zlacker

>>elikog+(OP)
I think it’s important to make clear that the letter is mostly bogus and almost libelous.

Check into any one claim, and you’ll find it’s not the entire story.

This however is true:

> The Foundation board has unrepresentative composition relative to the community because, due to our count, all current members are cisgender, white-passing, men, one of whom has done military service, and one other (Eelco) likely relies on undisclosed military-tech work.

>>Laaas+19
[flagged]

>>retool+Ob
How is it slanderous to point out the board composition is not representative of the community. Seriously walk me through this one.

>>giraff+jd
Mostly because they have double standards. If 100% of the board was "diverse" in some way, they would claim that it compensates for historical injustices or something. If they were truly serious about inclusion, it would be completely fine, but this is just authoritarian assholes hiding behind the veneer of "fighting against fascism" (in the document posted by @busterarm, some of these people even openly advocate doxxing their political opponents)

>>Pannon+Oe
> . If they were truly serious about inclusion, it would be completely fine, but this is just authoritarian assholes hiding behind the veneer of "fighting against fascism"

People arguing from the direction you seem to be usually are big about not assuming intent... why assume intent here?

How can you prove they don't both believe they are fighting about fascism and care about that fight?