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

A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

meribold.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 274 posts

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#31

Post by why_Mr_Anderson »

yur3i__ wrote: post #18
joana035 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since the sky is blue police has been using CP as an excuse to break encryption, search electronic devices, etc. RMS is not wrong.

That's not really the part I have an issue with, its more the assertion that child pornography "does not hurt anyone".

I think the main issue is that there are too many things grouped under the label of 'child pornography'.

Anyone making actual CP should be thrown into vulcano, but teens sending nudes to each other are as innocent as they can be.

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#32

Post by henrikschroder »

> The primary author of the open letter, Molly de Blanc, writes on her personal blog:

> > There is no space to argue over whether a comment was transphobic – if it hurt a trans person then it is transphobic and it is unacceptable.

Ah, postmodernism! Where the words are made up, and intent doesn't matter!

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#33

Post by tomxor »

At this point I think the most important thing is that mob rule is shown to not be the way.

I don't know RMS, I don't even know much about RMS... but I have heard enough to know he's not the intolerant idiot he's been made out to be in these hateful letters. There are possibly other very reasonable criticisms for him being removed from his position, but the mob made that impossible to discuss now due to the overwhelming irreverent bias - so now they should be made to wait for a very long time.

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#34

Post by Toutouxc »

yur3i__ wrote: post #4

As much as I like rms, I find it very difficult to move past his comments on child pornography[1]. [1] https://stallman.org/notes/2011-mar-jun.html#4_June_2011_(Bo...

I don't find it difficult at all, because the way he sees it, what he says is strictly logically true. Possession of CP material does not hurt anyone. The fact that people who want to possess (and are willing to pay for) CP material are a huge reason for CP material to be created by whatever means available (that's the part that hurts people) seems to be lost on him.

His ideas on free software and freedom in general are certainly noble and inspiring, but it's like he went a hundred steps too far in simplifying everything.

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#35

Post by outsomnia »

Zanni wrote: post #27

A critique of "A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS": the author claims that Stallman's transphobia is down to Stallman proposing a set of singular, gender-neutral pronouns other than 'they', 'their' and theirs'. Which Stallman indeed does, but if you read on, Stallman also says he'll flat out refuse to use someone's preferred pronouns if they disagree with his scheme. To overlook that in a cr…

... and what's actually the problem with that stance that justifies what is being done to Stallman? It should be OK with everyone to be referred to by name and the set of generic English words that can be applied to anyone.

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#36

Post by simion314 »

I am afraid to put my name/email/github id in support of RMS because some mob in future will draw incorrect equivalence with whatever they want like "you support RMS then you are an X " where X seems to be a pedo.

I am also wondering how many GNU/FSF haters are participating in just because they prefer MIT/BSD and see GNU as a cancer eating at their money making scheme.

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#37

Post by audunw »

yur3i__ wrote: post #4

As much as I like rms, I find it very difficult to move past his comments on child pornography[1]. [1] https://stallman.org/notes/2011-mar-jun.html#4_June_2011_(Bo...

From what I understand his actual views aren't that horrible. But it's almost as if he goes out of his way to write things in the most provoking way possible. He really has no regard for how a reader might interpret his text. Which is expected if he has some form of autism.

I really think he should run everything he writes by someone who is more empathic. He is a public figure. He has a serious disability when it comes to public communication. He should take measures to deal with that. But I guess he's too proud?

I truly think Stallmans intentions have been OK. But you can't just pretend like it doesn't matter how communications are received by the reader. That's the whole point of communication. It's a bit like driving with poor vision. You don't intend to crash, but it's kind of inevitable if you don't correct for your disability.

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#38

Post by KingOfCoders »

joana035 wrote: post #23
yur3i__ wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really the part I have an issue with, its more the assertion that child pornography "does not hurt anyone".

You are taking his arguments out of context. Everything out of context will sound strange.

Because there has been this "out of context" argument used several times in this discussion, and I don't understand it:

Can you explain to me how the context of [1] and [4] makes [2] and [3] - "is having that photo is not hurting everyone" - sound different than without the context?

"[1] This "child pornography" might be a photo of yourself or your lover that the two of you shared.

[2] It might be an image of a sexually mature teenager that any normal adult would find attractive. What's heinous about having such a photo?

[3] But even when it is uncontroversial to call the subject depicted a "child", that is no excuse for censorship. Having a photo or drawing does not hurt anyone, so and if you or I think it is disgusting, that is no excuse for censorship.

[4] The government will invent an unlimited number of opportunities to censor us and search us if we grant the legitimacy of its all-purpose excuses for doing so."

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#39

Post by Toutouxc »

why_Mr_Anderson wrote: post #14
yur3i__ wrote: post #4

As much as I like rms, I find it very difficult to move past his comments on child pornography[1]. [1] https://stallman.org/notes/2011-mar-jun.html#4_June_2011_(Bo...

If a 16 years old girl sends nude photo her 16 year old boyfriend in Germany, it's fine. If she does the same in US, he's pedophile. This is what RMS was talking about.

Is it fine in Germany? I believe that over here in the Czech Republic it's the same pedophile story. You can literally have a bunch of 15 year olds having hardcore bdsm group sex, but they're criminals the moment someone snaps a photo of a nipple.

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#40

Post by KingOfCoders »

why_Mr_Anderson wrote: post #31
yur3i__ wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really the part I have an issue with, its more the assertion that child pornography "does not hurt anyone".

I think the main issue is that there are too many things grouped under the label of 'child pornography'. Anyone making actual CP should be thrown into vulcano, but teens sending nudes to each other are as innocent as they can be.

I don't think this is the case here:

"But even when it is uncontroversial to call the subject depicted a "child", that is no excuse for censorship. Having a photo or drawing does not hurt anyone, so and if you or I think it is disgusting, that is no excuse for censorship." - https://stallman.org/notes/2011-mar-jun.html#4_June_2011_(Bo...

Post reply on HN