Re:We need more of Richard Stallman, not less
by yawpitch on Monday June 19, 2023 @08:37AM
(#36390364)
No one was, in the remotest sense, being ageist, sexist, or racist above… seeking to widen the appeal of something beyond an old white male audience isn’t, in any way, to anyone but an absolute dimwit, seeking to discriminate against that old white male audience.
Or, in other words that might make sense to a programmer:
assert (old && white && male) + (!old || !white || !male) >= (old && white && male)
Re:We need more of Richard Stallman, not less
by johngladtj on Monday June 19, 2023 @08:58AM
(#36390554)
Why is it not?
Re:We need more of Richard Stallman, not less
by asoneth on Monday June 19, 2023 @10:00AM
(#36391177)
Advocacy of any sort typically involves 1) understanding your target audience and 2) making an appeal to them.
If the composition of your organization does not reflect the composition of your target audience then both of those tasks become a little harder. This is not specific to the FSF and is why many organizations hire at least a few people who match their target demographics to do things like research, marketing, messaging, and outreach.
1) Age
2) Race
3) Gender
Why is it ok to be ageist, sexist, AND racist in this context?