Live data from Hacker News

In Support of Richard Stallman

stallmansupport.org

101–110 of 110 posts

Re: In Support of Richard Stallman

#101
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think your description of the second group is very charitable.

Charitable or no, it seems to be accurate in a day and age where large corporations "heart" "open source" while simultaneously hindering software freedom, digital privacy, and the like on never-before-seen scales. It seems mighty convenient that public outrage happens to be aiming at one of the most vocal opponents of things like DRM and online surveillance, and happens to be of at least some benefit to those peddlin…

But this is begging the question. The post assumes that Stallman's good work does outweigh the bad and that the only way to conclude that he is causing problems is if one doesn't believe in the FSF principles at all. But that's just not true. One can absolutely be in support of the most intense FSF principles and still conclude that Stallman is not an appropriate leader. As evidence, consider the actual FSF members who support his ousting. They aren't just corporate stooges who see GPL as a cancer.

Re: In Support of Richard Stallman

#102
post #56

Why does HN moderation staff keep flagging posts related to Stallman? This topic is extremely important and yet they're trying to prevent any discussion of it.

Because there are mountains of them and nothing has changed about the situation, so conversation ends up devolving into unproductive flaming.

Re: In Support of Richard Stallman

#103
post #65

So I went to their "Debunking False Accusations" page, then clicked through and read the email ("Email #2"), then returned to the page. It feels like they set up a bunch of straw-men which they then went on to debunk. They don't actually defend the content of "Email #2" but instead claimed that people said untrue things about it and then said those were "lies." But without citing the untrue claims they're debunking,…

> Claim #4 is "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntary pedophilia harms children" from 2006 until it was recanted 10+ years later. Correction of omission: he changed his mind 2016 or earlier.

[deleted]

Re: In Support of Richard Stallman

#104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said, I had to guess at why people were downvoting me because they weren't saying. A couple of people have since left comments. I am aware that children have complicated sexual feelings based on my own experience as a child. I think there's a time and a place to discuss this topic, such as between parents, doctors and educators. When RMS and other older males want to discuss childhood sexuality in broad terms it…

> I had to guess at why people were downvoting me because they weren't saying. And you guessed "they're downvoting me because they're pedophiles?" Maybe people aren't responding to you because they feel that from your initial frame on the topic and your decision to frame opponents on it as bad people, no fruitful discussion with you can be had.

I said "I'm being downvoted into oblivion by people who believe children should be able to choose to have sex with adults" I didn't say the were pedophiles. Some people believe the age of consent should be lowered. They don't necessarily have to be pedophiles and I'm not calling them that. Also, I've been on HN long enough to know most people don't bother to downvote. They do if they feel strongly about an issue. I think the opposite position of mine is that children should be able to make their own decisions about sex.

Re: In Support of Richard Stallman

#105
post #74
post #56

Why does HN moderation staff keep flagging posts related to Stallman? This topic is extremely important and yet they're trying to prevent any discussion of it.

The posts are being flagged by users, not moderators. This is in the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html . For more explanation see my comments at the top of the thread.

I see, my bad. Apologies for false accusations.

Re: In Support of Richard Stallman

#106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure where you're getting your numbers from, but I get the feeling they'd be different if you were only counting biological women as female.

>Not sure where you're getting your numbers from, but I get the feeling they'd be different if you were only counting biological women as female. Leah is an outspoken defender of FSF. https://libreboot.org/news/rms.html#rms-is-not-transphobic https://twitter.com/n4of7

[deleted]

Re: In Support of Richard Stallman

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure where you're getting your numbers from, but I get the feeling they'd be different if you were only counting biological women as female.

>Not sure where you're getting your numbers from, but I get the feeling they'd be different if you were only counting biological women as female. Leah is an outspoken defender of FSF. https://libreboot.org/news/rms.html#rms-is-not-transphobic https://twitter.com/n4of7

Transpeople are probably still targeted by the propaganda more than biological women are.

Re: In Support of Richard Stallman

#108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Not sure where you're getting your numbers from, but I get the feeling they'd be different if you were only counting biological women as female. Leah is an outspoken defender of FSF. https://libreboot.org/news/rms.html#rms-is-not-transphobic https://twitter.com/n4of7

Transpeople are probably still targeted by the propaganda more than biological women are.

I mean those as two intersecting groups (lost the word when editing).

Re: In Support of Richard Stallman

#110
Both MIT and Harvard have admitted to helping Jeffrey Epstein avoid prosecution on federal racketeering charges for the sex-trafficking of minors after they were exposed by whistle-blowers at both of these institutions.

I'm still not sure why people consider it appropriate to exclude someone like Stallman from serving on the Board of the FSF while continuing to allow Mr. Rafael Reif, for example, to remain president of MIT after sending a personally signed "thank-you note" to one of the most notorious alleged sex-traffickers and convicted child-rapists in US history:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2020/01/12/after-epstei...

Nor would it be any more appropriate to allow Mr. Seth Lloyd back onto the MIT campus with just a slap on the wrist:

https://thetech.com/2021/02/25/mit-administration-epstein-op...

Or Mr. Martin Nowak for that matter either:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/03/26/metro/harvard-sanctio...

On the subject of Nowak's role in aiding and abetting a child rapist, this hacker news thread is worth reading again:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25442060

So why has nobody drafted petitions to cancel Rafael "Thank You So Much Mr. Epstein -- And Don't Forget to Show My Letter to Federal Prosecutors" Reif, Benedict "Epstein is an Ideal Donor for Harvard" Gross, Alan "Dershbag" Dershowitz, Martin "Punishment Serves No Noble Purpose" Nowak, Steven "Using the Internet to Entice a Minor into Prostitution is A-Okay" Pinker, Seth "So What If I Make Female Undergraduates at MIT Feel Uncomfortable" Lloyd, Neri "Epstein was Always a Reliable Supporter of Israel" Oxman, Frank "I Never Saw any Girls that were Underage" Wilczek, and all of the other pedophilia-tolerating two-faced phonies that attended EDGE Foundation dinners hosted by the convicted child rapist and/or visited him on "Pedophile Isle," where FBI reportedly found instruction manuals that Mr. Epstein had ordered on Amazon that describe how to create a so-called "sex slave," in addition to video tapes containing child pornography that he allegedly recorded using secret cameras that were installed throughout his various residences?

Mr. Stallman blaming his "being on the spectrum" for all of the troubling statements cataloged on the website cited below may not entirely excuse him for making them since there is no evidence that someone on the spectrum is more likely than the general population to hold similar views on child rape:

https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman

But the most important question today that Mr. Stallman still needs to address directly, because many of his critics on this issue continue to hold him in the highest regard for his role in advancing the free software movement, is a very frank one:

Were his remarks in support of pedophilia designed to persuade Mr. Epstein to donate part of his $500 million estate to the Free Software Foundation, much like he observed role-models such as MIT president Rafael Reif do for Mr. Epstein when Dr. Reif sent Mr. Epstein a personally signed thank-you note for his donation to the Media Lab, or colleagues like Martin Nowak do for Mr. Epstein when Dr. Nowak created a web page on a university website and an office in his department for a convicted child-rapist in exchange for tens of millions of dollars in donations that were promised to his academic program at Harvard and hundreds of millions of dollars in donations, often laundered through Epstein's fellow billionaire pedophile friends like Les Wexner, Glenn Dubin, and Leon Black, to Harvard University, where Mr. Nowak is a professor?

I'm not entirely convinced by the naysayers on this one yet, but Stallman is most deserving of the benefit of doubt thus far, and not because of his autism, but rather because of all of his contributions to free software in spite of it.

On the other hand, many of the other Epstein co-conspirators cited above who directly accepted money from the convicted child-rapist as a form of reputation laundering for an individual who they knew, or should have known, was about to face racketeering charges in federal court for the sex-trafficking of hundreds of underage girls over the past 30 years deserve to spend some serious time in the same jail cell where Mr. Epstein (allegedly) killed himself because he was too much of a coward to stand trial for all of the crimes that he knew he had committed.

Post reply on HN