, im not sure (because its vague, though i believe it is intended to be interpreted broadly) but i think hes saying that free software doesnt hire and fire people, but that implies that free software is never commercial. whatever he is saying, i think hes trying to rest it on an entirely false premise here, though without clarification i suppose this guess will have to do.
is it possible hes testing the waters for gullibility there? "and if you believe that-- keep reading!" i dont know, but maybe he will try that sometime.
> Come and join us. Help us make the world a better place.
dont, its a ripoff. maybe he he wrote this to finally court activelow as his next volunteer. i think the whole article is intended to conflate free software with muckrights, which explains the weird, plainly non-factual statements such as starting a short paragraph with "free software" and ending with "we dont hire and fire".
in which event the answer is "no, you lie and manipulate people into doing what you want under false pretenses, then you lie and manipulate people into leaving of their own accord, then you smear them for doing so". but thats certainly not the same as firing them, so one point for being technically true, but it really should be a half-point for being half-true and misleading.
> But don't come just to troll us for career-climbing ego-boosting tantrum-throwing episodes.
ahh, here we go. please come do free work for us, but dont complain when we lie and shaft you.
> If we respond assertively, maybe you deserved it. And not because of race or gender .
if roy lies to you directly, exploits your work dishonestly, tells people stallman said things he never said, and then smears his own contributors for months who tried to walk away without a real incident, you probably deserve whatever roy does to you next.
its clear that he thinks so, but its less clear whether its honest or even in touch with reality.
having a problem with being exploited? thats "social engineering" now. brilliant.
if you defend yourself from being exploited by muckrights, thats a career-climbing ego-boosting tantrum-throwing episode.
roy loves the word tantrum, i think he loves it too much-- and i think i know why.
bullies in particular, have a special fondness for the word. im not saying that theres no such thing as a tantrum, or theres no such thing as petulant anger. there certainly is. and yet bullies and gaslighters (including many who claim to be against bullying, so thats no guarantee either sadly-- theres no quick easy fix for this at all) have a special fondness for it, because its a key part of their argument.
one part of the argument is that only the bully is allowed to express anger and disgust. its a monopoly, you dont get the privilege that a monopoly does. if you did, it wouldnt be a monopoly. the rule of monopoly is that it controls truth, reality, and also what everyone outside it is allowed to do. if youre unhappy about something, thats a patent violation-- you are free to agree (most of the time, with exceptions) but that freedom extends only as far as the monopoly says it does. thats the rules.
so not being able to express negative emotions (or those emotions being inherently invalid) is part of the argument. you are however, allowed to turn all negative emotions inward, and hate yourself. that at least is acceptable, so long as it doesnt bother the king.
it would be pretty nasty if it only went that far, but it gets better...
bullies loooooove to push buttons. it would be "great" if roy only lied to make himself unaccountable, but whats the use of being unaccountable if you cant exploit it? so literally just for fun (or just for the high) some of the lies become-- theres no other way to put it: a work of art. yes, bullshit is an art, too! at least in the hands of an artist.
so you can actually taunt someone with a lie, and this is about as close to the very definition of gaslighting as anything. you just keep lying and insinuating that someone is wrong, even about the most obvious things in the world. its also an interrogation / torture technique used to break down criminal suspects, political enemies and prisoners of war. but on a simpler level than that, it simply baits a victim into... anger. and then you get a "tantrum".
not every such event is caused by deliberate and incessant manipulation, of course. as is implied by the generalisation roy is making, a tantrum can just as easily be thrown by someone who just wants what they want-- its just a very dramatic way of demanding something. childishness is implied. and yet roy has used this word to describe me, leah, stallman, maybe (id have to check) torvalds. not enough effort (and in the context of the article being written about now, no effort at all) is made to distinguish legitimate anger and protest from any other kind.
on many of these occasions, (including two days ago when the article was written) roy was being confronted over something he had actually done. but hes unaccountable. and that means (ipso facto) you have no right to be pissed off at him. DONT YOU KNOW WHO HE IS? get away, peasant!
saying all this does not automatically make it true. you could say the same things about the nicest person on earth, and it would certainly not be true, or fair, or realistic.
but when it is true, what are you supposed to say? the answer is, if youre a good person, you will say nothing at all. even if its true. or at least, thats the doctrine according to muckrights. lovely stuff, lovely fluff.
=> https://muckrights-sans-merde.neocities.org