Live data from Hacker News

Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

techrights.org

821–830 of 943 posts

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

#821

I am here to say I am pleased to see RMS active in software issues again. I am a fan of his ideas related to software, and his gift to us has paid me and most of my peers off over and over. Tons of others have added to all that and here we are today. Personally, I will consider what he says about software, data, IP. The man is not often wrong. Has a lot to say, and he should be heard. There are other issues, and that…

Genuine question, is there anything useful he has said in the last 10 years he has said you can point to? He seems helplessly lost in the past, before the web, the explosion in javascript, etc. etc.

An overwhelming majority of freedom loss topics RMS has warned about have gone from sounding silly to being true.

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

#822

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuine question, is there anything useful he has said in the last 10 years he has said you can point to? He seems helplessly lost in the past, before the web, the explosion in javascript, etc. etc.

It's not about having a mouthpiece. The point of him being at the helm, so to speak, is that he has, for lack of better words, put his money where his mouth is. RMS can be trusted and depended upon to hold up the idea of free software and lead it. Cancellation mobs and political opportunists cannot be trusted, because they will never be satisfied with their agenda, and because they do not truly care about the foundat…

Can RMS will try to lead, but will he be successful?

Open source software has never been bigger, but the FSF, and Stallman, are nowhere to be seen. I see articles about Linus all the time.

I've seen him speak twice, and both times persuaded me mainly he is an awful speaker, and actively put much of his audience off joining the FSF (I saw a talk where he did his famous "it is our holy task to deflower the female Emacs virgins" joke).

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

#823

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is (in my mind), the FSF doesn't matter, and RMS is a major part of that. He pushed away the vast majority of the leading voices in open source over the years (I don't se meant major open source coders / project leaders defending or supporting him. Most dislike him).

So, let us frame it all up another way: Forget RMS. Does the FSF matter to you personally? Why or why not? If it does matter, I submit the best course of action is to help others better understand. If it does not matter? ...

The FSF did matter. I was a member, I signed copyright papers and submitted a decent amount of patches to GCC, I went to see Stallman talk.

It became clear to me that while I agreed with many of Stallman's aims, I disagreed with how he treated people, particularly women. Also, he actively made decisions that, in my opinion, seriously hurt GCC. So I left.

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

#824

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, I think any sex with a minor is unethical, regardless of law. But in this particulars of Minsky’s situation he didn’t cross state lines for purposes of sex, he crossed for other purposes. IANAL, but I think this would be important for determining if age of consent was violated. If there was some sign of intent that Minsky planned on traveling just to sex this person then I think the reference you provided appl…

I think you're reading too much into informal phrasing. And a reasonable person would suspect prostitution or coercion.

I was commenting on the law relates to traveling for purposes of applying age of consent.

If someone is traveling for other purposes and does have sex, then the local age is applied, not federal.

The reasonable person test is sure to be resolved by court. But given their example, if someone is in Vegas and has sex with someone then the Nevada age of consent applies. But not if someone goes to Vegas with someone.

If I remember the details of the Minsky scenario, it’s that Minsky was visiting Epstein for some retreat and had (or was accused, I don’t remember) of sexing a 17year old (who was basically human trafficked and forced to sex people by Epstein). So that would seem like the purpose of travel was not sex, so local age of consent would apply. But a court could decide.

Of course, an admiral goal is to never be involved in any such scenario and I think a good heuristic is if one has to ask oneself if sex could be illegal, then one should not have that sex.

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

#825

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is (in my mind), the FSF doesn't matter, and RMS is a major part of that. He pushed away the vast majority of the leading voices in open source over the years (I don't se meant major open source coders / project leaders defending or supporting him. Most dislike him).

This is simple: Are the ideas worth it or not? To me, they are worth some effort. How likable RMS happens to be is an entirely different matter. And, frankly an excuse I have seen used to dodge a meaningful discussion about the ideas. My only interest in RMS is related to those ideas, put another way.

RMS came to speak at my university. He probably did more damage to general student perception of anything associated with the FSF than industry-ass-kissing professors did in the 3 years prior in that one day. Thus if you want the ideas to succeed, you want to make them matter independently of the "brands" of RMS and FSF, especially now the FSF has decided it wants to continue to tie its "brand" to RMS going forward.

("brand" in quotes because it's not quite what we usually mean with that term, but I can't think of a better English word right now)

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

#826

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But isn't that a core part of the problem? If I make a statement and you infer something about my intentions, how are you to know if I actually meant to imply that or not? It seems like a constant game of walking on eggshells if you're trying to pre-emptively prevent anyone from concluding that you were trying to imply something bad. It also seems like this is a largely solved problem in candid one-on-one conversatio…

> If I make a statement and you infer something about my intentions, how are you to know if I actually meant to imply that or not? If the mafia boss says "I think he is going to get a visit tonight", the person in question is probably not long for this world. Did the mafia boss order the killing of said person? I agree that every little sentence, in isolation, shouldn't be scrutinized, and meaning inferred in a vacuu…

Totally agree on all points. If someone said "exterminate the vermin", though, the ideal follow-up would be to ask "who or what are the vermin? And what do you mean by 'exterminate'?"

Weasel words are always going to dog whistle, but if you think that someone is implying something, the best scenario is to get them to explicitly agree or disagree with that statement.

Definitely not applicable in all cases, but if a person explicitly says "I did not mean to imply X, and I disagree with X", then it seems a good rule of thumb to believe that they do in fact disagree with X.

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

#827
post #821

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuine question, is there anything useful he has said in the last 10 years he has said you can point to? He seems helplessly lost in the past, before the web, the explosion in javascript, etc. etc.

An overwhelming majority of freedom loss topics RMS has warned about have gone from sounding silly to being true.

Yes. I remember discussions in the 90's and 00's

And here we are. I find myself thinking about hardware I want to keep longer term.

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

#828
post #825

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is simple: Are the ideas worth it or not? To me, they are worth some effort. How likable RMS happens to be is an entirely different matter. And, frankly an excuse I have seen used to dodge a meaningful discussion about the ideas. My only interest in RMS is related to those ideas, put another way.

RMS came to speak at my university. He probably did more damage to general student perception of anything associated with the FSF than industry-ass-kissing professors did in the 3 years prior in that one day. Thus if you want the ideas to succeed, you want to make them matter independently of the "brands" of RMS and FSF, especially now the FSF has decided it wants to continue to tie its "brand" to RMS going forward.…

RMS literally created the thing.

Others can and should be doing active, mass outreach.

Leader does not have to mean public figure.

Someone has to really mean it. RMS has no peers in this regard.

Maybe the right thing to do here is firm up a 5 year plan, go on a donation drive and fund organizers, who can work the crowds.

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

#829

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, let us frame it all up another way: Forget RMS. Does the FSF matter to you personally? Why or why not? If it does matter, I submit the best course of action is to help others better understand. If it does not matter? ...

The FSF did matter. I was a member, I signed copyright papers and submitted a decent amount of patches to GCC, I went to see Stallman talk. It became clear to me that while I agreed with many of Stallman's aims, I disagreed with how he treated people, particularly women. Also, he actively made decisions that, in my opinion, seriously hurt GCC. So I left.

Again, are we talking about the ideas or Stallman?

None of that even moves the needle on how high value the ideas are for me.

What we are basically talking about here is solidarity on software freedom.

Acting in solidarity means priorities. This is why I am focused on ideas. Liking people is not as high of a priority as the software freedom is.

To put it bluntly: even my enemies, "those other people" benefit from greater software freedoms.

Having a strong anchor matters. Stallman is not going to dilute things down or be co-opted. Great.

Given the last decade, I definitely value those things highly.

You appear to have other priorities. That is fine, but it is also not about software freedom anymore too.

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

#830
post #815

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "To assault" means "to make a physical attack on". You can rape someone without assaulting them. That’s not how sexual assault is defined though. Quoting Wikipedia: “Sexual assault is an act in which a person intentionally sexually touches another person without that person's consent, or coerces or physically forces a person to engage in a sexual act against their will.” Avoiding this, like Stallman did, is a way o…

> Avoiding this, like Stallman did, is a way of playing with semantics to reduce the seriousness of an accusation. Well, yes, since the point was to speak against what he called "accusation inflation" - which, I believe, wasn't even directed as much to Minksy's case as into general usage of that term in English: The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin Minsky: “deceased AI ‘pioneer’ Marvin Min…

>It clearly is enough for Stallman though, as evidenced by many other language crusades he's been on for his whole life.

The context is significant here though, because he has a history of belittling women and being insensitive to concerns about consent. These specific characteristics are red flags. It doesn't really matter whether the person bringing them up thinks they have wholly rational reasons to, or that they're just pointing out something interesting about language.

>Which opinions? What does "like this" mean? I honestly don't follow!

He said that Minsky probably would not have known that he was having sex with a minor who was also being coerced, and thus to him the victim would probably have appeared "entirely willing," as if that would make the act ok, or make it not constitute "sexual assault." He also said that he thought defining age of consent based on the law was ridiculous, which would be a colorable philosophical argument if we had any better way for defining and preventing child sexual abuse in our societies.

>If his intention was to defend Minsky, he was a very poor defender.

I'm sure he was, since he ended up essentially getting fired for what he said. I'm not here to litigate whether his specific example is sound, as you acknowledge that it's not. But the fact that he had to turn an accusation aimed at another MIT colleague with connections to Epstein into an opportunity to further a personal vendetta over the precise use of language used to describe rape — charitably you could say it was said in immensely poor taste. At worst, it does amount to attempting to defend or minimize the accusation.

>That's a real issue, and it leads such people to plenty of suffering and depression. They should be educated, not ostracized. If we don't do it, they may turn somewhere else where they'll get worse - there are some circles that claim to offer them "help" and "answers" already, but those don't make the society a better place.

It's sure led me to a lot of suffering, and depression, and severe anxiety. I don't feel safe around many men I meet in tech-centric spaces. All my friends have horror stories about abuse and harassment in our field.

And I'm sure the abusive men are depressed too. That's, of course, sadly common with autism. But they do need to get educated, and stop using their disability as an excuse for being insensitive. I'm not required to spend time around people who make me feel unsafe, regardless of gender, just so that they don't feel ostracized.

Post reply on HN