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

On Recent Controversial Events

ebb.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 151 posts

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#101

Post by bbanyc »

saagarjha wrote: post #27
bbanyc wrote: post #14

Even setting aside RMS's indefensible behavior, his vision of what "free software" means is stuck in the '80s. [1] got flagged for its flame-baity title but it's a valid point. Nobody gives a damn about the firmware for your laptop's wi-fi card. Cloud services and mobile rule the world now, and RMS never came up with a good solution to either besides "don't use them." (There's AGPL but it's never won any victories fo…

Cloud services seem like one of the few places where it's easy to make money from AGPL software: you use it, but you charge people because they're using your infrastructure. If your customers don't like something, they're free to set up their own, using their own hardware, running the AGPL software that you are. Many won't, because they don't want to deal with this.

Precisely my point. Are there any significant AGPL projects that aren't just advertisements for their commercial editions or services? Has anyone actually been forced to contribute back their private changes to AGPLware, or do they just avoid it?

(EDIT: AGPL Ghostscript is an ad for Artifex, but it's a very useful one.)

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#102

Post by humanrebar »

eightysixfour wrote: post #16
ng12 wrote: post #10

> The question is whether an organization should have a designated leader who is on a sustained, public campaign advocating about an unrelated issue that many consider controversial. I don't understand this. Are people in prominent positions not allowed to have opinions or interests outside of their job? As long as RMS wasn't actively using his power/influence as head of the FSF to advance his odd-ball views I really…

> Are people in prominent positions not allowed to have opinions or interests outside of their job? There are absolutely jobs in the world where “don’t be a distraction” is a requirement for the job.

Sometimes who you are, a physical trait, an accent, an unrelated disability is a "distraction". And, yes, personality and neurological traits can count as well.

I can understand "don't be a jerk", and maybe RMS failed that test. But "don't be a distraction" can easily be (and has been) an excuse to oppress in the name of pragmatism.

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#103

Post by ng12 »

XorNot wrote: post #97
ng12 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we need to keep in mind that RMS was posting this stuff very publicly all the while FSF was a runaway success. If RMS were being nominated to lead the FSF today, sure it might be appropriate to point out that he seems like a wack-job. However, as it stands we've lost one of the most impactful thought leaders of the past several decades over some mudslinging and theoretical "distraction".

Frankly, how? He hasn't been silenced. He still has internet access and the many publishing platforms that affords him. He's been dissociated from a role in an organization. If his ideas so clearly stand on their own, then he should have no problems. What he will not be doing anymore is acting as a direct representative of the organization.

Well I'm sure part of it is that he's been unjustly branded as a pedophile. Also I doubt he cherishes the prospect of starting FSF Round 2.

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#104

Post by gnicholas »

ddiq wrote: post #77
herostratus101 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or imagine a CEO saying "there isn't authoritative evidence that racial diversity would benefit our company, and bringing race into hiring decisions is inherently discriminatory." At least 40% of the country more-or-less agrees with that position, but basically any CEO would lose their job for saying it. While publicly supporting racial discrimination in favor of underrepresented groups is almost mandatory.

No CEO would say this, even if they thought it, because it could be used in evidence in a diversity lawsuit under the 80% rule of diverse impact, because the CEO was intentionally using neutral rules of hiring that ended in "discriminatory" results.

> because the CEO was intentionally using neutral rules of hiring that ended in "discriminatory" results.

Against what baseline? The results are only discriminatory against a baseline in which affirmative action is baked in. But this can't be the proper baseline, because if it is then any amount of affirmative action can be called into question.

Does your company practice some affirmative action? That has a disparate impact that hurts minorities, because you could be doing more affirmative action!

Edit: simplified my original reply

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#105

Post by humanrebar »

mthoms wrote: post #100
throwaway13337 wrote: post #75

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This is understood as the principle of freedom of speech. We don't get that if you risk losing your job if you don't share every view of the majority. The principle should be well understood by an organization that stands for, above all, these sorts of freedoms. There is no freedom of speech left if you're only able to say what every…

His freedom of speech hasn't been hindered in any way, shape, or form (as far as I can tell). What I do see, is others utilizing their right to (dis)associate with whomever they want. Freedom of speech has never included any notion of "Freedom from societal repercussions".

"Freedom of speech" is a universal principle that is also crystallized in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution with respect to government suppression of private speech.

It's also important that the principle be applied in private interactions, weighing other considerations. Of course, a political diatribe at a funeral is a poor choice. But there need to be places for well intentioned and civil people to come together and discuss things, even if ignorance is spouted of from time to time. If we're all humble, we'll all understand we're each ignorant in our own way and have a little grace to let each other be wrong, annoying, and even circumstantially negative from time to time.

Yes, freedom of association is important and conflicts with freedom of speech sometimes. But deciding to shun people also has repercussions. We have to consider all the repercussions of all of our actions.

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#106

Post by krapp »

lisp-missionary wrote: post #83
krapp wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

>I gave multiple examples. Software liberalism is California liberalism and examples were given.

You didn't give any examples. You gave a barely incoherent, poorly spelled, rambling word-salad stream of consciousness spiel about "hispanic supremacists" and white genocide and Orwellian THOUGHT CRIME and Zuckerberg and China and the Second Amendment and how California Liberals are literally socialist Hitler.

>Your failure to address any of the many examples I gave demonstrates exactly what I said, that California liberals are not interested in logic and information.

I've never been to California in my life.

Good day.

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#107

Post by humanrebar »

mthoms wrote: post #90
lisp-missionary wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what Stallman doesn't get is the same thing that I don't get, why should he at all have to be concerned with the feelings or even thoughts of everyone else in the entire world when speaking his mind. What makes other people's feelings or even thoughts so much more important that action should be taken against him if he's honest about what he thinks. By the way, some of the comments he's being demonized for wo…

> why should he at all have to be concerned with the feelings or even thoughts of everyone else in the entire world when speaking his mind He's absolutely free to speak his mind. Similarly, people and organizations are free to disassociate with him if they find his opinions offensive (or even just distracting).

You miss the argument.

The question isn't whether people should have the freedom to disassociate. I haven't seen anyone argue otherwise. The question is whether it's wise or beneficial to use that freedom in this way.

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#108

Post by chowells »

zaptheimpaler wrote: post #37

> It really doesn't matter what your view about the controversial issue is; a leader who refuses to stop talking loudly about unrelated issues eventually creates an untenable distraction from .... I can understand his position, but this is part of the picture of a core problem in society today. Its NOT that leaders aren't allowed to speak about controversial issues - its that they aren't allowed to advocate ONE side…

I think this idea that "free speech" means that you're not allowed to criticize or take actions based on the speech of others is a bigger problem. This idea that "free speech" makes you immune to consequences is somehow believed by a huge number of people who are otherwise well-educated. But the position seems to me to be impossible to support. It's just completely logically inconsistent.

How can defenders of "free speech" say that it's ok for them to say whatever they want, but it's unfair for other people to respond to them? This is a tactic especially favored by the alt-right. They claim they're being censored and appeal to "free speech" the instant someone calls out poor behavior, and then turn around and organize massive harassment campaigns against people who say things they don't like.

The position is logically inconsistent, but they've found that just saying "free speech" makes people want to defend both of their actions. It's a wonderful exploit targeting people who have been ingrained to enthusiastically defend people saying "free speech", regardless of whether or not what they're actually doing resembles respecting the rights of as many people as possible to speak.

I'd like to point out one more thing. This isn't censorship. This is what the real free market of ideas looks like. You say things that people find vile, and the market judges your ideas to be harmful and best avoided. That's how it's supposed to work.

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#109

Post by cwyers »

jccooper wrote: post #73
zaptheimpaler wrote: post #37

> It really doesn't matter what your view about the controversial issue is; a leader who refuses to stop talking loudly about unrelated issues eventually creates an untenable distraction from .... I can understand his position, but this is part of the picture of a core problem in society today. Its NOT that leaders aren't allowed to speak about controversial issues - its that they aren't allowed to advocate ONE side…

While "don't be a distraction" is a reasonable principal, Stallman's problem here is clearly that he got on the wrong side of a single issue. He's constantly going on about how language and/or the world is technically incorrect on a battery of controversial issues, like abortion, race, the justice system, economic systems, climate change, etc, and not in a particularly different way. And no one cared as long as he wa…

I don't know, if one is picking a single issue to use as a litmus test, sex trafficking of minors seems like the issue to do it with. Even if you believe that RMS's statements on that issue were taken out of context, his statements on that were callous, did not take into account the perspective of those who were suffering real harms, and were ill-timed in that they seemed to put RMS (in his position as one of the senior faculty at MIT) on the side of not understanding the real harms that had been done to MIT and people there. There is more to leadership than being technically correct (if he was even that), there is a degree of empathy and compassion to those you are leading that is expected of you. He failed that test of leadership at MIT so thoroughly that it called into serious question his ability to provide leadership at any other institution as well. In the face of that, he quite correctly resigned, and I think it's fair to applaud him in that narrow instance for making the right decision for the causes he has championed for so long, while being disappointed that he allowed it to get to the point where that was the correct decision.

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#110

Post by XorNot »

ng12 wrote: post #103
XorNot wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly, how? He hasn't been silenced. He still has internet access and the many publishing platforms that affords him. He's been dissociated from a role in an organization. If his ideas so clearly stand on their own, then he should have no problems. What he will not be doing anymore is acting as a direct representative of the organization.

Well I'm sure part of it is that he's been unjustly branded as a pedophile. Also I doubt he cherishes the prospect of starting FSF Round 2.

Who is branding him as this?

He's being branded as an insensitive twit who's pattern of behavior has showed no signs of attempts to change, understand or really engage with the criticism he chooses to attract, and has finally broken the camel's back and this is the result.

Post reply on HN