Joint Statement on the GNU Project • Hacker News Board

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#251

Post by teddyh » Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 6:39 AM UTC

throwanem wrote: post #232

falcolas wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless I'm dramatically misreading all the various articles, only a few women that were directly approached by Stallman for a romantic encounter felt discouraged. This did not impact a vast majority of the women who have, and do, contribute to GNU projects. Yeah, he fucked up in approaching those women and making them uncomfortable. However, a couple of data points do not a trend make.

Yes, you are dramatically misreading the situation. I've been in attendance at an RMS talk (HOPE 2016) when he opened by asking the organizers to turn the house lights back up so he could see if there was anyone in the crowd he might want to have sex with. I saw how many women immediately got up and left in response to that, and I don't blame them for doing so. I would've done the same, if I'd felt myself to be one o…

That story is, quite frankly, incredible. I would like to hear more accurate quotes and confirmation from additional sources.

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#252

Post by uncletaco » Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 6:47 AM UTC

lvh wrote: post #233

oknenavin wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but taking part of a political games, doesn't make him a favor.

What exactly is your position? Is John Wiegly an important contributor to the GNU project or not?

He is, in my opinion, considering he’s the primary maintainer of what has been called GNU’s flagship application, emacs.

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#253

Post by rekado » Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 7:16 AM UTC

virgilp wrote: post #244

codesections wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> RMS is, in my view, a completely innocent man Note that the Joint Statement does not take a position on the statements that the most recent controversy has been about. Instead, it speaks about "behavior over the years"[0]. Of course, the recent controversy doubtless played a role in bringing all this to a head, but it is possible for someone to believe both that RMS is "completely innocent" of wrongful conduct and…

I could respect the signatories of the joint statement if thy sent it to RMS; Like this, what are they hoping to achieve? Ponder it for a second. They're calling for the lynch mob, they're disapointed that the lynch mob seems to have "stopped too soon". These are not people who honestly want to quit over principles... if they were, they'd send this in private to RMS. These are people who want RMS out for their own pe…

What makes you think this wasn't sent to RMS privately? Or that there haven't been personal discussions with RMS in the past years?

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#254

Post by ibeckermayer » Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 7:45 AM UTC

canarypilot wrote: post #169

ibeckermayer wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why should any social and political movement remain beholden to one original star of the old guard as the world moves forward. The real question here isn't whether GNU should be political (all institutions are political), but whether the world is really "moving forward".

Do you object to “moving” or “forward”? If the former, I disagree; I see new battlegrounds emerging for free software and the developers and users of free software. Many of these new battlegrounds are commercial as we voluntarily hand over our data to opaque computing platforms, some are societal as we redefine how we expect work to be done, and who we expect to do it. If the latter, it doesn’t hurt my argument for y…

> Do you object to “moving” or “forward”?

Forward.

> Whether you see the world progressing or regressing you might still agree that Stallman is not necessarily effective in the current climate.

This is an amoral (and depraved) approach to this topic. The issue of what constitutes an healthy culture takes precedence over whether an individual is "effective" in that culture. There are many ways to recognize this fact, the simplest being to recognize that humanity's most horrific monsters (Hitler, Stalin, Mao) were highly "effective" leaders in their respective monstrous cultures.

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#255

Post by virgilp » Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 7:57 AM UTC

rekado wrote: post #253

virgilp wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could respect the signatories of the joint statement if thy sent it to RMS; Like this, what are they hoping to achieve? Ponder it for a second. They're calling for the lynch mob, they're disapointed that the lynch mob seems to have "stopped too soon". These are not people who honestly want to quit over principles... if they were, they'd send this in private to RMS. These are people who want RMS out for their own pe…

What makes you think this wasn't sent to RMS privately? Or that there haven't been personal discussions with RMS in the past years?

What's the purpose of making this public? Discuss this in private circles within GNU. If it doesn't go anywhere, and you care so much about it, just leave.

What they did will fracture the community anyway. You can bet there are Stallman supporters in GNU, too. If the undersigned have it their way, others will leave (or disengage), in protest. There's no winning in this. From my pov, what they did has only downsides, and no upsides whatsoever.

You don't like GNU? Fork their software, make your own GNU with vodka and hookers. Just, don't throw a public tantrum. Use official channels and due process. If the organization doesn't respond, and doesn't match your values - just leave.

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#256

Post by blub » Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 8:04 AM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #236

blub wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you honestly say that the others have merely chosen not to associate with Stallman? No, they are coordinating a character assassination campaign and are pressuring everyone to disavow him. It's disappointing to see people cheering mobs on, just because they seem to attack "bad" people, while forgetting that anyone can be made to look bad.

"anyone can be made to look bad" is an opinion that basically throws the human capacity for discernment under the bus, and if humans can't discern things then why bother with anything? No; rms is gross and creepy because rms is gross and creepy. Not because some conspiracy has worked to make him look like he is.

"If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged". This is why we have due process and innocent until proven guilty.

Even if he were gross and "creepy", that's no reason to oust someone from the organizations they helped create and destroy their reputation with absurd unverifiable anecdotes, like the ones about plants or vi. Or the note hanging on the door, which was likely a prank.

Creepy is also a meaningless word, best associated with ghosts and monsters, not people. Nowadays it seems to be used to criticize awkward male courtship attempts, as if trying to romance someone isn't tough enough and those that don't know how to do it have to be ridiculed too.

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#257

Post by totony » Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 8:38 AM UTC

virgilp wrote: post #255

rekado wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think this wasn't sent to RMS privately? Or that there haven't been personal discussions with RMS in the past years?

What's the purpose of making this public? Discuss this in private circles within GNU. If it doesn't go anywhere, and you care so much about it, just leave. What they did will fracture the community anyway. You can bet there are Stallman supporters in GNU, too. If the undersigned have it their way, others will leave (or disengage), in protest. There's no winning in this. From my pov, what they did has only downsides,…

I think your post summarizes my view of the whole situation.

Stallman created that movement and has a lot of community support. Outing him to the public without discussing in private or even giving something actionable is just inviting outrage.

If you disagree with an organization, quitting and/or forking (and announcing your reasons) is less damaging to the cause than this.

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#258

Post by abstractartist » Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 10:58 AM UTC

throwanem wrote: post #232

falcolas wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless I'm dramatically misreading all the various articles, only a few women that were directly approached by Stallman for a romantic encounter felt discouraged. This did not impact a vast majority of the women who have, and do, contribute to GNU projects. Yeah, he fucked up in approaching those women and making them uncomfortable. However, a couple of data points do not a trend make.

Yes, you are dramatically misreading the situation. I've been in attendance at an RMS talk (HOPE 2016) when he opened by asking the organizers to turn the house lights back up so he could see if there was anyone in the crowd he might want to have sex with. I saw how many women immediately got up and left in response to that, and I don't blame them for doing so. I would've done the same, if I'd felt myself to be one o…

They did not have a video? This is the first I'm hearing of this, in the blur of stories. No video?

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#259

Post by abstractartist » Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 11:29 AM UTC

throwanem wrote: post #232

falcolas wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless I'm dramatically misreading all the various articles, only a few women that were directly approached by Stallman for a romantic encounter felt discouraged. This did not impact a vast majority of the women who have, and do, contribute to GNU projects. Yeah, he fucked up in approaching those women and making them uncomfortable. However, a couple of data points do not a trend make.

Yes, you are dramatically misreading the situation. I've been in attendance at an RMS talk (HOPE 2016) when he opened by asking the organizers to turn the house lights back up so he could see if there was anyone in the crowd he might want to have sex with. I saw how many women immediately got up and left in response to that, and I don't blame them for doing so. I would've done the same, if I'd felt myself to be one o…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uckLT7mPPIw here is the video where RMS asks for the house lights to be raised. You have mischaracterized his statements and the whole situation.

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#260

Post by jlokier » Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 12:12 PM UTC

throwanem wrote: post #232

falcolas wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless I'm dramatically misreading all the various articles, only a few women that were directly approached by Stallman for a romantic encounter felt discouraged. This did not impact a vast majority of the women who have, and do, contribute to GNU projects. Yeah, he fucked up in approaching those women and making them uncomfortable. However, a couple of data points do not a trend make.

Yes, you are dramatically misreading the situation. I've been in attendance at an RMS talk (HOPE 2016) when he opened by asking the organizers to turn the house lights back up so he could see if there was anyone in the crowd he might want to have sex with. I saw how many women immediately got up and left in response to that, and I don't blame them for doing so. I would've done the same, if I'd felt myself to be one o…

> "he opened by asking the organizers to turn the house lights back up so he could see if there was anyone in the crowd he might want to have sex with"

There's video. This alleged event occurs at about 6:11 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uckLT7mPPIw

I think your words mean the opposite of what RMS actually said. So much for justice.

Your words:

"so he could see if there was anyone in the crowd he might want to have sex with."

RMS's actual words (speaking to a darkened room where he can't see anyone & conference organisers are having trouble getting their projector working, so he has to improvise to fill the time):

"And I always like to be able to see the people I'm talking to but it's so dark in here I can't see you. Now, I mean, I might conceivably enjoy sleeping with some of you but that's not what we're here for. Uh, so if it's possible to increase the light on the audience please?"

That's poorly judged joke/banter: If there's one lesson we're learning from all this, it is avoid jokes that are likely to be misunderstood. I don't doubt that some women got up and left, and were put off contributing. Someone should have had a word with him about how it was received.

My guess is RMS would be mortified if he thought people, such as yourself, were misunderstanding his words to that gross extent.

Frankly, given the severity of the accusations, what you have called him out for on this occasion looks to me like a brazen outright lie on your part, as evidenced by the video to correct the record.