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

Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

techrights.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 943 posts

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#431

Post by gwd »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #8

I think it is strange that, on the one hand, the tech world has been advocating for the rights of neurodivergent people – society should accept that people on the autism spectrum are different and that’s OK. But at the same time RMS has been attacked for some statements very probably stemming from his autism that, while they may seem a bit shocking and at odds with the mainstream, were not illegal or intentionally of…

If someone is consistently failing to do the necessary part of a job, then it doesn't matter why they are consistently failing; they must be asked to step down and not do that job.

One of the responsibilities of anyone in power is to avoid emboldening sexual predators and silencing victims. Anyone in power who does that should be called out; and anyone who continues to do it after being called out should be asked to step down.

Let me start by saying that Stallman's words defending Minsky have absolutely been misinterpreted. He did not say that Guiffre was "entirely willing". And given that the age of consent in most of Europe is 16 or below [1], I think it's hypocritical for so many people to be outraged about Stallman saying maybe 17 isn't so bad.

Nonetheless, his defense of Minsky is still problematic. Why? Because in the hypothetical situation he described, Minsky had sex with Guiffre even though he should have seen red flags. (Don't get distracted here by arguing that Minsky did see red flags and didn't actually sleep with Guiffre. That's not the point: Stallman still defended Minsky as though he had.) By defending Minsky, he was indicating to all future sexual predators, "I will try to find excuses to defend your bad behavior"; and to all future sexual victims, "There is no point in coming forward; I will try to excuse the person who did this to you."

Now maybe Stallman didn't realize that's what he was doing; and maybe the reason he didn't realize it was because his brain is wired differently, which makes it difficult for him somehow. If so, we can cut him some slack personally; but it doesn't change the fact that it's harmful to have him in leadership.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#432

Post by varispeed »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #221
varispeed wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big corporations sponsor FSF then this is an understandable stance as what I am proposing would hurt their bottom line. Current situation saves them huge amounts of money from spending on R&D because developers all over the world will develop something for free (believing the PR around open source) and then if something catches on, big corporation can use it of appropriate it if you will. Sometimes developers from wi…

The philosophy of freedom of open source that RMS and others have been developing pre-dates any significant big corporation sponsorship. (Many of the particular big corporations using open source now didn't even exist then). I guess you can argue they would have changed it by now but for the subsequent sponsorship. There's no real way to resolve that claim one way or the other. But it is a coherent philosophy on it's…

> But it is a coherent philosophy on it's own, it's not some incoherent thing that makes sense only as self-interest of big corporations.

I don't dispute the fact that it is coherent, but it is serving the interest of big corporations. Could you explain why do you think it doesn't?

> Open source from the start as envisioned by rms and others was about creating software that users could use as they choose, including altering it as they choose and deploying it where and how they want. While they may not have envisioned the economic system that has resolved from that, all the proposals I see on HN for "not letting big corporations take advantage of developers writing open source" are about removing this freedom, making it no longer open source.

Big corporations shouldn't be treated the same way as individual users, as this is facilitating exploitation. Maybe indeed in the beginnings of FSF this was not thought about, but when big corporations realised this is benefiting them in many ways they started sponsoring the movement to keep the status quo.

> So, sure, if some developers don't want to produce work that can be taken advantage of by others without payment, including big corporations -- they can stop producing open source. You shouldn't produce open source unless you want to produce open source. But that doesn't mean the definition of open source is wrong.

This is a fallacy. This is the same problem as with unpaid internships - you could say if you can't do unpaid internship, you can find company that will pay for your time, but why would companies do that if they can get free labour? This creates disadvantage for people from unprivileged backgrounds as they cannot afford to gain experience through unpaid internship as they have bills to pay and families to feed. That's why in many countries unpaid internships are illegal.

I am not surprised that this idea gets pushed back here, as there is too many people here who wouldn't like coporations they work for to finally start paying.

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#433

Post by louhike »

Aloha wrote: post #330
nostrademons wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ribbonfarm called this a couple years ago: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2018/03/06/a-quick-battle-field-g... Specifically battlefront #8. He calls it consequential because the the neurodivergent/PC conflict highlights an inherent paradox in the PC worldview. Most applications of political correctness focus (at least on the surface) on defending a marginalized group against the verbal attacks of a privileged one. When a…

It's like this, I've spent a lifetime learning a rulebook by trial and error that everyone else just seems to know . It's absolutely maddening when the rules suddenly change for no discernible reason, often with little warning and grave consequences with no second chances for screwing it up. I see people clamoring for a safe spaces and I wonder where I can find such a thing? (To an extent I can find one at sci-fi, an…

I don't think there can be a real safe space. Toxic things for some might not be for others, reassuring things for some might be violent for others. It does not mean we should not try to improve how we behave, but it's important to understand it's impossible to have a generic rulebook we can apply everywhere to be safe with everyone.

As an example, some swearwords might really violent to hear for some people, but disallowing their use will be quite hard for those who lived in an environment where it was important part of communication. And it's often use as a distinction between rich and poor people (at least in France).

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#434

Post by Ekaros »

spiritplumber wrote: post #290
ethbr0 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly asking, what's the difference between someone being neurodivergent and just thoughtless / mean / an ass?

"Does wearing this thing make me look fat?" "A bit. If your goal is to look thinner I'd try that other thing instead." Is this a neurotypical person being a butt, or an autistic person trying to be helpful? Answer: yes.

Why is the person answering here considered to be the butt and not the person setting up the trap? Generally I believe it is know that there is no good answers to this question. So maybe we should assign blame on person asking it? That is if they don't really want the honest answer.

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#435

Post by [deleted] »

paganel wrote: post #370
sterlind wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I relate because I've been there, I think. Before I transitioned I had pretty strong ASD and couldn't figure out how to answer simple questions like "what's up?" or if I should wave to someone I've met twice if they're 15 feet away walking towards me. Transitioning did something to my brain chemistry and let me read social cues nearly overnight, but I got friends by delving into the LGBT community. Maybe furry cons i…

> or if I should wave to someone I've met twice if they're 15 feet away walking towards me. To be honest, nobody knows for sure. I call these "Seinfeld moments", as in you could make an entire Seinfeld episode out of talking about it: should I have waived? If yes, I did waive, why didn't the other person waive back? Was it because he/she didn't see me? Was it because he/she did in fact see me but didn't like me? etc.

[deleted]

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#436

Post by malwarebytess »

wmf wrote: post #108

For those who do not know RMS personally: "I worked for RMS longer than any other programmer. ... This was an own-goal for RMS. He has had plenty of opportunities to learn how to stfu when that’s necessary. ... I can confirm the unfortunate reality that RMS’s behavior was a concern [in the 1990s], and that [Marvin Minsky's] protection was itself part of the problem. He was never held to account; he was himself coddle…

That sounds like a rant from someone just don't doesn't like RMS rather than any substantive argument against him.

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#437

Post by Noos »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #411
Noos wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be blunt, I think a lot of people here misuse autism. The autistic person I had to deal with a lot of times had "difficulty" with social cues in that he was an adult that had no idea of not standing by others when they were working, would endlessly repeat things, was more or less impossible to hold a conversation with, etc. We more or less had to babysit him as impromptu caretakers. It isn't "oh, I don't know how…

I have a hard time understanding if your mention of the co-worker was supposed to be an example of someone who misused autism or not? >it's not something you use "neurodivergent" with seriously. what do you use neurodivergent with seriously. I would think not being able to read a room is a big problem? >Like generally there's a lot of disability chic or identity these days; but moderate autism makes it incredibly har…

No, it wasn't a coworker; it was a customer's adult child they left with us now and then more or less to babysit. He didn't misuse it at all; the idea of "neurodivergence" would be impossible for him to get. It was more like "rain man" without any of the mythical savantness; i say moderate because he wouldn't need a full time caregiver and could probably act on his own, but worrying about "reading a room" was impossible for him; it never entered his mind.

Having moderate forms of autism is incredibly hard, yes. Severe forms you would need a caregiver and medication for the rest of your life. It isn't just socially awkward behavior or insensitivity, and there's a temptation to medicalize or self-diagnose behavior that way.

Disability chic is medicalizing things that more or less are normal behavior. I feel like with autism people try to make an identity or medicalize some normal traits. I keep using OCD, mostly because I do worry I suffer from it. I am aware of the irony, but i do this more because i suffered from signficant abnormal traits like checking compulsions; hitting a pothole and immediately being afraid i ran someone over, etc. Worrying that you didn't lock a door despite tugging on the doorknob 6 times before you left.I have it light because I don't need drugs to manage it and I'm able to function somewhat in life (though as an adult i worry how much of who I am was because of it)

There really isn't overlap with anything else; like people misuse OCD to mean "neat freak" or forgetful or what have you. Autism though people seem to have some of that; I mean, my customer's son has to be told to not get in people's spaces while many non autistic people may stand too close. It's harder to untangle.

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#438

Post by boomboomsubban »

themacguffinman wrote: post #419
boomboomsubban wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's not intended as a vehicle for any random ideal people care about. Who used it like that? Stallman's comments happened outside the organization, the tweet was from someone I think unrelated to the project. I can understand keeping other ideals out of the project, but in context you're telling people not to express other ideals.

> the tweet was from someone I think unrelated to the project Seems fine for unrelated Twitter randos to say whatever they want about RMS, but would be distracting and counterproductive for GNU/FSF to permanently ban RMS in support of Twitter randos' unrelated ideals. I never said or implied anything about stopping Twitter randos from expressing or doing whatever they want.

I was asking you who used it as a vehicle... as the two people directly being discussed had not. I did not think you were trying to stop random people on twitter.

I think you're answering that GNU/FSF used it improperly but am not certain.

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#439

Post by mkl »

paganel wrote: post #370
sterlind wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I relate because I've been there, I think. Before I transitioned I had pretty strong ASD and couldn't figure out how to answer simple questions like "what's up?" or if I should wave to someone I've met twice if they're 15 feet away walking towards me. Transitioning did something to my brain chemistry and let me read social cues nearly overnight, but I got friends by delving into the LGBT community. Maybe furry cons i…

> or if I should wave to someone I've met twice if they're 15 feet away walking towards me. To be honest, nobody knows for sure. I call these "Seinfeld moments", as in you could make an entire Seinfeld episode out of talking about it: should I have waived? If yes, I did waive, why didn't the other person waive back? Was it because he/she didn't see me? Was it because he/she did in fact see me but didn't like me? etc.

"Wave". "Waive" is something entirely different: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/waive

But maybe Seinfeld could have made an episode about your version too.

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#440

Post by cryptica »

disgruntled101 wrote: post #430
mustafa_pasi wrote: post #427

Mob justice is not OK just because women do it. If these women have anything substantial they should make formal reports/complaints, not anonymous vogue statements like, "he make me feel uncomfortable". Cannot believe that one even has to say this. Why are women always presumed to be innocent and men always presumed to be guilty? Also, frankly, there is a point at which, certain behaviour might make you feel uncomfor…

What you are saying here would get you cancelled 100 times over if you were a public person, sadly.

It goes to show that it's not regular people who create 'cancel culture'. It's the financial elite. They do it as means to push forward a financial agenda. If those who orchestrate the cancellations were who they portray themselves to be, the hypocrisy would be brain-splitting.

The only reason their brain lobes are still attached together is because they know that they're being deceptive and it's part of an agenda.

It's not possible for a rational, cohesive mind to believe that a person who dedicated his whole life to free software is a bad person just because he once said something without thinking through it.

Post reply on HN