471–480 of 580 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What official channels? Nobody has accused RMS of anything that constitutes a crime. (But it's not surprising that the necessary qualifications for leading the FSF are stricter than the qualifications for not being in jail.)
The board could have met, deliberated, have an honest discussion, reviewed evidence. Not simply oust him a week later.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did I say he should not be" allowed to write software or work at a university"? It is concerning to me that RMS would allow kids to make adult decision while at the same time saying that adults selling software to other adults under licenses he doesn't like should be punished.
I think it's reasonably sound logic from a libertarian perspective. The more concerning thing is he's not allowed to simultaneously discuss that line of thinking while working at MIT.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's reasonably sound logic from a libertarian perspective. The more concerning thing is he's not allowed to simultaneously discuss that line of thinking while working at MIT.
Libertarians typically believe in a right of contracting something which RMS doesn't so it may not be totally correct to examine his ideas from a strict Libertarian viewpoitn.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Libertarians typically believe in a right of contracting something which RMS doesn't so it may not be totally correct to examine his ideas from a strict Libertarian viewpoitn.
You're still missing the point. It's not about whether RMS is right or wrong, it's about his right to argue his position in a personal capacity while still heading the FSF and CSAIL.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No reason, you should definitely have at least one other than your main though.
What if someone can't? What if they are both equally bad?
Then you're very much screwed and you have my pity.
>What if they are both equally bad?
It's not about 'badness', your additional personalities are expedient and exist only to get you where you need to be, you will indeed make mistakes cultivating them but as long as you're concentrating on maintaining them you can't let too much slip and those personalities will develop over time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're still missing the point. It's not about whether RMS is right or wrong, it's about his right to argue his position in a personal capacity while still heading the FSF and CSAIL.
My point is that I find it strange to give RMS rights he would not give others if he had the power to stop them from making those decisions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm amused that this very wise very true comment is downvoted on HN. 20 year old me would have downvoted it. 40 year old me recognizes it as obvious and has a divorce to show for it. There's no way 20 year old me would have believed 40 year old me, though.
From my perspective, it did not seem wise to make a reductionist analogy to how Israelis feel about Palestinians, and vice versa.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point is that I find it strange to give RMS rights he would not give others if he had the power to stop them from making those decisions.
That is absolutely a false equivalency. I don't think you'll find any evidence that RMS believes people shouldn't be able to _discuss_ selling propriety software, or disagree with free software, or anything else.
He also isn't sure than "voluntary pedophilia" is harmful / that people before puberty should be able to pick their sex partners despite not even being a teenager.
Limiting this to being just a discussion on what can be "discussed" isn't valid. He appears to support actions that harm others by some of his statements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Invoking "Trump" needlessly cheapened your comment, which was otherwise relevant (although I'd include "journalists" as the leaders). It's always "business as usual" - regardless of which skinjob has won the job of absorbing outrage.
It's certainly not an endorsement, just an observation. I think a lot of people, myself included, feel like the world just kind of went _crazy_ in 2016, and it hasn't been the same since. Of course, it didn't really change all that much - there aren't secret nazis everywhere, antifa isn't an international communist conspiracy - it's just kooks - all your neighbors are the same people. Still, our social immune system…
And sympathizing with the other tribe, the Obama years were only a reprieve due to perspective. And though we may judge their outrage as ridiculous ("Barry Soetoro"), that doesn't make it any less real. To me, Trump seems like a product of this craziness rather than a cause.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is absolutely a false equivalency. I don't think you'll find any evidence that RMS believes people shouldn't be able to _discuss_ selling propriety software, or disagree with free software, or anything else.
He thinks people should be punished for selling proprietary software correct? He also isn't sure than "voluntary pedophilia" is harmful / that people before puberty should be able to pick their sex partners despite not even being a teenager. Limiting this to being just a discussion on what can be "discussed" isn't valid. He appears to support actions that harm others by some of his statements.
No? I'm not really sure what you mean by "punish" here. He advocates for Free Software -- to my knowledge he's never advocated for punishing anybody.
> He appears to support actions that harm others by some of his statement.
How? Where's the harm? What's harmful about questioning the age of consent being 18 (which, may I remind you, varies from 12-19 worldwide). Why are some aspects of US law declared beyond the scope of acceptable discourse? You can disagree with him (I certainly do) but I don't see why we should shame him for even broaching the subject.