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

171–180 of 274 posts

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

#171

Post by d_tr »

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.

Tomorrow another group of people might decide something about your intent and you might have no way to make your case.

Anyway, you have to really stretch it beyond reason to see transphobia behind anything RMS has said, written, or done.

As for the impact of his works and actions, everyone has access to a full software stack to explore, learn from, and work on, without the need to be inside some university or company, i.e. to have the money or to pass admission processes that might be putting certain groups at a disadvantage, or outright excluding them. This was also his intent all along and he sacrificed a lot for it.

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

#172

Post by gher-shyu3i »

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!

It's sickening that the media continues to give people like that any semblance of credibility.

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

#173

Post by gsich »

Toutouxc wrote: post #39
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.

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.

>Is it fine in Germany?

Yes.

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

#174

Post by magicalhippo »

drenvuk wrote: post #157
magicalhippo wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Even in the case that you bring up having the photo in your possession should not be illegal. Distributing it or producing it without the consent of the ADULT subject should be illegal. That's where the damage is being done. Every new set of eyes that sees the photo makes it worse. In other words if: 1. someone already has a photo. 2. No one interacts with it besides the current owner 3. Nobody knows or will ever kno…

I don't disagree entirely with your post, as with most things legal it comes down to a balance of many aspects.

I also don't disagree entirely with the point RMS is trying to make regarding unmotivated searches of property and person. I do disagree with the specifics of his argument though.

Child pornography is in many cases indeed a heinous offense, however blanket searches of person and property is also a grand invasion of privacy.

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

#175

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

PurpleFoxy wrote: post #166
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Another way is to comment and show support in a way that is not linked to your real identity. If people try to claim these are fake accounts, point out how people fear to show support publicly.

That is far from ideal. In Russia there is a whole new industry of bot commenters who flood all online forums, comment sections and social networks with pro-Putin comments, drowning the opposition by the sheer numbers of persons with fake identities. The result is an illusion of an overwhelming support of Putin.

This tactics can be applied to almost anything, so no, supporting anonymously is not the solution.

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

#176

Post by gher-shyu3i »

maweki wrote: post #53
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.

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

So should I cater to someone who wants to be referred to as an Apache helicopter gunship? Where do you draw the line?

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

#177

Post by yur3i__ »

drenvuk wrote: post #54
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'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…

No I don't, until fairly recently i was an ardent supporter of RMS and still do support him in most aspects.

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

This was admittedly poorly written, however I do not believe that possession of child pornography is a victimless crime either.

> 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

I am not saying he is a pedophile but that doesn't make what he said any less bizarre.

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

#178

Post by gher-shyu3i »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #104
maweki wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Honestly, it's not hard to call people what they want to be called. How does one express what gender neutral pronoun they want to be called without expressing their preferred gendered pronoun?

There are many languages without gender neutral pronouns.

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

#179

Post by globular-toast »

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...

Probably because this particular issue short-circuits your ability to think. You could perhaps try to form an argument against his comments. But what's more likely is you'll just stand there, mouth agape, shocked, and maybe break out the canned rhetoric like "think of the children" etc.

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

#180

Post by gher-shyu3i »

DarkCrusader2 wrote: post #98

> A competing letter in support of RMS exists and has accumulated considerably more signatures than the letter condemning RMS. > In response someone created a Chrome extension that marks repositories owned by a signatory of this support letter with red text on GitHub. This is incredible worrying. This is basically maintaining a repository of people with "incorrect" opinions. How long before such repositories are inte…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN