Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him • Hacker News Board

Re: Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him

#561

Post by reggintoggaf » Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 8:12 PM UTC

Arnt wrote: post #416

darawk wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is talking about luck. He was the victim of an unfair and unjust attack by the media, who distorted his words in a disgusting way. There is no way to justify that by referring to his other behavior, no matter how bad it may be.

Do you think it was okay that he escaped censure so many times for no substantive/relevant reason? Do you think it's okay that he now is unfairly harshly censured, again for no substantive/relevant reason? What I'm trying to say is that the two answers should be the same.

The guy is important for one reason only. He was extremely prophetic, and started an important movement that increased our computing freedoms significantly.

He was always socially maladjusted. I remember him eating his toenails while sitting on-stage a decade ago. That kind of thing shouldn't matter for what he represents and does.

Re: Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him

#562

Post by parasubvert » Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 9:20 PM UTC

zaroth wrote: post #552

parasubvert wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary. She's being quite fair.

Keep in mind that the premise of the thread (the picture of the name tag on the door) is actually a setup. Someone graffitis on Stallman’s door, and that mob justice character assassination spews forth from it.

If you think that this situation has much to do with that door tag, you really are reaching.

Re: Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him

#563

Post by drewbug01 » Thu, Oct 03, 2019, 1:12 AM UTC

doubleunplussed wrote: post #551

drewbug01 wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a perfect example of an ad hominem attack which adds little to the discourse: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

The comment I was replying to was also using the fact that mjg is a specific person who knew Stallman as a reason they are credible. When the thing being discussed is how reliable someone is at conveying private information they have, rather than them making some argument devoid of experience, ad hom is not a fallacy.

That’s not how your comment reads. It reads as “well, we know how he feels, so keep that in mind.” Which, is an ad hominem attack.

If you didn’t mean it that way, than please consider that your word choices come across as mocking, which changes the received meaning.

Re: Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him

#564

Post by naranja » Thu, Oct 03, 2019, 8:48 AM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #84

qzx_pierri wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He’s autistic. Suddenly the people who were annoyingly vocal about being “inclusive” are forgetting Stallman’s disability. He says “creepy” things because he doesn’t understand social cues or casual communication at a certain level. Everyone in this thread demonizing RMS should be ashamed of themselves. This is the same reason why he can’t hold a relationship, or why he sleeps in his office. He’s just far out there -…

If you have a condition where you have trouble interacting socially with people, while also running an influential organization and acting as its figurehead, you need to be able to mitigate these issues. If this means you have an assistant who you run emails by before sending them, so be it. If your assistant also takes a look at your office (given to you as a favor by a respected educational institution) and tells y…

If you have cancer, you need to mitigate these issues. Cancer is no excuse for dying…

Yes – autism is a perfect explanation for behavior not following typical social norms. That's more or less exactly the core of this disability.

From my point of view RMS really tackles his disability as far as he can: Announces his preferences, choosing interaction forms appropriate to him (email), openly telling that he'll refrain from group discussion…

Besides that I still don't see, where RMS really crossed the lines which requires actions to actually destroy his life. In the same time someone like Trump permanently crosses really vital red lines in all aspects… every… fucking… day…

Re: Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him

#565

Post by naranja » Thu, Oct 03, 2019, 8:51 AM UTC

qzx_pierri wrote: post #65

chasing wrote: post #39

> He takes everything literally and doesn’t necessarily take feelings and the reactions of others into account when making statements that are outside the bounds of his expertise in free software. Whelp, then no one should be that surprised when people stop taking his feelings into account and decide they no longer want to be associated with him. Not being an asshole is a two-way street.

He’s autistic. Suddenly the people who were annoyingly vocal about being “inclusive” are forgetting Stallman’s disability. He says “creepy” things because he doesn’t understand social cues or casual communication at a certain level. Everyone in this thread demonizing RMS should be ashamed of themselves. This is the same reason why he can’t hold a relationship, or why he sleeps in his office. He’s just far out there -…

I think this is an undervalued and very important aspect in the whole discussion.

In the meantime a completely mentally disabled person is leading the country and attacking every imaginable person in the world for years and… nothing happens at all!

Weird times.

Re: Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him

#566

Post by heavenlyblue » Thu, Oct 03, 2019, 12:35 PM UTC

strenholme wrote: post #325

mirimir wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was there, and part of it. You may find it hard to believe, but there were lots of young women who were just extremely promiscuous. Just as promiscuous as the young men were. Free sex was a political statement. A form of rebellion against the status quo . And of course, it was enabled by the ready availability of antibiotics and hormonal birth control.

I saw a lot of that movement too, probably not as much as you. My sense is that no one was finding any real satisfaction from having short term strictly sexual relationships, and my sense in this day and age of #MeToo (which I very strongly feel has become a witch hunt) is that some men were hurting some women emotionally by only wanting them for sex.

>> hurting some women emotionally by only wanting them for sex.

I can definitely say as a man that in the context of some women in my life I would be hurt if sex is the only thing they wanted from me, too.

I don't necessarily see how the whole free-love movement is supposed to be responsible for my delusions about what kind of a lover I am currently hanging out with, though.

Re: Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him

#567

Post by ktm5j » Thu, Oct 03, 2019, 7:38 PM UTC

oska wrote: post #524

ktm5j wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey now, I was the proverbial awkward nerd in highschool, but you know what I've never done? I've never implied that child pornography is okay.. or bestiality.. so I see this differently. I've heard nasty things come out of that man and I have no interest in listening to him.

This comment also reminded me of highschool - "Yeah, I'm a nerd who gets bullied but hey, at least I'm not like this other nerd who gets bullied. Actually, I agree with the people who bully him that at least he deserves it."

You're just as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.

Re: Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him

#568

Post by doubleunplussed » Thu, Oct 03, 2019, 10:07 PM UTC

drewbug01 wrote: post #563

doubleunplussed wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comment I was replying to was also using the fact that mjg is a specific person who knew Stallman as a reason they are credible. When the thing being discussed is how reliable someone is at conveying private information they have, rather than them making some argument devoid of experience, ad hom is not a fallacy.

That’s not how your comment reads. It reads as “well, we know how he feels, so keep that in mind.” Which, is an ad hominem attack. If you didn’t mean it that way, than please consider that your word choices come across as mocking, which changes the received meaning.

It absolutely is an ad hom, I'm just claiming that that is not a fallacy in this case, since the trustworthiness or bias of the dude is the thing we are discussing. Ad hom isn't always a fallacy. Nobody has even discussed any arguments coming from mjg, they're just chalking him up on a tally of who is on whose side. And I think the dude is super biased, and that whose side he is on isn't evidence of anything since he picks sides based on ideology, not on a case-by-case basis.

Re: Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him

#569

Post by pedanticlawyer » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 12:56 PM UTC

mjg59 wrote: post #557

pedanticlawyer wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> suing another free software organisation for trademark infringement Trademarks have to be enforced or you lose them. > threatened to ruin the life of an FSF board member Can you please backup this claim? I've found nothing to validate it. > and who was fired by the FSF for briefing against the FSF's interests According to every source I've found he resigned himself and voluntarily stepped down and left "on good ter…

> Trademarks have to be enforced or you lose them. His trademark is on "Software freedom law center", and he's suing the Software Freedom Conservancy. He doesn't hold a trademark on "Software Freedom". > Can you please backup this claim? I've found nothing to validate it. I was there when it was reported and had confirmation from a witness. > According to every source I've found he resigned himself and voluntarily st…

> He doesn't hold a trademark on "Software Freedom".

Has he ever claimed that?

> I was there when it was reported and had confirmation from a witness.

It is true because I say so it's not really an answer to the question.

> I was on the board when he was fired.

So you can confirm you fired him?

That's interesting.

Back then you wrote

> This, in conjunction with his behaviour over the ZFS issue, led to him stepping down as the FSF's general counsel.

You did not say "fired" anywhere.

Why didn't you just say "fired"?

> Why would you be in a position to know?

I'm in the position to ask why you're accusing someone of taking money, without proof.

It's just human decency, I happen to be a contributor (a tiny one, but sill one) of both FSF and FSLC and I would like to know if Moglen took money from Oracle to sue other FSF foundations.

You seem to know though, but you don't say.

And even if it was true, is taking money from Oracle a crime per se?

What about taking money from Apple, Facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft? more than a few FSF folks work there.

Re: Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him

#570

Post by mjg59 » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 6:58 PM UTC

pedanticlawyer wrote: post #569

mjg59 wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trademarks have to be enforced or you lose them. His trademark is on "Software freedom law center", and he's suing the Software Freedom Conservancy. He doesn't hold a trademark on "Software Freedom". > Can you please backup this claim? I've found nothing to validate it. I was there when it was reported and had confirmation from a witness. > According to every source I've found he resigned himself and voluntarily st…

> He doesn't hold a trademark on "Software Freedom". Has he ever claimed that? > I was there when it was reported and had confirmation from a witness. It is true because I say so it's not really an answer to the question. > I was on the board when he was fired. So you can confirm you fired him? That's interesting. Back then you wrote > This, in conjunction with his behaviour over the ZFS issue, led to him stepping do…

> Has he ever claimed that?

You said that it's necessary to sue to protect trademarks. In this case, where is the necessity?

> It is true because I say so it's not really an answer to the question

You can choose to believe me or you can choose to believe I'm lying - entirely up to you.

> So you can confirm you fired him?

Eh. Asked him to resign with the understanding that he'd be fired otherwise.

> And even if it was true, is taking money from Oracle a crime per se?

It's not a crime, it's just inappropriate to take money from a company and provide legal opinions that serve their interests while serving as general counsel for an organisation that strongly and publicly holds a different opinion.