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

211–220 of 274 posts

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

#211

Post by torthrowaway998 »

yur3i__ wrote: post #181
torthrowaway999 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He refers specifically to possession, which is true. The arguments against it tend to be very similar to the arguments against piracy (they even include the whole "illegal prime" concept). He does not say that producing child pornography does not hurt anyone however.

I don't think the same logic that is applied to piracy can be applied to child pornography as possession of child pornography has the added caveat that the subject within most likely did not give informed consent to it being made.

I do not see how this changes anything.

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

#212

Post by gher-shyu3i »

pseudalopex wrote: post #203
gher-shyu3i wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

English is not the only language people speak you know.

We're talking in English about Stallman's idiosyncratic English pronouns. What other language did you have in mind when you wrote Apache helicopter gunship?

We're talking about the issue in general, not just what Stallman said. If someone comes up to you and told you he identifies as an Apache helicopter gunship, are you going to think he's insane, or are you going to cater to him?

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

#213

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

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…

I have created an issue on this repository to have an option to highlight rms supporters in a more friendly green. It is always nice to know that the software is made by decent people.

Please, vote for my issue: https://github.com/sticks-stuff/highlight-RMS-supporters/iss...

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

#214

Post by KingOfCoders »

torthrowaway998 wrote: post #201
KingOfCoders wrote: post #149

So RMS thinks "having" child pornography is no harm done to the child, but digitally "having" GPL code in your own proprietary code does harm to the author.

I don't believe that I have ever seen RMS using this argument regarding GPL.

So I can take GPLed code (make child pornography), relicense it under MIT (copy it to the internet), someone takes it (copy it from the internet), includes it into his own ("have it") and sells it closed source?

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

#215

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

torthrowaway999 wrote: post #169
NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would really like to understand his opinion on accessory-after-the-fact and other crimes like dealing in stolen property. It would illuminate whether he’s actually a CP apologist or merely a poor legal philosopher who has bad judgment on the subject matter of his thought experiments.

What about neither? Have you accounted for that option? Possession of CP is not an accessory-after-the-fact. CP is also not a physical good. This argument is similar to the argument comparing piracy to stealing a car.

No, the fact is simply that the law frequently criminalizes those activities which encourage or generate demand for criminal activity. Hence secondary or inchoate offenses exist (like various forms of accessory, solicitation, conspiracy, attempt) as well as specific crimes that relate to knowingly dealing in the profits of crime.

The law doesn't criminalize dealing in stolen goods because those goods are physical in nature and receiving them perpetuates the inability of their actual owner to enjoy them. That is a red herring of your own introduction.

It does so because allowing easy disposal of stolen property to third parties who stand to profit from it encourages theft.

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

#216

Post by pseudalopex »

gher-shyu3i wrote: post #212
pseudalopex wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're talking in English about Stallman's idiosyncratic English pronouns. What other language did you have in mind when you wrote Apache helicopter gunship?

We're talking about the issue in general, not just what Stallman said. If someone comes up to you and told you he identifies as an Apache helicopter gunship, are you going to think he's insane, or are you going to cater to him?

The comment you replied to seems to be about what Stallman said. ("You might feel the line between innocent mistake and maliciousness has not been crossed. Other people do disagree.") It certainly was about names and pronouns. Not a variation on a tired transphobic straw man meme.[1]

[1] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-sexually-identify-as-an-att...

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

#217

Post by enriquto »

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…

> if you read on, Stallman also says he'll flat out refuse to use someone's preferred pronouns if they disagree with his scheme.

This is false: RMS does not refuse to use someone's preferred pronouns (as explained by a trans person who worked with him and who thinks that RMS' proposal is stupid but not transphobic). He just proposes people to use his pronouns, but will use whatever is asked to.

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

#218

Post by gher-shyu3i »

pseudalopex wrote: post #216
gher-shyu3i wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're talking about the issue in general, not just what Stallman said. If someone comes up to you and told you he identifies as an Apache helicopter gunship, are you going to think he's insane, or are you going to cater to him?

The comment you replied to seems to be about what Stallman said. ("You might feel the line between innocent mistake and maliciousness has not been crossed. Other people do disagree.") It certainly was about names and pronouns. Not a variation on a tired transphobic straw man meme.[1] [1] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-sexually-identify-as-an-att...

The issue has to be addressed. So far, it seems to be a Western (English-only speaking) issue. Furthermore, dismissing any criticism as a "transphobic" straw man isn't helping.

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

#219

Post by tremon »

gher-shyu3i wrote: post #212
pseudalopex wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're talking in English about Stallman's idiosyncratic English pronouns. What other language did you have in mind when you wrote Apache helicopter gunship?

We're talking about the issue in general, not just what Stallman said. If someone comes up to you and told you he identifies as an Apache helicopter gunship, are you going to think he's insane, or are you going to cater to him?

The pronoun associated with a gunship is "it", I have no problem referring to people as "it" if that's what it prefers.

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

#220

Post by simion314 »

thinkingemote wrote: post #3
enriquto wrote: post #2

This is a refreshing, level-headed text, signed by the real name of its individual author. It is not intended to stir the mob but as a kind path towards understanding; I like it.

It's a bit calmer than other defenses. The attack letter is an attack but because it's vicious and misleading doesn't mean all criticism becomes invalid. But it is the mob. Damned if you do and dammed if you dont. (Don't be surprised if HN users flag this submission however because I think they don't seem anything new)

>(Don't be surprised if HN users flag this submission however because I think they don't seem anything new)

They flagged it again, fuck all the idiots that flag stuff with the intention to hide it. I don't remember ever flagging stuff even if I see a lot of garbage , but yeah better to see some old stuff about Rust on first page or I am waiting some article about Covid to appear again(like Covid is more on topic then RMS for some reason)

Post reply on HN