Live data from Hacker News

John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation

social.librem.one

381–390 of 431 posts

Re: John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation

#381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> Freedom of speech isn't the freedom to not be publicly judged about what you say. Thank you for putting it so clearly.

It's really not a cool way to think about this. People all around the world have state sanctioned freedom of speech but are oppressed by the majority in their country. This infantile view of freedom of speech is simply a way to pretend you care about freedom of speech while sanctioning other ways to silence/punish people. Even when that punishment is completely disproportionate too.

So, whilst I was thinking of some old white guy from the UK I saw last night complaining about 'cry-baby safe spaces', and felt that I could happily not listen and judge him, you are more sensibly thinking of ... a gay rape crisis centre that wants to publicise and support victims, but they find themselves in Russia or Turkey.

So its not enough to have freedom of speech, one also needs freedom from persecution and the other rights listed below:

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...

Yes.

I agree.

Re: John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation

#382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I consider it inappropriate because whenever I've seen it happen the female on the receiving end of the older man's attention is at best extremely uncomfortable about it. I've seen it happen first hand in an organisation I was a member of on multiple occasions. Men were asked to leave over it. Left unaddressed it becomes a barrier to female involvement. Does that mean relationships with significant age gaps are wrong…

So maybe the girls are ageist and should be trained out of it, for our modern tolerant society? France has a president with a wife who is 25 years older than him, and that is universally applauded. I can relate to the feeling, but on the other hand, I don't think it is fair to demand unattractive men should remove themselves from the dating pool. Of course society cares more for young women than old men, but nobody w…

> So maybe the girls are ageist and should be trained out of it

I'm not convinced that having a preference for romantic partners reasonably close to your own age is ageist any more than my own preference for brunettes over blondes makes me blondist, or my preference for women over men makes me homophobic, or somebody else's preference for same-sex partners makes them heterophobic.

We all have preferences. Some of those are based on very rational reasoning: e.g., I want to reduce the likelihood that my partner will die decades before me simply because they're much, much older than me (though of course there are no guarantees); or, I'd still like to have children so I'm not yet interested in dating post-menopausal women. Some preferences are much more emotional or physical: does this person make me hard/wet?

I'm not demanding "unattractive men" remove themselves from the dating pool. I'm suggesting that perhaps they might want to take the other person's feelings and preferences into account before foisting themselves upon them.

When I was 36 a 23 year old threw herself at me, when I was 39 a 22 year old was interested in me (I was, of course, flattered but gently demurred because I wasn't attracted to her). When it was still possible to go to nightclubs (and not that I went that often) most times I'd get my arse groped by one or more women when I was at the bar or on the dancefloor. Mostly younger, often much younger; mostly attractive. Mostly it was flattering, occasionally irritating.

This is not a flex[0], and I don't consider myself to be a particularly attractive man - especially not with 12 months of COVID flab on me - but I am acutely aware that some women at least do find older men attractive. The difference, you'll notice, is that they initiated, and the reasons I'm mostly OK with it and not creeped out even when I'm not interested is that they represent zero threat to me, they can mostly take the hint, and there's no power asymmetry in their favour.

Well, that and the fact that it's an enormous ego stroke.

That's not the way many women feel most of the time when they get unwanted attention from guys: they clearly do see us as a threat.

[0] To balance any perception that this might be a flex: I probably show romantic interest in individual women a handful of times per year and tend to go for those who are closer to my own age - at the very least into their 30s (does this make me ageist?) - and I've been turned down by plenty of them (hence still looking). I'd probably pursue more women but the reality is that once you're out of your 20s, and particularly once you're into your late 30s, the pool of available women who are close to your own age shrinks A LOT. Like REALLY a lot. Find someone when you're younger if you possibly can.

Re: John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation

#383
post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the new fangled optimizations are being done on LLVM, Sanitizers were LLVM first etc. GCC target support remains incredibly impressive of course, but that's not the sexy stuff. Also I regard GNU's success in userspace as mainly stemming from the 90s, my comment was regarding roughly post- somewhere in the 2000s

Is that LLVM success good for society or for the giant SV companies? LLVM is still not a clear winner in performance or supported platforms.

LLVM is better technology but the fact that it isn't copyleft pains me (for one).

Whereas with GCC you kind of have to upstream (making it easy or not), with LLVM you can upstream stuff you want other people to work with (or cynically, maintain) but keep relatively private things with your secret sauce (I don't think Apple's M1 patches for LLVM are upstreamed).

Re: John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation

#384
post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does not matter if rms is a nice person or not. He didn't do anything criminal, his only offense is stoically and pedantically expressing his views, unyielding to public pressure. In other words, displaying those very qualities that helped him change software development forever. People should not be destroyed for not being nice enough to certain individuals prone to offenses, and conforming to someone else's view…

Then again, if you are of a divisive personality type, you maybe should not lead an organization as others might not want to work with you, companies might want to withdraw funding because they don't like to be associated with the controversy around you. And lastly, you might reduce the reach of your own ideas.

Did it ever occur to you that having an agreeable and nice personality is not quite what is needed to bring forth the ideas of free software movement? It is not like Stallman wasn't effective in this role - everyone in this thread was reached by his ideas in different ways. People from all over the world have heard of Free Software, joined the movement, have built a lot of applications, but apparently all some people need is for him to also be nice. I guees it is never enough for some people.

Re: John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation

#385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go tell that to all the minorities around the world who have state granted "freedom of speech" but are suppressed/controlled by mobs in other countries. It's counter to freedom of speech and it isn't acceptable.

I'd argue that's more a problem with rule of law than anything freedom of speech related.

Freedom of speech is about law. The first ammendment says:

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Re: John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation

#386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't want to live in a world without American freedom of speech - where we can't be blunt and speak our minds. I take issue with this. I'm not hugely adept at history but from my understanding there has never been a time where you can just blurt out a communication and have it be "accepted" by society - this seems to me very American and appears very detached from reality and real world experience. Yes, you are…

> perhaps it's best to step away and not click "reply" afterall. This is censorship. It's why I'm posting anonymously for the first time in a long time. > there has never been a time where you can just blurt out a communication and have it be "accepted" by society We're in a new era where algorithms amplify rage and "mobs" are a composite of real people, anonymous users, and bots. You can't fight against it, and ther…

> This is censorship. It's why I'm posting anonymously for the first time in a long time.

I think you're confusing censorship with accountability.

Re: John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation

#387
post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does not matter if rms is a nice person or not. He didn't do anything criminal, his only offense is stoically and pedantically expressing his views, unyielding to public pressure. In other words, displaying those very qualities that helped him change software development forever. People should not be destroyed for not being nice enough to certain individuals prone to offenses, and conforming to someone else's view…

> He didn't do anything criminal, Not breaking the law is the bare knuckle minimum standard that we expect. Imagine going to a job interview and when asked about your achievements you say "well, I didn't break any laws".

Stallman is being targeted for his personal views which he expressed on his personal blog in his personal capacity.

Also, as a founder of a movement, he kinda gets a privilege of not having to take an interview for the job.

Re: John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation

#388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if he does, it in no way whatsoever excuses his awful behaviour, abuse and harassment. And it is cowardly and incredibly insulting to those who do suffer from it to claim it is.

It's not a carte blanche, but acting socially inappropriately is a hallmark of Autism-Spectrum disorders. I do believe that does excuse or at least re-frame certain behaviors that might be otherwise construed as "awful" or "abusive". Intent matters.

It really, really does not. I think you should try to first go find out what the behaviours actually are. It's not just having awkward opinions or butting into conversations.

Like, https://twitter.com/grok_/status/1375049417926053894

Re: John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation

#389
post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is spot on, even though predictably and depressingly you've been downvoted to hell. Autism does not excuse sexual harassment. Pretending it does is a complete ableist trope. As you say, it's a disservice to everybody with disabilities who have learnt, as necessary, to not sexually harass others.

If I crack a bad joke due to my social ineptness, you may call that sexual harassment. However, due to my social ineptness, I will simply reject your definition of sexual harassment and insist that I was just making a harmless joke. Perhaps some people with different expressions of that "disability" have the capacity to "learn" that they're "wrong". I don't. To suggest that I should have that capacity because others…

That is not a thing.

Re: John Sullivan resign as executive director of the Free Software Foundation

#390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "a smart strategy" to apologize when someone points out you've done something wrong. Well fortunately RMS collates all of his posts here: https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_Septe... , so a start would be... actually apologizing for what he said about Marvin Minsky.

Why are you still vague, what did he said and why is it legal, immoral, unpopular or incorrect. Yes i would like a logical phrase that starts from "RMS said X" then I want to see how you extrapolate that using logic to conclude that RMS supports some illegal practices.

Oh sorry, I'm not being deliberately vague - specifically the points raised by the open letter linked to by the article.
Post reply on HN