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

51–60 of 274 posts

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

#51

Post by KingOfCoders »

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.

No.

"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."

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

#52

Post by dpatterbee »

outsomnia wrote: post #35
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.

The problem is that gender is a complicated social issue and not every transgender person wants to be thrown into an "other" category with their pronouns. Given how simple it is to use someone's preferred pronouns once they've been made clear to you, I don't see how it's a problem to do so.

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

#53

Post by maweki »

henrikschroder wrote: post #32

> 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!

In a sphere where we usually choose our names and expect other people to use them, instead of what's written in some official document, I don't see how chosen pronouns are any different.

Honestly, it's not hard to call people what they want to be called.

You might feel the line between innocent mistake and maliciousness has not been crossed. Other people do disagree.

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

#54

Post by drenvuk »

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'm tired of people with poor reading comprehension and poor adherence to the intent of the writing.

You equate this: "Having a photo or drawing does not hurt anyone" to "child pornography does not hurt anyone".

Do you really think those two sentences mean the same thing? Really? This is the reason the following saying is a thing.

>Give me six lines written by the most honest man in the world, and I will find enough in them to hang him.

Stop being so aggressively bad in finding faults. I mean, just being realistic, Stallman has most likely been stopped and searched multiple times crossing borders. You'd think if he was a pedo he would've been caught by now. Instead he's speaking his mind about censorship and freedom yet people that will never have an iota of the drive this guy had at least once in his life are trying to tear him down.

Do you take some sort of pride in attacking him or something? Regardless of his flaws, what have you done?

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

#55

Post by simion314 »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #38
joana035 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sexua…

Maybe if you and your girlfriend are 17 , she sends you a picture, then next day you are 18 but her picture is of a 17 years old so you are a criminal now.

So make CP illegal, find the criminals if you can, stop the commerce with such material , my paranoia is that I could be setup by police, or by someone that does not like me or even by a fucking troll. In today world such an accusation can destroy your life.

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

#56

Post by dpatterbee »

why_Mr_Anderson wrote: post #22
AndyMcConachie wrote: post #9

RMS is a terrible spokesperson for free software. I wish the FSF could just fire him and move on. How do I know he's a terrible spokesperson? Because we're talking about him and not about free software. It's that simple. I want the FSF to focus on free software and I want the discourse around the FSF to be about free software. Not RMS.

But RMS is one of the main reasons why there is any free software in first place. Without his obsession, it would be long destroyed.

That sounds like an unrealistic claim. Do you think that once RMS is dead it's only a matter of time until the end of free software?

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

#57

Post by magicalhippo »

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.

Not really. Here's the context:

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

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.

Having a photo of you out there, shared to people you did not intend or want to have it shared with can most definitely hurt someone.

I can't find the quote right now, but there was an interview in the news here last year with a woman who's dad had taken and sold explicit images of her as a child, and she said a major part of her issues as an adult was that a mere glance from a stranger could trigger a crippling fear that the stranger had seen those photos and had recognized her. Let alone a proper look from someone.

Even though the images might have been taken with consent, unlike my example case, they might later have been spread without consent as in the numerous "revenge porn" cases. Again this can inflict real hurt to those depicted.

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

#58

Post by spoonjim »

why_Mr_Anderson wrote: post #16
spoonjim wrote: post #8

You know what I think is the craziest thing about this whole saga: Stallman’s email just accepts, as fact, that Minsky had sex with an underage girl. With one accusation and a dead defendant, why would anyone make this assumption without further corroboration? Did Stallman know it was true or was he just assuming it was?

Ever heard about concept of 'friends' or even 'close friends'?

Can you state your point rather than obliquely suggesting it?

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

#59

Post by pigeonhole123 »

sokoloff wrote: post #42
johannes1234321 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A reason: Lots of software is licensed under "GPL V2, or newer" or "GPL v3, or newer" The Free Software Foundation can release a new version of that license, which will relicense all those works under those new terms.

As I read it, users will still have the option to choose the existing concrete license (ignoring “or later”), so if V4 became a restrictive license somehow, “V2 or later” is no more restrictive for users who don’t want it to be.

What if it became less restrictive?

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

#60

Post by longyap »

AndyMcConachie wrote: post #9

RMS is a terrible spokesperson for free software. I wish the FSF could just fire him and move on. How do I know he's a terrible spokesperson? Because we're talking about him and not about free software. It's that simple. I want the FSF to focus on free software and I want the discourse around the FSF to be about free software. Not RMS.

your wish i prefer rms to stay
Post reply on HN