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

Bruce Perens: On Non-Judicical Punishment of Individuals

perens.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 227 posts

Re: Bruce Perens: On Non-Judicical Punishment of Individuals

#151

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

brnt wrote: post #141
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we really need diversity though? I would be perfectly fine if a development of a project would be done by strangers behind incognito aliases. I don't care if the contributed code comes from Black woman or Caucasian man or some cat who had learned to code. I believe that it is absolutely irrelevant topic that is forced on the industry by whatever reasons. If is not like the barrier to entry is too high: anyone who…

Two things: 1. The meaning of $500 varies wildly across earth. It's not much work to figure that out. 2. It depends on the kind of project. If you want a community project, a project that lives and breathes, you don't just need to put out code, but also inspire use and new contributors. For that, a pleasant atmosphere helps, and have existing contributors seem approachable. For that, you need to project not being a t…

> The meaning of $500 varies wildly across earth.

Oh, come on! This argument appears so often, but it is absolutely irrelevant: a person without a computer is unlikely to participate in the Free Software movement, with rms at the helm or without.

And living and breathing projects: all projects would be more healthy if they were all strict to business. No activism of any kind, but the one aimed at improving the product. You don't need to fight for gender equality if you don't care about the sex of the contributor!

If sex means zero to you, then both sexes are truly equal, because 0 equals 0.

Re: Bruce Perens: On Non-Judicical Punishment of Individuals

#152

Post by luckylion »

warkdarrior wrote: post #69
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #27

There is a conflict here: on one hand we want diversity, accept people with their differences, their handicap or education. On the other hand we want them to behave the same way we do, otherwise we reject them. So your company should have people with handicap, but that have no effect on others. And diverse genders, but you should consider them all the same, even if we know we have diverse bodies, needs and behaviors.…

> we want them to behave the same way we do That is a false statement. We want people to behave respectfully of others, not the same way we do.

I've rarely seen SJWs behave respectfully to others who weren't like them or were of some group they considered protected. It doesn't seem to be about respectfulness.

It looks to be about a superficial diversity: of ethnicity, sex, gender, (dis-)ability etc, but not of thought.

Re: Bruce Perens: On Non-Judicical Punishment of Individuals

#153

Post by KingOfCoders »

skissane wrote: post #140
KingOfCoders wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Maybe he's even shared that fact with the FSF board, and maybe they've taken that into account in their decision to reinstate him" If they had, it would be a good idea to have written into the press release. "Of course, we also have to consider the fact that he is 68. Increasing cognitive rigidity is a natural consequence of ageing, and people can find it harder to change ingrained habits at 68 than if they were 20…

> If they had, it would be a good idea to have written into the press release. If someone discloses to their employer that they are seeing a therapist, it would be inappropriate for their employer to put that disclosure in a press release. (Board members aren’t technically employees but I think the principle is the same.) > So you think someone with cognitive rigidity who can't change his habits is a good fit for a l…

"If someone discloses to their employer that they are seeing a therapist, it would be inappropriate for their employer to put that disclosure in a press release."

In principle yes, but not if that was the reason the person could not have the leadership role in the first place.

Re: Bruce Perens: On Non-Judicical Punishment of Individuals

#154

Post by 3grdlurker »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #27

There is a conflict here: on one hand we want diversity, accept people with their differences, their handicap or education. On the other hand we want them to behave the same way we do, otherwise we reject them. So your company should have people with handicap, but that have no effect on others. And diverse genders, but you should consider them all the same, even if we know we have diverse bodies, needs and behaviors.…

> And diverse genders, but you should consider them all the same, even if we know we have diverse bodies, needs and behaviors.

The point of having the knowledge that our bodies and needs are different as dictated by sex (not gender, if you’re talking about bodies) is to respect and value each other equally despite the things that we cannot change about our biologies.

If what you just said is how adversaries of gender equality and women empowerment think, then it is no wonder that there’s a lot of toxic disagreement on the matter. I suppose it’s difficult for such people to wrap their heads around why having gender-based sports divisions is justified and not inherently sexist, and that both are equally dignified categories.

Re: Bruce Perens: On Non-Judicical Punishment of Individuals

#155

Post by eyelidlessness »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #121
eyelidlessness wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t claim to be an expert. He’s not abusive because he can’t take care of himself. He’s abusive because he’s mean spirited and takes advantage of being excused for it because of his celebrity. I was never afforded that. Take your expertise and shove it up someone who isn’t a nobody. Edit: I regret saying anything please carry on praising the guy who treats people like garbage because people enable him. I’ll just…

Seems to me that Stillman has gone through an obsessive amount of effort to avoid having to change his boorish behavior. You and I would get fired for a lot less. I'm like, it's his hill he can die on it.

And apparently I’m supposed to be an expert in my own neirodivergence if I don’t excuse his behavior. Fuck that.

Re: Bruce Perens: On Non-Judicical Punishment of Individuals

#156

Post by dsr_ »

aortega wrote: post #71
Arainach wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-appendix... >I recall being told early in my freshman year “If RMS hits on you, just say ‘I’m a vi user’ even if it’s not true.” >Richard Stallman told me of his misery and that he’d kill himself if I didn’t go out with him. There are plenty of primary sources, and they're not "corporate lobbyists". RMS is toxic.

>>Richard Stallman told me of his misery and that he’d kill himself if I didn’t go out with him. I said exactly that many times to girls when I was a teenager. It was a joke. Taken out of context, those phrases can mean anything good or bad.

... and then you stopped, because you learned it wasn't socially acceptable, right?

Re: Bruce Perens: On Non-Judicical Punishment of Individuals

#157

Post by sjy »

throwaway8581 wrote: post #96
staticassertion wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm no fan of Stallman, but I do find it worrying that some companies can unilaterally decide to sink the FSF if they don't like what it's doing. Why? That's like, the entire basis of every organization, that supporters don't have to support it. If a company selling a product behaves in a way you don't want to support you stop buying, if a charity stops supporting a cause you stop supporting it, etc.

The real question is why every single major company in America is vigorously enforcing social norms that significant portions of the population, often a majority, don’t even agree with. This is very different than other eras.

Some of RMS’s behaviour seems excusable, but I think a majority of the population would support the social norm by which anybody who publicly states that possession of child pornography should not be illegal [1] is disqualified from leadership positions. As far as I know, RMS has not resiled from this position, although he has conceded that the actual sexual abuse of children should be per se illegal.

[1] https://rms-open-letter.github.io/appendix

Re: Bruce Perens: On Non-Judicical Punishment of Individuals

#158

Post by brnt »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #151
brnt wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two things: 1. The meaning of $500 varies wildly across earth. It's not much work to figure that out. 2. It depends on the kind of project. If you want a community project, a project that lives and breathes, you don't just need to put out code, but also inspire use and new contributors. For that, a pleasant atmosphere helps, and have existing contributors seem approachable. For that, you need to project not being a t…

> The meaning of $500 varies wildly across earth. Oh, come on! This argument appears so often, but it is absolutely irrelevant: a person without a computer is unlikely to participate in the Free Software movement, with rms at the helm or without. And living and breathing projects: all projects would be more healthy if they were all strict to business. No activism of any kind, but the one aimed at improving the produc…

It's up to you to ignore perfectly clear social science and facts on the ground, but don't expect others to believe your particular brand of opinion without any supporting evidence of it working. (And before you reach back to the 90ies or earlier: you're missing something!)

Re: Bruce Perens: On Non-Judicical Punishment of Individuals

#159

Post by stonogo »

luckylion wrote: post #152
warkdarrior wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we want them to behave the same way we do That is a false statement. We want people to behave respectfully of others, not the same way we do.

I've rarely seen SJWs behave respectfully to others who weren't like them or were of some group they considered protected. It doesn't seem to be about respectfulness. It looks to be about a superficial diversity: of ethnicity, sex, gender, (dis-)ability etc, but not of thought.

Seems more likely you just don't label the respectful people "SJWs" or some other pejorative.

Re: Bruce Perens: On Non-Judicical Punishment of Individuals

#160

Post by dsr_ »

panny wrote: post #103
legulere wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we not act like the Second World War and consequently Karl Popper’s “ The Open Society and Its Enemies” didn’t happen? You cannot run a tolerant society without being intolerant to those that want to destroy it. You are right, that there is too much intolerance in today’s society, but I don’t think that it’s the case here. I think Stallman’s public statements about child rape deserve all the shunning he got.

[flagged]

Yet they did not:

- demonize a large group of people collectively

- accuse RMS of making statements he did not make

So, no, not very much like Hitler at all.

Post reply on HN