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

241–250 of 274 posts

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

#241

Post by wayneftw »

gher-shyu3i wrote: post #172
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.

Lots of people think that's the media's job. There's a meme going around showing some rich wall street tycoons sitting in their office watching the Occupy Wall Street protesters from years ago with a speech bubble saying: "Introduce them to identity politics".

Here it is - https://m.imgur.com/gallery/KdeMOdA

Another version has a timeline chart below it showing some interesting facts but I can't find that one right now.

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

#242

Post by _ktx2 »

junke wrote: post #113
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.

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…

> 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.

This is where you and I diverge. I have worked with a lot of people that I think have had bad opinions. People that were leftists and people that were conservative. While I kept in my mind that this person had bad opinions I was usually able to get a beer with them, it didn't mean we'd be fast friends though. Would I draw a line? Probably, notice I left out far-right; because I'm probably not getting a beer with a racist or someone who believes in ethnostates.

I will get a beer with someone who is a devout socialist or communist whose ideals will inevitably end in a lot of bloodshed when property is ultimately seized. I'll still get a beer with someone who has a nuanced opinion on pronouns. Just because I disagree with them does not guarantee me alienating them, because I might be the opinion they need to hear for their views to be swayed, or more practically their opinions in isolation can only become worse.

What bothers me is this idea of enforcing camped friend-groups or work circles. From everything I've learned about Russia, this is exactly what they want you to be believing. Their attacks on US democracy weren't just trying to embarrass the right by giving their extremists power and influence; they were far more foundational. They invested in promoting discourse on the far right and the far left that made discourse seem impossible to a nation that by its own distinction was very friendly to a wide range of views. They attacked the very foundation of American culture.

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

#243

Post by yur3i__ »

torthrowaway998 wrote: post #211
yur3i__ wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well by possessing Pornography of someone who didn't want it made, you have to have obtained it. By obtaining said pornography another person is now in possession of compromising material of someone that they didn't consent consent to the production of, by having more people possess the material, the issue becomes worse.

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

#244

Post by ex3ndr »

sokoloff wrote: post #183
ex3ndr wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starting from v3 no, thats why many projects are still on GPL v2

Could you expand on that? Suppose there’s a library “foo” licensed under GPL v3 or later. GPLv4 comes out and has a term I don’t like (maybe it says “may not be used by anyone with more than 2 ‘o’s in their name”). Am I not free to use foo under the v3 terms, ignoring “or later”? From the v3 license: Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the…

GPL v3 have "or later" in it's body. So any GPLv3 licensed code automatically licensed under GPLv4 once it would be available.

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

#245

Post by dragonwriter »

insert_coin wrote: post #204
dragonwriter wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You try to force RMS to say some words? You mean like “GNU/Linux”? It's really not a big leap from RMS’s thinking he gets to name other people’s things without their consent (and insist that other people folloq his preference) to his thinking he gets to name other people without their consent, and its truly backwards to think that either of those stems from people trying to “force” anything on Stallman.

So, you realize that RMS is wrong on the GNU/Linux thing and somehow are still on the side of forcing pronouns?

> So, you realize that RMS is wrong on the GNU/Linux thing and somehow are still on the side of forcing pronouns?

No, I recognize that RMS is wrong on trying to impose his choice of names as designators of other people’s work, and also recognize that he is wrong, for pretty much the exact same reason though with more significance, to impose his choice of pronouns as designators of other people’s persons.

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

#246

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

gher-shyu3i wrote: post #222
tremon wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No, that person doesn't want to be referred to as "it", he wants to be referred to as Apache helicopter gunship. No what? Also, what about in languages that don't have "it"?

Of course you'll agree. You will do it for two reasons: 1) you are a nice person and would like to be polite, avoiding offending anyone, 2) if you fail to do so, there are people who will make sure you'll regret your decision.

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

#247

Post by gher-shyu3i »

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #246
gher-shyu3i wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that person doesn't want to be referred to as "it", he wants to be referred to as Apache helicopter gunship. No what? Also, what about in languages that don't have "it"?

Of course you'll agree. You will do it for two reasons: 1) you are a nice person and would like to be polite, avoiding offending anyone, 2) if you fail to do so, there are people who will make sure you'll regret your decision.

So being polite means I need to further the mentally ill in their delusion?

The second one is a problem that's for sure. Cancel culture is getting out of hand.

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

#248

Post by insert_coin »

dragonwriter wrote: post #245
insert_coin wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you realize that RMS is wrong on the GNU/Linux thing and somehow are still on the side of forcing pronouns?

> So, you realize that RMS is wrong on the GNU/Linux thing and somehow are still on the side of forcing pronouns? No, I recognize that RMS is wrong on trying to impose his choice of names as designators of other people’s work, and also recognize that he is wrong, for pretty much the exact same reason though with more significance, to impose his choice of pronouns as designators of other people’s persons.

Except that is not how it is. They are both asking, demanding, someone else to only use the words they deem tolerable.

Whatever the situation, no one has to comply with such demand.

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

#249

Post by sokoloff »

ex3ndr wrote: post #244
sokoloff wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you expand on that? Suppose there’s a library “foo” licensed under GPL v3 or later. GPLv4 comes out and has a term I don’t like (maybe it says “may not be used by anyone with more than 2 ‘o’s in their name”). Am I not free to use foo under the v3 terms, ignoring “or later”? From the v3 license: Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the…

GPL v3 have "or later" in it's body. So any GPLv3 licensed code automatically licensed under GPLv4 once it would be available.

I believe that the text "you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered version or of any later version" means that it is still available to be used under the terms and conditions of GPLv3 or GPLv4 at the option of the person using the code (such that if v4 prohibited use by people with 3 o's in their name, I could still use foo under the v3 terms).

Do you claim that once v4 is published I cannot use code licensed as "v3 or later" by complying with the v3 terms and conditions? That seems to me to directly contradict the language in the license. I agree that "v3 or later" code automatically is available for use under v4 terms once v4 is published, but it also remains available under v3 terms.

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

#250

Post by dang »

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!

Please don't take HN threads into generic ideological flamewar. It isn't interesting: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

Snarky one-liners on flamewar topics are flamebait, which the site guidelines ask you not to post: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

(Edit: I made a mistake in the following bit because I missed your initial ">". Sorry! Quoting the OP is obviously legit.)

Hauling the most provocative thing you can find on someone's personal blog into a thread on a flamewar-prone topic is guaranteed to make things worse. We're trying to avoid the online shaming/callout culture here: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&type=comment&dateRange=a...

Post reply on HN