Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
What's wrong with building weapons for the US department of defense?
Probably all the innocent people that die for no reason due to the use of these weapons.
Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software (2007)
301–310 of 426 posts
Re: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software (2007)
#302Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
What's wrong with building weapons for the US department of defense?
It is as odd with the self claimed moral high ground.
If you write a piece titled "remove Stallman and all the other toxic people" and you build weapons, I understand better why you build them and what you really meant by "remove".
Re: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software (2007)
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from social consequences. I often see this phrase and it looks like a fallacy to me. Does anyone question its validity? Social consequences are a severe thing, in practice they mean losing a job or position, boycotting, etc. In ancient Greece to expel a person was a very strong punishment. Nowadays the associated hardbacks are milder perhaps, but still are pretty severe. If s…
> If speech is so potent a weapon that to protect against it we have to use extreme social defenses like expulsion, why not to use the same weapon against the perpetrators? Why not to speak in return? Stallman says something, you say something. Take that, Richard Stallman! Because the power of the speech in question depends upon the power of the speaker. This isn't rocket science. If I as a random human person say so…
In a world that respects free speech, you would be more empowered to criticise authority, not less. You're basically saying that Stallman’s speech must have consequences otherwise the little guy might face consequences by criticising him. But the pro free speech crowd are advocating for a world where you and stallman criticise each other harshly, but both get to keep your jobs, it being a strong norm that whoever calls for the other to lose their job over speech automatically loses the argument.
I can't believe people are so short sighted about free speech. The people who are happy with control of speech will regret advocating for it as soon as it spreads outside of the domains where their allies presently have power.
Re: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software (2007)
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gavin McInnes is really a misogynist and founder of Vice. She's really building weapons for the US department of defense. I'm not doing anything, just doubting of her qualities as a spoke person of a movement that targeted RMS for no reason other than ignorance (taking for granted that there isn't anything else behind it) If we can doubt Stallman as a leader, we can as well doubt Selam G. And I'm saying it because sh…
> Gavin McInnes is really a misogynist and founder of Vice. He has been fired. I don't much care for people like him but he is not part of the problem with Vice. > She's really building weapons for the US department of defense Can I get a link or reference for this? It is a big fact...
> He has been fired. I don't much care for people like him but he is not part of the problem with Vice.
He left on his own, at the top of his career, while he was still admired as "the godfather of hipsterism"
He turned from hipster god to far right extremist
And that's more or less what happens to everyone thinking to be "edgy" and "modern" and "free" when they start to understand they have power over people's life.
They become shitty persons.
Stallman never became one, because he was always unpopular, boring, pedantic, never cared for power or money or being socially acceptable and that's why he's been a good person after all.
> Can I get a link or reference for this? It is a big fact...
Re: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software (2007)
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you believe he has alienated more women from FOSS than he has inspired people to contribute to it? If I save a hundred lives as a doctor and then murder one person, does the calculus go in my favor?
> If I save a hundred lives as a doctor and then murder one person, does the calculus go in my favor? It can be. A sharpshooter killing a terrorist and saving 100 lives would be lauded as a hero.
Except now he’s being investigated for kicking a handcuffed prisoner over a cliff.
Re: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software (2007)
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you believe he has alienated more women from FOSS than he has inspired people to contribute to it? If I save a hundred lives as a doctor and then murder one person, does the calculus go in my favor?
> If I save a hundred lives as a doctor and then murder one person, does the calculus go in my favor? It can be. A sharpshooter killing a terrorist and saving 100 lives would be lauded as a hero.
Do you mean to say that your analogy is relevant to the claims against RMS being partly or completely dismissed as a "necessary evil" comparable to shooting a person who's on a killing spree, when weighted against his contributions?
I'm just asking. I got that feeling reading your comment. I get that feeling reading a lot of comments here. I could be wrong.
As a reminder, he has been accused, by several independent parties, of, among other things:
-Asking female coworkers to lay down topless on a mattress in his office.
-Threatening a colleague to kill himself if he/she didn't go on a date with him.
-Posting up signs in his workplace along the lines of "Knight for Justice (Also: Hot Ladies)".
Re: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software (2007)
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amazing how whenever someone does something controversial and gets forced out soon afterwards, it's never the thing they said, but "consistent creepy and inappropriate behavior" based on 10 year old anecdotes that suddenly appear out of nowhere... I'd think that if someone was "consistently" creepy and inappropriate, there would be a pretty good public record for that, but what do I know? EDIT: Let me give a bit more…
One could also see it the other way round: because of the importance of his figure people were more willing to keep their mouths shut and look the other way. Once the tipping point is reached, they don’t see any reason to do that anymore. This is why medival monarchs had jesters to tell them what is really going on. The right thing to do of course is to speek truth to power openly and before everybody else does it, b…
Interestingly, in a world with strong norms against speech having career consequences, people would have been empowered to speak up earlier. The expectation that unpopular speech will have consequences for them makes them keep quiet until they are sure their views are popular.
Re: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software (2007)
#308Earlier quoted context omitted.
People in public positions have always had to be careful about what they say. It really lowers the quality of discussion to talk about "thought crime" in this context. Stallman isn't being thrown into prison for expressing his political views. He's being fired from his job (to the extent that it is a job) for making ill-judged and offensive comments. > It seems the real reason he was fired was because he expressed a…
Do you think RMS argument is wrong here though? Why? Age of consent in my (European) country is 16. Do you think we are all rapists here? And looking up the law 14 is permissible (with a few caveats), even if the other person is over 21. In the United States it depends on the state. So Minsky would have done a horrible rape crime in the US Virgin Islands (age of consent 18), but in Massachusetts (age of consent 16) .…
I don't see how what you're saying is relevant. RMS said that the age was a "minor detail". He didn't make any claim about what the age of consent should be. Given his previous comments, one suspects he doesn't think there should be one: https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20Jun...
Re: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software (2007)
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
People in public positions have always had to be careful about what they say. It really lowers the quality of discussion to talk about "thought crime" in this context. Stallman isn't being thrown into prison for expressing his political views. He's being fired from his job (to the extent that it is a job) for making ill-judged and offensive comments. > It seems the real reason he was fired was because he expressed a…
It doesn't suggest that age shouldn't be considered. It says the difference between 17 and 18 years old is minor. The justification is that depending on which country or even state within a country you're in you could be committing "rape" in one and not committing any crime in another. As rape is a word most people understand as awful violent crime it is absurd for it to depend on details like exact location where it…
There has to be an age of consent. Sex without consent is rape. I don't see the problem. Different countries have slightly different definitions of pretty much every crime in the book. Whether or not you are committing fraud, burglary, assault, etc. etc., will also depend on a number of "minor details" that may vary between jurisdictions. Either RMS thinks there should be an age of consent, in which case it's obvious that the age in question must be somewhat arbitrary, or he doesn't think there should be an age of consent. Given RMS's previous comments on the same subject, it's pretty clear what he's saying here: https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20Jun...
Re: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software (2007)
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
He wasn't blacklisted for committing thought crime. The dumb Epstein email triggered a reevaluation of his consistent creepy and inappropriate behavior against current community standards, which resulted in a large part of the community deciding they didn't want anything to do with him anymore. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from social consequences.
Amazing how whenever someone does something controversial and gets forced out soon afterwards, it's never the thing they said, but "consistent creepy and inappropriate behavior" based on 10 year old anecdotes that suddenly appear out of nowhere... I'd think that if someone was "consistently" creepy and inappropriate, there would be a pretty good public record for that, but what do I know? EDIT: Let me give a bit more…
None of these people have a legitimate grievance with Stallman, they read talking points off the Geek Feminism wiki. What put the target on his back was not having a social media presence to grovel with, which makes him disposable to Twitter influencers.