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

Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

lunduke.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 447 posts

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#281

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

larrywright wrote: post #212
bcheung wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about others, but personally, I find the overly politically correct "safe spaces" much less welcoming and counter to the spirit of the internet. It feels like you constantly need to tip-toe around with every word to avoid the risk of offending someone. I'm much more bothered by people trying to police the world than someone who is rude or that disagrees with me. In a properly functioning society, people…

In my experience, a lot of these people say they want tolerance, but what they really mean is tolerance of the ideas (and people) they agree with.

Agreed. Whatever happened the old "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" spirit? Somehow, it just seemed to vanish over the past decade without any explanation.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#282

Post by gonehome »

kazinator wrote: post #157
gonehome wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree - I think you come across a lot more persuasive when you attack the ideas rather than the person and you do it with less colorful language. Otherwise I think you only 'persuade' people that already agree with you and others that might have otherwise changed their minds are alienated. That said, I generally like the idea of not banning people and I have a high tolerance for this kind of communication not…

> ideas rather than the person The CoC people will not like that any better. Suppose you write a mailing list post which absolutely names no names, but only presents expressions of specific ideas, and then calls those ideas "toxic" and "loony", with justifications and all. That will still be equally offensive. It will be still be interpreted as an attack on the identifiable person or group behind those ideas, even th…

> and you do it with less colorful language

Focusing on ideas is better, but breaking down why you think something is wrong without being an ass is really the goal.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#283

Post by cpach »

eMSF wrote: post #269
cpach wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ESR is not only an ultra-libertarian, he’s also a vile scumbag with a considerably inflated ego.

>ESR is not only an ultra-libertarian You say that like it's a bad thing...

I don’t really care either way TBH. Anarchocapitalism is not my cup of tea but there are definitely libertarians that I enjoy listening to. My point was that ESR’s biggest problem area isn’t his ideology of choice but rather his long list of other undesirable character traits.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#284

Post by downerending »

joshuamorton wrote: post #268
lmm wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no problem with an individuals choosing not to engage based on their own experience. The problem with cancel culture is that we are encouraged to treat people as "cancelled" based on hearsay.

You're under no obligation to do anything. Individuals are simply exercising their own right not to engage based on their own experience. From other comments, you seem to be drawing a distinction between "social pressure" and "individual choices". Can you explain when one becomes the other?

I think we all know a mob when we see one.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#285

Post by chx »

aeturnum wrote: post #10

From the previous discussion, plorkyeran[1] found the email that they suspect got ESR banned: http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.... I'm not familiar with the culture or standards of the OSI but I don't think I'd wanna participate in a community where this kind of engagement is normal, so good for them I suppose? Edit: replaced plorkyeran's account link with their post. I also now notice othe…

And if you wanted to read a thoughtful critique of the license in question then try https://twitter.com/wwahammy/status/1229668961131864064

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#286

Post by cpach »

tarkin2 wrote: post #79

He’s obviously a great when it comes to his contributions over the years. And he may have a point in his criticisms. But he doesn’t seem in a healthy state of mind. He seems paranoid - “make no mistake we are under attack” - angry - “loonytoon”, “ratfucking” - and the victim of a cultural attack - “journalistically-protected class“. The linked article on here about homosexual priests seems to suggest it’s been a them…

Yeah it’s pretty obvious that he has issues.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#287

Post by m463 »

nrclark wrote: post #59

I've read a bunch of ESR's writing, and I disagree with him on an awful lot of political and social issues. Chances are we wouldn't get along very well. Tone-policing, cancel culture, and identity politics are a real problem though, and it seems like they're getting out of hand. This is happening everywhere though - it's not unique to the open source world at all. I don't know what the right solution is. ESR and RMS…

I'm reminded of the saying "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#288

Post by geofft »

core-questions wrote: post #92
geofft wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's absolutely legitimate to have a F/OSS-licensed project with such a culture. But it shouldn't count as part of the F/OSS movement(s), any more than an MIT-licensed website about how you need to pay SCO for Linux licenses would be part of the movement.

> But it shouldn't count as part of the F/OSS movement Why not? If the end result is a high quality piece of open source software, why do I need to care about the politics or behavior of the developers? The only reason I can think of would be from a risk-assessment standpoint, i.e. is another censorious asshole going to waltz on in and damage the team that produces this product so that it dies and becomes orphaned. W…

You don't have to care, and I am not saying you should.

I'm saying it doesn't count as part of the F/OSS movement. Whether you want to contribute, not contribute, etc. is your own choice and doesn't need to be correlated in any way.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#289

Post by alasdair_ »

pdonis wrote: post #195
sneak wrote: post #24

I’m torn on this. On one hand, esr has a point. There is a credible argument that cancel culture has gone too far, and that expressing disagreement itself is now becoming dangerous as those with whom you disagree will take the opportunity to play victim and attempt to defame you simply for disagreeing. Identity politics along these lines have lately become unproductive and distracting. I generally don’t participate i…

> On the other hand, esr is a real jerk. Real jerks in f/oss are also a real problem. f/oss groups should ABSOLUTELY eject bullies: not for wrongthink, but for bullying. We must be kind. I disagree with this argument as it is stated, because it is much too broad. If you had limited it to saying that you will eject bullies from f/oss groups that you have control over, and will refuse to participate in f/oss groups tha…

>But you don't get to tell every single person who does f/oss what kinds of people they should be willing to work with.

There is a difference between "should" (which is clearly an opinion) and "must" (which implies some level of force to back it up).

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#290

Post by pjc50 »

derefr wrote: post #89
pjc50 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maaybe , but you'd have to follow the "safe, sane and consensual" rules. Explain in advance that that's what you're doing. Ensure that everyone is on board. And not do it in public, because the public aren't consenting. And if it rose to public prominence while remaining a men only club, that would probably cease to be OK. (It remains unclear to me what the long term psychological effects of participating in a commun…

> Explain in advance that that's what you're doing. Ensure that everyone is on board. This assumes that people choose their way into this state. What if "software as performative BSDM" is the state of nature, that people are in unless they decide otherwise? (A bold claim, I know, but I can think of some good examples, and I bet you can too.) > And if it rose to public prominence while remaining a men only club, that…

> What if "software as performative BSDM" is the state of nature, that people are in unless they decide otherwise?

This is a stupid claim and you know it.

Post reply on HN