> So, you realize that RMS is wrong on the GNU/Linux thing and somehow are still on the side of forcing pronouns?
No, I recognize that RMS is wrong on trying to impose his choice of names as designators of other people’s work, and also recognize that he is wrong, for pretty much the exact same reason though with more significance, to impose his choice of pronouns as designators of other people’s persons.
> They are both asking, demanding, someone else to only use the words they deem tolerable.
Nope. No one is demanding that Richard Stallman restrict which pronouns he uses to some set of nonobjectionable pronouns.
People are demanding that, when referring to another person, Stallman not impose names or pronouns he has chosen when he has been informed of the name or pronouns (if any; in some cases the applicable preference is “don’t use pronouns”) which the person identifies as labels for themself.
> Whatever the situation, no one has to comply with such demand.
There are very few times when one strictly has to do anything. OTOH, people don’t have to voluntarily associate with, work with, or contribute to Richard Stallman, or projects or organizations he is associated with, either.
You are free to proudly, publicly proclaim that you will only refer to the 43rd President of the United States as Bu$Hitler, and that no one can impose on you a different choice of names for that person, but you probably should not expect to get a job as executive director of his Presidential Library having done so.
Doing essentially the same thing to a much larger set of people is likewise something one can do, but expecting it to not have consequences, especially on one’s suitability for a position that is fundamentally about public communication, is irrational.
> People are demanding that, when referring to another person, Stallman not impose names or pronouns he has chosen when he has been informed of the name or pronouns (if any; in some cases the applicable preference is “don’t use pronouns”) which the person identifies as labels for themself...
So in short...yes, they are demanding someone else to only use the words they deem tolerable.
If you think you are so in the right at least have the guts to admit what you are demanding others to do instead of using contradicting language to try to weasel your way out of admitting what everyone already knows.
And please do not insult and offend rape victims by claiming not using the words you want is the same as rape.
It blows my mind that you think that people wishing to be referred to in a certain way that has absolutely 0 negative effects on you or anyone else is somehow a bad thing which you need to argue against so much.
They can wish it all they want. They cannot force it.
What should blow your mind is people mounting huge campaigns to completely cancel someone and then when unable to really defend their positions having the guts to say "it isn't really an issue, it has 0 impact!"
It either is an issue and worthy of ruining someone's life or it isn't. Either simply "feeling" discriminated against is the bar or it isn't. Some people feel bullied when forced to speak a certain way, shouldn't others also be forced to accommodate their feelings?
