A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS • Hacker News Board

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

#111

Post by coddle-hark » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:39 AM UTC

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 understand the need to "move past" this. It's a personal opinion expressed on his blog, without much context, not even tangentially related to his professional work.

Is it reasonable to expect public figures to be 100% agreeable? I don't think so. In fact I think we'd all be a lot better off if we just stopped judging these peoples' character altogether. Shitty people can do good things. Why would we want to stop them?

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

#112

Post by throwaway212223 » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:39 AM UTC

Using a throwaway ID for reasons that have been stated in this thread over and over.

You know what stuff like this makes me think, as someone in Europe? Between Trumpists and SJWs/cancel culture the only sane thing to do is have as little to do with the US as possible.

That means not depending on organizations located in the US or with a US majority membership, for one.

All you americans are doing is further isolating yourselves from the rest of the world. I thought that was the trumpist line, but cancel culture is getting as good as it as they are.

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

#113

Post by junke » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:39 AM UTC

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #46

simion314 wrote: post #36

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.

> I am afraid to put my name/email/github id in support of RMS because some mob in future ... That's exactly what these totalitarian wokists aim for: to make people afraid to oppose them. The only way to stop it is not cave in to their absurd demands. Be strong, live without fear, and do the right thing.

So:

    I’ll leave you with three more bits of evidence that things are more complex than the open letter would have you believe:

    1. A competing letter in support of RMS exists and has accumulated considerably more signatures than the letter condemning RMS.
    2. In response someone created a Chrome extension that marks repositories owned by a signatory of this support letter with red text on GitHub.
    3. The announcement of this extension was welcomed with 394 likes on Twitter.

Just tell us why is it bad again?

There is a public repository, with people signing publicly. The plugin does not reveal any hidden information, the only thing it does is make it easier to find out if someone publicly supports RMS. If you look at outliers you may find individuals who equate signing the letter with being a pedo, but I have yet to see a major Twitter account implying so. For me it just means I might not get along with the person since they do not think RMS being in the board is an issue for FSF.

Also, "the mob this", "the mob that", you can't just label people "mob" when you disagree with them.

> That's exactly what these totalitarian wokists aim for: to make people afraid to oppose them.

Look who is insulting people here and making assumptions.

Please, be strong and talk freely, I don't care.

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

#114

Post by undecisive » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:40 AM UTC

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #77

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!

We cannot truly know someone's intent. We can evaluate the impact of their words and actions. If you define words like “racist” and “transphobic” to be solely about professed intent, then you will find that bigotry seemingly doesn't exist.

> We cannot truly know someone's intent.

Oh, you can get pretty close. What you do is you look at their attitudes towards the marginalized individuals, to marginalized communities, their opinions as a whole, their advocacy, their friendship groups, etc.

If, on balance, they appear to support and promote people of colour or transgender people (as much as they do any other people group) - then this person is probably not racist or transphobic.

However, that's haaarrrd. And doing that groundwork doesn't win you clicks as a media outlet. Whipping up a mob does win you clicks however. And advertising revenue.

And then many people - who have only read those articles - shout about it, like mobs tend to do, it seems like it has universal approval, and people assume it's probably true.

If you don't define words like "racist" and "transphobic" to be solely about intent, those words become meaningless.

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

#115

Post by chungy » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:40 AM UTC

ginko wrote: post #61

sokoloff wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the worry is that a V4 could be less restrictive. Imagine the FSF gets bought out and releases a GPLv4 that's essentially the MIT license. All existing "GPLvX or later" software like the Linux kernel could then be extended without releasing the source code.

Linux is mostly GPLv2-only. Parts of it are under MIT, BSD, or even GPLv2-or-later, but the whole work is GPLv2-only.

I wish you were correct. Hypothetically there could be a new version of the GPL that is crafted without any CDDL incompatibilities and we'd finally get to import ZFS into Linux, but alas, even if a GPLv4 came around to do that, Linux wouldn't benefit.

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

#116

Post by drenvuk » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:40 AM UTC

magicalhippo wrote: post #105

drenvuk wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's not poor reading comprehension. It's poor writing at best. "Having a photo or drawing does not hurt anyone" is factually wrong.

Would you care to expand on that? Right now I disagree.

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

#117

Post by McSinyx » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:41 AM UTC

KingOfCoders wrote: post #48

Toutouxc wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Me having kicked you doesn't hurt anyone - the act of kicking you does hurt. So after I have kicked you, and you no longer feel pain, no harm done? I'm stealing your lunch and the next day you have a new lunch and are no longer hungry, no harm done? I think the act can't be seperated from the result - this is were people go wrong.

You missed the ease of digital replication: one needs not participate in a sexual act involving children to replicate child pornography. It's not like it's a healthy thing to consume such material, but the distinction must be made to avoid the concept being abused by digital publishers who think one sharing an ebook with a friend would cause lost in their revenue.

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

#118

Post by simion314 » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:41 AM UTC

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #110

simion314 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RMS might be a serial killer or pedo but until this is proven by the authorities what a sane person can conclude is that there is no actual evidence for such accusations, just some people with a grudge on RMS remembering 20 years old stories of RMS committing the crime of making them uncomfortable. Or some argue that RMS did no crime but is just not good for PR reasons so we should put someone more cool on the top, s…

Who said RMS is a serial killer or a child abuser? Why do you assume that he is being accused without evidence?

We all see the evidence that is online and that is not actual evidence, so we need to believe the guy that hated RMS sicne forever or someone memories. But please feel free to contact RMS enemies like Microsoft and RedHat they will help you with your evidence and bring justice to the wold , they should have some money for a good lawyer.

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

#119

Post by TazeTSchnitzel » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:41 AM UTC

insert_coin wrote: post #84

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“I know nothing about the target, but he must be innocent!”

Isn't the core principle of the justice system great?

I was not aware that the justice system operated on the principle of “if I believe someone is innocent, I do not have to consider any of the evidence”.

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

#120

Post by gnomewascool » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:41 AM UTC

yur3i__ wrote: post #24

why_Mr_Anderson wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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

Yes, the vast majority of people, including me, would disagree with that.

However, why is somebody holding these opinions a show-stopper?

One could argue that that's because in many cases somebody holding these opinions is a "dog whistle" for the person actually being a paedophile. In the case of RMS, though, we have no evidence that he actually is a paedophile, despite him being pretty thoroughly scrutinised over the years. We also know that he has a need to question everything and write about where he disagrees with society, which he presents in excruciating detail on his website, so it's not that he has some sort of fixation on this topic.

I'd argue that in an ideal society we should encourage thoughtfully heterodox people, since once in a while they'll invent something revolutionary like free software and copyleft, while them also sometimes holding some very weird opinions is not much of a cost.

In the non-ideal real world, once RMS came up with his revolutionary ideas, he probably should have stopped talking about his most fringe ideas, so his resignation as president of the FSF, for instance, had been sensible and over-due.