Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Joint Statement on the GNU Project

guix.gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 310 posts

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#281

Post by kelsolaar »

abstractartist wrote: post #259
throwanem wrote: post #232

Earlier 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…

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.

What is the particular time in the video when he asked that?

Edit: About the 6:20 mark.

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#282

Post by abstractartist »

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…

I find it interesting that you told this story without linking to the video, in light of admitting you posted the video itself. Curiously you do not admit having posted it until called out on the discrepancy between your paraphrase and the actual words RMS spoke. You paraphrased his words even though it would have taken seconds to get the (utterly different) exact wording from your own video. I think you are deliberately spreading misinformation. An honest commentator would have posted the exact wording and the link, especially if he is the source of the very video in question.

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#283

Post by lostjohnny »

dtornabene wrote: post #104
falcolas wrote: post #91

Back when we collectively ousted Brandon Eich from Mozilla, I thought we were doing the right thing. However, that slope is awfully slippery, and we are now ousting people from their own projects for sins that have no real bearing on the project. This isn't making our community better, for there is nobody that exists that doesn't have skeletons in their closets. People are claiming here that they can have just as muc…

the ability for women to be able to contribute and simply be a part of the free software community without harrassment does not fall under "no real bearing on the project", just so we're clear here.

> the ability for women to be able to contribute

Has always been respected.

FSF is no Uber[1] or Salesforce[1] or other corporations where women are harassed and molested.

[1] https://www.vox.com/a/sexual-harassment-assault-allegations-...

[2] https://www.feministcurrent.com/2019/03/28/whats-current-50-...

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#284

Post by lostjohnny »

nrclark wrote: post #18
rowanG077 wrote: post #9

fuck the GNU project. I no longer can take it seriously after the events that have occurred. Disgusting bunch of people.

That "disgusting bunch of people" wrote a ton of the underlying software that powers the internet. You might not like them, but show a little respect.

> that powers the internet

Not really.

> You might not like them, but show a little respect.

Thanks to Wernher Magnus Maximilian Freiherr von Braun we have rockets that one day will go to mars (he even advocated for a mission to Mars back then).

Still don't respect him for joining the nazis.

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#285

Post by throwanem »

abstractartist wrote: post #282
throwanem wrote: post #232

Earlier 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…

I find it interesting that you told this story without linking to the video, in light of admitting you posted the video itself. Curiously you do not admit having posted it until called out on the discrepancy between your paraphrase and the actual words RMS spoke. You paraphrased his words even though it would have taken seconds to get the (utterly different) exact wording from your own video. I think you are delibera…

I find it interesting that you have no stronger argument in support of your own interpretation than to argue that all others, including mine, must be lies with some scurrilous ulterior motive behind them.

Again, I understand that you regard this statement of RMS's - and the many similar statements attested by others - as innocuous, and any interpretation otherwise to be false and motivated by a witch-hunting desire to tear down a great man for no better reason than because his greatness makes others feel small. You've been quite clear about that.

You haven't done a good job arguing for it, though. You reiterate the same unsupported assertions that you've already made, and in between times you sling accusations at people who disagree with you - all the while hiding behind anonymity, lest you risk having your behavior reflect poorly on you - in the hopes that those following along will be suckered into mistaking such personal attacks and unsubstantiated claims for an argument.

You're welcome to do that, of course, if it doesn't embarrass you. I'd hope that it would, but I suppose the concealment of anonymity helps with that, too.

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#286

Post by abstractartist »

throwanem wrote: post #285
abstractartist wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it interesting that you told this story without linking to the video, in light of admitting you posted the video itself. Curiously you do not admit having posted it until called out on the discrepancy between your paraphrase and the actual words RMS spoke. You paraphrased his words even though it would have taken seconds to get the (utterly different) exact wording from your own video. I think you are delibera…

I find it interesting that you have no stronger argument in support of your own interpretation than to argue that all others, including mine, must be lies with some scurrilous ulterior motive behind them. Again, I understand that you regard this statement of RMS's - and the many similar statements attested by others - as innocuous, and any interpretation otherwise to be false and motivated by a witch-hunting desire t…

Nonsense. I did not say I think his statements in the video were innocuous. I (and others) pointed out that you misrepresented his statements. I've said basically nothing else with this account and all of the handful of comments I've made with it are about this one issue of you misrepresenting your video.

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#287

Post by abstractartist »

abstractartist wrote: post #286
throwanem wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it interesting that you have no stronger argument in support of your own interpretation than to argue that all others, including mine, must be lies with some scurrilous ulterior motive behind them. Again, I understand that you regard this statement of RMS's - and the many similar statements attested by others - as innocuous, and any interpretation otherwise to be false and motivated by a witch-hunting desire t…

Nonsense. I did not say I think his statements in the video were innocuous. I (and others) pointed out that you misrepresented his statements. I've said basically nothing else with this account and all of the handful of comments I've made with it are about this one issue of you misrepresenting your video.

Nor did I say anything about other peoples' views or mention anything about "witch hunts bringing down a great man". Can you answer point blank why your paraphrase is so far off from what was actually said? If your paraphrase is valid then perhaps we might find that "20 women left the room" is something of a paraphrase too?

Edit: fix unclear wording, add question

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#288

Post by BrendanEich »

falcolas wrote: post #91

Back when we collectively ousted Brandon Eich from Mozilla, I thought we were doing the right thing. However, that slope is awfully slippery, and we are now ousting people from their own projects for sins that have no real bearing on the project. This isn't making our community better, for there is nobody that exists that doesn't have skeletons in their closets. People are claiming here that they can have just as muc…

You didn't collectively oust me, and Mozilla even said so at the time (https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat...).

But let's pretend this isn't HN, and argue the other party's side as best we can. Suppose I was ousted, because I wanted to (a) nullify marriages and (b) leave same-sex couples without the legal protections of marriage as defined by the state of California?

Then I'd deserve ousting, at least as CEO (see the Mozilla FAQ on "remain at Mozilla in another C-level position"), because many people at Mozilla would find (a) and (b) intolerably unjust and wrong.

In fact, (a) and (b) are both false, and were in 2008. Retroactive law is unconstitutional, and then-AG Jerry Brown (who let Prop 8 on the ballot) said so at the time:

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Prop-8-not-retroactiv...

As for (b), even Obama, who said in 2008 that he thought marriage should be between a man and a woman, although he also said he did not support Prop 8, did support civil unions for same sex couples, which in California are governed by Domestic Partnership law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_Califo...

I supported that civil unions law from inception through amendments to bring it to parity on positive rights with conjugal marriage, as did the majority of Californians. And I support the ancient principle against retroactive law.

This is all obsolete, due to court decisions culminating in Obergefell, and I accept the law of the land as it has been decided. But if one is ignorant of (a) and (b) being false, or if one chooses to hide the truth and paint me as a hateful person, then it's easy to see why others would want to oust me. I would too, if I believed the charges.

But the charges are false in my case. And they have nothing to do with RMS. I wish I had a nickel every time my name was dropped on HN to make invidious comparisons, and a dime every time I was compared to RMS.

The truth matters, and right vs. wrong matter. I agree with so-called SJWs that justice is not just a matter of law, that the law won't deal with sub-criminal behavior that social groups must confront and reject. Obviously we disagree on whether I'm guilty of such behavior! Still, better to agree on there being a category of social justice, and then argue the facts if we can.

To your closing point: it may be we should prefer mediocrity as the price of ousting toxic people, but we first should try harder to be sure of our collective ousting judgment. It was way off in my case, and in any event, the ousting pressure was not why I left Mozilla. There was an immediate anti-Mozilla reaction after I left, and the net effect on Firefox market share is hard to detect amid the long grim slide downward.

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#289

Post by lostjohnny »

jlokier wrote: post #263
zenexer wrote: post #250

Earlier 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…

What's wrong with what he said?

If I end up in an elevator with Charlize Theron I would probably say something on the line of "I always dreamed of being trapped with you so you could not escape from me, but maybe it's better if this time we call 911".

People say this kind of things to alleviate tension, it's completely normal, it is not normal to be offended by that.

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#290

Post by throwanem »

abstractartist wrote: post #287
abstractartist wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsense. I did not say I think his statements in the video were innocuous. I (and others) pointed out that you misrepresented his statements. I've said basically nothing else with this account and all of the handful of comments I've made with it are about this one issue of you misrepresenting your video.

Nor did I say anything about other peoples' views or mention anything about "witch hunts bringing down a great man". Can you answer point blank why your paraphrase is so far off from what was actually said? If your paraphrase is valid then perhaps we might find that "20 women left the room" is something of a paraphrase too? Edit: fix unclear wording, add question

The uncharitability of my paraphrase does not make it inaccurate, and even at that I've already conceded that it was a joke. Specifically, it was a joke about wanting to see who among the audience he might want to fuck. No one has disagreed that this was the substance of the comment to which I and others took such exception.

All that remains is to argue over whether or not that exception was merited, and "it was just a joke, god, why are you being so emotional, jeez" - another uncharitable but accurate paraphrase - doesn't strike me as much of an argument. Neither does, again, claiming that I must be lying about what people did, or how many, in response to that comment of his.

Would you please step up your game? Answering the same tired objections over and over again, as they're reiterated in slightly different ways, grows dull, and it's difficult to distinguish one's interlocutors from one another when they're all saying the same things.

Post reply on HN