Privilege in 'Linux' Foundation (Double Standards) and What the FSF Should Avoid Doing
If RMS can talk about politics, others too should be able to talk about politics
When people inside the Linux Foundation, Torvalds included, wish to talk about politics, then it's OK. They can even lie about their position and ban entire countries, including all people from those countries.
That's apparently not politics; that's CoC-compatible, based on the enforcers of the CoC (themselves). The "LF" is just a body subservient to the rapist in chief.
As long as RMS talks about politics in his own personal site (hosted separately from GNU and the FSF) he is safe, but when people ask uncomfortable questions or raise questions about Red Hat (IBM), then it's not OK and the discussion ends.
We need more free speech, not less of it. The SFC people and their associates do not believe in freedom. I'd like to think the FSF is different in that respect. There are corporate pressures to compel the FSF to self-censor.
RMS called Jeffrey Epstein "serial rapist" and months later he was canceled. LF operatives (paid for PR) played a role in cancelling him. Bill Espteingate did not get canceled for participating in the "joy division" or "comfort women" of Epstein. That's double standards. █
