Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He's been banned from multiple free software conferences that I've visited for his behavior; the first one of such was 7 years ago. Could you name at least couple of those conferences he was banned from? Preferably with surrounding circumstances?
I can't answer that question. But this HN comment does a good job of describing events at a recentish conference, although not a banning: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21186822 Although I'm a big fan of RMS's deeper works (as will be obvious from my other comment), it's easy to imagine him (or to be honest, anyone insufficiently skilled at public speaking) making terribly misguided (at best) "jokes" and the li…
Joint Statement on the GNU Project
261–270 of 310 posts
Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ha…
You're welcome, of course, to maintain whatever interpretation you like of the events under discussion. But the video doesn't show the 20 or so women who got up and left immediately after he said that. You've yet to offer a compelling argument for why I, or anyone, should rely on your interpretation rather than theirs.
Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project
#263Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
This is a pivotal piece of information. I’ve been following the recent RMS developments fairly closely, but I was entirely unaware that he was pulling this sort of nonsense. I was under the impression all the fuss was over a philosophical yet taboo series of statements he made in regards to human trafficking and pedophilia. Why am I not hearing about these encounters? These are the voices I want to hear. Why have the…
But view the video linked to in child comments to the one you're replying to, and draw your own conclusion about what RMS actually said and the context in which it was said.
My view is that the comment you're replying to describes an incident that grossly mischaracterises what actually occurred. There were problems, and there was an inadvisable sexual joke, and probably some women were probably put off contributing to OSS, and it echoed some aspects of misogyny taking place in the rest of their lives - workplace, home, everywhere.
Consider, at the same event, the person you replied to admits that someone thought what they were saying was problematic too (thus the yanking of the mic from their hand). So, at very least, there were strongly differing views at the time.
I think it's good that people, on occasions of heightened awareness like this, feel able to share their presumably long history of traumatic and unwelcoming experiences, in OSS and in society elsewhere.
The shit women (among others) have had to endure, and still do, continues to be awful, both in OSS and elsewhere.
But it's terrible that the same phenomenon involves people empowering themselves in groups by gathering to destroy other people from more or less the same "side", when the social errors being committed by each person are not that different from each other, and what I'd call the "real criminals" (rapists, abusive partners, abusive bosses etc) are strangely not targetted in the debate.
For a movement that is supposed to be based on high principles of inclusion, empowerment, and social justice, it's tragic to those principles made weak and breaking down, because people don't know how to apply them in situations like this.
Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project
#264Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a pivotal piece of information. I’ve been following the recent RMS developments fairly closely, but I was entirely unaware that he was pulling this sort of nonsense. I was under the impression all the fuss was over a philosophical yet taboo series of statements he made in regards to human trafficking and pedophilia. Why am I not hearing about these encounters? These are the voices I want to hear. Why have the…
Much of what is being said are opinions or interpretation not facts. And because they are controversial, and often connected to trauma,, people don't tend to broadcast them until a "crisis" like the current one encourages sharing stories and makes it safer to do so. But view the video linked to in child comments to the one you're replying to, and draw your own conclusion about what RMS actually said and the context i…
That was what got my mic cord yanked. That was what the people who thanked me after, were thanking me for saying. I understand why that happened, and I understand why you might not want to talk about it, but don't you think it's a little inconsistent to complain about tendentious interpretations in the same breath in which you utter one?
Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project
#265Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a pivotal piece of information. I’ve been following the recent RMS developments fairly closely, but I was entirely unaware that he was pulling this sort of nonsense. I was under the impression all the fuss was over a philosophical yet taboo series of statements he made in regards to human trafficking and pedophilia. Why am I not hearing about these encounters? These are the voices I want to hear. Why have the…
Much of what is being said are opinions or interpretation not facts. And because they are controversial, and often connected to trauma,, people don't tend to broadcast them until a "crisis" like the current one encourages sharing stories and makes it safer to do so. But view the video linked to in child comments to the one you're replying to, and draw your own conclusion about what RMS actually said and the context i…
Wherever do you come by that idea? It's certainly an odd one. In any case, we're not talking about those people here; those conversations are taking place, even now, elsewhere, and thanks to the Internet, you can find them if you so choose. This conversation is about Richard Stallman, and the fashion in which much of his recent behavior (and not so recent, I gather) has affected both people involved with and adjacent to the GNU project, and the prospects of that project itself. Please don't use matters irrelevant to the topic at hand to try to steer this conversation away from its purpose.
Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project
#266Earlier quoted context omitted.
Much of what is being said are opinions or interpretation not facts. And because they are controversial, and often connected to trauma,, people don't tend to broadcast them until a "crisis" like the current one encourages sharing stories and makes it safer to do so. But view the video linked to in child comments to the one you're replying to, and draw your own conclusion about what RMS actually said and the context i…
It's also interesting to me that you understand this kind of discussion to be taking place instead of , rather than alongside , that about "what [you'd] call the "real criminals" (rapists, abusive partners, abusive bosses etc)". Wherever do you come by that idea? It's certainly an odd one. In any case, we're not talking about those people here; those conversations are taking place, even now, elsewhere, and thanks to…
What I mean it looks to me like RMS made social errors such as the one shown in the video, which are indeed problematic and need to be dealt with. But many people now villifying him are almost certainly guilty of plenty of social errors of a similar magnitude of harm to others themselves (thought not all the same kind of harm), and they are being hypocritical in focusing on grouping him with the "real criminals" in public perception, while said hypocrits aren't really all that perfect themselves, could in many cases find the same thing happens to them someday, and are quietly benefiting right now from the spotlight not being in their direction, and safety in group dynamics.
Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does "they've been doing this for a decade" mean "they aren't trying to oust major free software figures"?
To clarify I don't think the long-time hackers on that list are trying to oust major free software figures. What they are doing is a partial capitulation to those who are, most of whom are trying to effect a value shift in the free software community that undermines the bedrock principles of free software itself. I refer you to Coraline Ada Ehmke's views on the "pernicious cult of meritocracy" and her attempts to get…
What this may be really about is that Ludovic Courtès wanted a Code of Conduct for the GNU Project and Stallman did not. Since having a Code of Conduct, an easy and fashionable tool for excommunicating those you find problematic due to their pesky different points of view, is obviously the Right Thing, and increasingly considered a requirement, that meant Stallman had to go. Sorry, pal. Maybe if you'd had the right perspective -- maybe if you'd sat at the feet of your moral betters and listened -- 35 years of work wouldn't be flushed down the shitter.
This also stands as a warning to open source devs. If you have started an open source project and it becomes popular or otherwise important, you have two courses of action:
* Adopt and enforce a Code of Conduct, preferably Contributor Covenant version 1.5 or later. Enforce it preemptively against Trump supporters, right-libertarians, Brexiters, people who think border laws are a thing which should be enforced, people who oppose Xi Jinping, or just white men in general.
* Lose maintainership of your own project and have it taken over by your moral superiors, people who truly know how to lead.
(If this sounds to you like venture-capitalist takeover of a startup, you're on to something. Keep going and see where it leads.)
Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also interesting to me that you understand this kind of discussion to be taking place instead of , rather than alongside , that about "what [you'd] call the "real criminals" (rapists, abusive partners, abusive bosses etc)". Wherever do you come by that idea? It's certainly an odd one. In any case, we're not talking about those people here; those conversations are taking place, even now, elsewhere, and thanks to…
I guess my point wasn't made clearly. What I mean it looks to me like RMS made social errors such as the one shown in the video, which are indeed problematic and need to be dealt with. But many people now villifying him are almost certainly guilty of plenty of social errors of a similar magnitude of harm to others themselves (thought not all the same kind of harm), and they are being hypocritical in focusing on group…
Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are lots of us who care. We can preserve software freedom with the same stubborn, uncompromising attitude without having to also alienate the very people we wish to help.
you are reframing (weakening) the OP's standard. the standard is not "care", it's "gave as much of a fuck about software and personal freedom as Stallman did/does". RMS used an absolute garbage computer because it was, in his words: > the only laptop one could buy that could run a free initialization program and a free operating system. i'm certainly not taking it on some contributor's word that these 20 or so odd pe…
Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess my point wasn't made clearly. What I mean it looks to me like RMS made social errors such as the one shown in the video, which are indeed problematic and need to be dealt with. But many people now villifying him are almost certainly guilty of plenty of social errors of a similar magnitude of harm to others themselves (thought not all the same kind of harm), and they are being hypocritical in focusing on group…
A remarkable theoretical twist on argumentum ad hominem , I concede - but argumentum ad hominem all the same.
The debate is to determine what is right, just, fair, and proportionate.
Fairness in justice does, in fact, depend on the character and behaviour of the assasinators and wider social group, not just the target in isolation from them.
If you want to argue against those principles, that's fine obviously, but argumentum ad hominem fallacy does not apply where the character and behaviour of the debators is properly relevant.
(Character and behaviour are also relevant to the question of estimating how much to believe, when people are acting as witnesses rather than debators.)