[Pan-users] Re: updated info

[Duncan]

Petr Kovar posted on Thu, 05 Aug 2010 22:48:05 +0200 as excerpted:

>> Their share of
>> the FLOSS community is lower as well, tho that may have to do as much
>> with opportunity in a formerly closed society as it does with
>> recognition/ monetary compensation priorities.
> 
> Well, I live in one such former Eastern bloc country and I can't agree
> with you here. Why do you think that "their share of the FLOSS community
> is lower"? I'm pretty sure that their share is as high as it is with
> people from other developed regions of the world.

I had some difficulty writing that and obviously didn't succeed in 
conveying what I intended, tho it too may be incorrect.

What I was trying to say, and failing, was that (my impression is that) 
Eastern bloc contributions have been lower in the past, and may still be, 
but are rising and may well be comparable at this point.  I gave the 
reason why I believe that to be the case (the former lack of communication 
between the sides), but failed to convey that IMO it's self-correcting as 
we speak, and may indeed have already done so.

(FWIW, I use reiserfs and likely will continue to until btrfs stabilizes, 
and did have in mind all the work put into that, despite the unfortunate 
situation it's in with its namesake being a convicted murderer of his 
former wife -- talk about abuse.  And I respect all the continued work 
Eduard S. (IIRC that's correct) and his team has put into reiser4 despite 
all the unfortunates.  But it's true I don't really know the extent of 
Eastern bloc participation in other FLOSS projects at this point.)

BTW, is "Eastern bloc" still acceptable, or does it bring up histories 
better left in the past, etc, as well?  Is there a more acceptable term, 
from the viewpoint of folks actually there?

>> I look forward to the day when if someone makes a remark like that in a
>> presentation, RMS or no RMS, half the room (more, it'd be great if it
>> were the entire audience, but there's always the few) gets up as if one
>> body and walks out, end of presentation, beginning of message that such
>> behavior will NOT be tolerated.
> 
> You know what I found more interesting about this RMS "joke" is that to
> make fun of women is strictly no-no due to feminism being more or less
> part of the Western culture nowadays, but to banter on religion (or
> Roman Catholicism and Virgin Mary, to be specific) seems to be much,
> much more broadly acceptable in (technical or not) society. I see this
> as a clear example of double standard.

Well, there's the woman thing, true, but to me it's not that, but the 
implication of abuse of anyone.  That it happened to be women here is 
somewhat beside the point, for me.  As Alan points out with his prison 
example, males are subject to rape -- and other abuse -- as well, and 
especially because I'm an abuse survivor myself (don't get me talking 
about revictimization patterns, what I term victim syndrome), but more 
than that, because I've known other victims, I simply don't find it 
acceptable that any positive reference to abuse be tolerated.

Uhoh, I'm /already/ talking about victim syndrome... I guess the post 
isn't quite done yet, after all! =:^)

One of the issues victims often deal with is the fact that often, the 
learned reactions in the victimizing situation aren't healthy coping 
mechanisms, often ultimately leading to becoming repeat victims as the 
victims repeatedly and now automatically fall into the same flawed coping 
patterns, either bringing on abuse or simply reacting as if it was abuse, 
in situations that wouldn't be a problem for a normal, healthy individual.

One of the ways out of this pattern is to learn to assertively and 
constantly look for every possible alternative, evaluating them and 
actively ranking them by preference, then making a deliberate choice of 
which option to take.  This works, because it's in every way, a 
repudiation (which can be assertive enough to be almost violent in some 
cases) of the previously learned pattern of victimization and reality 
distortion whereby valid ways out don't appear to be real options.  Once 
one is in that pattern, the ONLY way out is to be constantly assertive in 
exploring, prioritizing and actively choosing your own destiny, because 
the moment you yield to "oh, but I had no choice", you're falling into the 
same old traps and will very likely find yourself victimized once again.

I know, I was in the pattern.  It took me three times, and that was it.  
Now, I *HATE* *WITH* *A* *VISCERAL* *PASSION* the "oh, I had no choice" 
attitude.  As a victim wishing to leave victim syndrome behind, one must 
be ever vigilant, deliberately searching out those options, because in 
reality, unless you're physically straitjacketed or something similar. 
there are ALWAYS options.

One example I've seen is people with only one broadband provider in their 
area.  "Oh, I have no choice but to use them," they say.  But an assertive 
exploration of options will reveal that's not the case.  They can simply 
ask themselves what they'd do if the provider pulled out of the area or 
went bankrupt.  There's the choice to move.  There's the choice to go 
dialup.  There's the choice to do without.  There may be other choices, 
satellite, and for some, paying big bucks to have a T-1 or similar brought 
in (with the possibility of sharing the connection and cost with the 
neighbors), etc.  

All these are choices.  Now, it's very possible that one so outweighs the 
others that it /seems/ the only choice, but in reality, that's only 
because it's so much better than the others.  Recognize that and act on 
it!  Perhaps there are family or friends they don't want to leave behind, 
and thus don't wish to move.  Great. They now know they prioritize their 
family higher than their Internet connection.  Good on to recognize the 
fact and act on it!  But what /would/ they do if that single broadband 
provider pulled out?  Perhaps if they have family, it's important enough 
to do without Internet at all for a time, or to suffer with dialup.  But 
if it's just that they have a home and would have to take a big loss if 
they tried to sell it and leave in this financial climate, maybe it 
really /is/ worth taking the loss and moving, to get better Internet.  
Maybe it isn't.  But it's them with the choice and their priorities 
they're dealing with.  Rank them, recognize them for what they are, and 
ACT on them, and they'll be happier for it.  No more playing a victim to 
circumstance, whatever it may have been, that landed them in the situation 
with only one broadband provider (or whatever the issue may be)!  They can 
explore their options, rank their priorities, and assertively ACT on what 
has been discovered about themselves!  And yes, I can witness from 
personal experience, it DOES make one a happier person!

Of course, part of all that positive assertiveness is recognizing positive 
references to abuse and victimization for what they are and assertively 
making it known that they aren't acceptable and I, for one, am not going 
to be tolerating it.  To do otherwise is to slip back into the victim role 
of simply letting it happen, because "oh, I have no choice"!

THAT is why I **HATE** the "have no choice" idea, and THAT is why I MUST 
act on comments such as those of RMS, above.  Yes, I CAN choose to just 
let it slide, but that's again falling into that trap, and "never again!" 
as they say.

Meanwhile, while not a Roman Catholic, as regulars likely recall from 
another OT discussion not long ago, I *AM* a Christian.  But for all the 
reasons implied above and others (see that earlier thread for some 
discussion of at least related ideas), I tend to be much more tolerant of 
folks making fun of that, than I am of folks making light of abuse.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman