Good.
Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF
381–390 of 943 posts
Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF
#382Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF
#383Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe I've just been extraordinarily lucky in who I associate with, but no-one I would consider a potential "collaborator" (either in professional or personal life) would ever demand I be incorrect about something to suit their ideals. I've been trying to come up with examples where that might happen and the best one I can think of is someone's young child asked you if Santa was real, but even then I'm about 50/50 on…
Well, that's kinda the thing. If something was in one of those history courses, then they were important enough that it mattered. Playing into the Santa Claus lie with your friend's kid is absolutely inconsequential to you, but it could mean a lot to that kid (and to the parents) to keep that lie alive a bit longer. (And if telling the truth to that kid, against what the parents would wish, is that important to you,…
> But if we're talking about a kid believing in Santa Claus, and the parents actually do care that you keep up the fantasy, you actually are an asshole if you tell the truth, no question.
Why is the desire of the parents more important than the desire of the child? Remember that we're talking about a scenario where the child is explicitly asking. They want you to tell the truth, their parents want you to perpetuate a lie. It's an easy choice for me to make.
Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF
#384Earlier quoted context omitted.
Canada only raised their age of consent from 14 to 16 in 2008. I don't think Canada should be cancelled as a result of this.
Legal age of consent isn't the same as being moral. These are two separate things. Nobody is saying we should 'cancel' Canada for having bad laws in the past. IMO this is a really weak argument.
But we should 'cancel' people for having bad views in the past? Got it.
Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF
#385Stallman is a disgusting pig. His behavior towards, and around, women cannot be excused by his technical contributions. He knows he is being sexist, and does not care.
Women are strong and don't need your protection.
Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF
#386I don't really have much opinion here but I will say that there are some very tired arguments about usually nameless "woke" people going around this thread, which should really be substantiated by material evidence rather than singing to the choir.
Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF
#387Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. This doesn't take the edge off, it makes it sound worse
How does it make it sound worse? As I read it, he is saying: Original quote: "I am skeptical about Added context: "because " The added context moves him even further away from saying anything about pedophilia itself, and further into saying stuff about other people who are saying something about pedophilia.
If the "widely believed thing" he was disagreeing with was that children are often forced into pedophilia, that might be defensible. Horribly naive, but maybe defensible.
But that's not it; he does seem to accept that children are forced into pedophilia in at least some instances, but somehow believes that those are few enough, and "consensual pedophilia" (which, no, that's not a thing) is common enough that we should just throw out age-of-consent laws (he links to an article about a Dutch group who wants to do just that).
But... no. He's just absolutely wrong here. And the swipe at allegedly-hysterical parents in the second half of the sentence just illustrate how ignorant he is.
Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF
#388Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wh...a. Transitioning fixed your social cue perception?! That is incredibly fascinating. I'm not even sure how to classify that... pragmatic psychological function (oookay that's probably not a thing), neurobiology, or what else. IMO this is a gigantic breadcrumb for Something™. The question is what the axis point was, and what got fixed as a result. Cooool. I am very curious what else shifted that you'd be happy to…
Autistic MtF programmers is something that happens enough to be a trope, joke or meme.
This usually doesn't fix their issues beyond dysphoria, though.
Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF
#389Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wasn’t just a few statements. It is a constellation of issues that make him very hard to interact with. A few final statements did bring him down, but he had been chipping at the foundation for years.
Okay. I think your statements indicate you are a jerk. Do I now suddenly get to punish you? Do I get to go to your boss and try to get him to fire you? See the problem?
I mean... yes? That's exactly what you do? The boss is presumably a rational human being and can decide if your complaints have merit or not.
If you personally are in a position to punish someone who you believe is a jerk, then yeah, you'll probably punish them, because that's just how social interaction works.
Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF
#390Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly this. I love and support open source[1] , but I don’t support all software being “free of cost”. [1] Not the OSI definition of it.
> I don’t support all software being “free of cost”. Stallman and the FSF agree with you; selling software is perfectly OK: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling
From your link:
> With free software, users don't have to pay the distribution fee in order to use the software. They can copy the program from a friend who has a copy, or with the help of a friend who has network access. Or several users can join together, split the price of one CD-ROM, then each in turn can install the software.
The type of “selling” that GNU is proposing here is exactly the same as asking for donations (and is a misuse of the word “sell”). Since people can resdistribute the software without limit (and someone is sure to put it up on internet), you “charging” for it is the same as asking for donations.