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

261–270 of 274 posts

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

#261

Post by magicalhippo »

simion314 wrote: post #224
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,…

Can you explain how a drawing of imaginary person hurts somebody? What about texts? the characters in some books like the ones used in Game of Thrones TV series are very under aged, do you accuse the readers of the crime ? if yes who was hurt ? I understand the point about hurting children or adults by the porn industry but I would hope we can find better methods to stop this crimes , social media justice is not the…

I can come up with some scenarios where it might lead to someone getting hurt, but IMO drawings of imaginary persons is one of the least interesting subset of possible cases.

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

#262

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

dang wrote: post #254
gher-shyu3i wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Would you please stop posting flamewar comments? It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. You've posted dozens of them in the last 24 hours alone. This is not cool. Moreover, using HN primarily for ideological or political battle is one line at which we start banning accounts—regardless of what they're battling for or against—and it looks like your account is well over that line. If you'd pleas…

I just realized I might have been guilty of that, too. In general, I try as best as I can to avoid these discussions as they seem counterproductive, but it's a bit more difficult regarding the recent RMS issue. This is Hacker News, and he is the hacker. Literally one of the main characters in Levy's famous book. And independently from valid criticism, he's now under flood of accusations, some of them being false. Not because I read something, but knowing RMS personally I know they are false. That's why it's sometimes hard to resist answering a comment or two. I really appreciate your work and I'm sorry if I cause any trouble by that.

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

#263

Post by krapp »

aiilns wrote: post #184
krapp wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It surprises me that so many people are outraged by a Chrome extension that highlights names - and does nothing more as far as I know - denouncing it with all of the righteous anger that Hacker News can muster (including wanting to blacklist anyone who contributed to the extension, and wanting to see everyone with progressive politics purged from free software entirely) yet no one seems too bothered when RMS supporte…

You are surprised because you equate two things that are qualitatively different. Some people advocating for arresting someone for something they did, even if it is way too crazy is quite different than tools that enable discrimination based on an opinion. Remember these people are just supporting RMS, not advocating for slavery or exterminating the Jews (and even then I don't know whether you could support such a th…

>Some people advocating for arresting someone for something they did, even if it is way too crazy is quite different than tools that enable discrimination based on an opinion.

It isn't different at all. Both are forms of discrimination based on an opinion. What Molly De Blanc "did" was express an opinion. On the one hand, you have a Chrome plugin that highlights public information, and on the other hand you have Stallman supporters wanting to use intimidation and violence to suppress their political opponents, and here you completely dismiss the latter while you (and many other commenters here) have to twist some macabre hypothetical Nazi allegory from the former, as if it were somehow even plausible that Molly De Blanc actually wants to send Stallmanites to the camps.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case.

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

#264

Post by insert_coin »

dragonwriter wrote: post #253
insert_coin wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> They are both asking, demanding, someone else to only use the words they deem tolerable. Nope. No one is demanding that Richard Stallman restrict which pronouns he uses to some set of nonobjectionable pronouns. People are demanding that, when referring to another person, Stallman not impose names or pronouns he has chosen when he has been informed of the name or pronouns (if any; in some cases the applicable prefer…

> Nope.....

> People are demanding that, when referring to another person, Stallman not impose names or pronouns he has chosen when he has been informed of the name or pronouns (if any; in some cases the applicable preference is “don’t use pronouns”) which the person identifies as labels for themself...

So in short...yes, they are demanding someone else to only use the words they deem tolerable.

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

#265

Post by dragonwriter »

insert_coin wrote: post #264
dragonwriter wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are both asking, demanding, someone else to only use the words they deem tolerable. Nope. No one is demanding that Richard Stallman restrict which pronouns he uses to some set of nonobjectionable pronouns. People are demanding that, when referring to another person, Stallman not impose names or pronouns he has chosen when he has been informed of the name or pronouns (if any; in some cases the applicable prefer…

> Nope..... > People are demanding that, when referring to another person, Stallman not impose names or pronouns he has chosen when he has been informed of the name or pronouns (if any; in some cases the applicable preference is “don’t use pronouns”) which the person identifies as labels for themself... So in short...yes, they are demanding someone else to only use the words they deem tolerable.

> yes, they are demanding someone else to only use the words they deem tolerable.

again, no.

They are insisting that Stallman only label individuals with the labels the individuals have defined.

This isn't about Stallman being allowed to use words any more than insisting he not rape people is about him not being allowed to have sex.

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

#266

Post by insert_coin »

dragonwriter wrote: post #265
insert_coin wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nope..... > People are demanding that, when referring to another person, Stallman not impose names or pronouns he has chosen when he has been informed of the name or pronouns (if any; in some cases the applicable preference is “don’t use pronouns”) which the person identifies as labels for themself... So in short...yes, they are demanding someone else to only use the words they deem tolerable.

> yes, they are demanding someone else to only use the words they deem tolerable. again, no. They are insisting that Stallman only label individuals with the labels the individuals have defined. This isn't about Stallman being allowed to use words any more than insisting he not rape people is about him not being allowed to have sex.

If you think you are so in the right at least have the guts to admit what you are demanding others to do instead of using contradicting language to try to weasel your way out of admitting what everyone already knows.

And please do not insult and offend rape victims by claiming not using the words you want is the same as rape.

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

#267

Post by johannes1234321 »

sokoloff wrote: post #236
johannes1234321 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You continue to be able to use it under GPLv3 terms, but if you distribute it (and don't hold the full copyright) you must distribute it in a "or newer" compatible way.

Interesting. I’m not sure if I don’t understand or if I disagree. Let’s imagine it’s 2005, I’m TiVo, and the Linux kernel was licensed under “v2 or later”* and GPL v2 is the latest version of the license that exists. I ship a product using the Linux kernel complying with the GPLv2. FSF dislikes what I’ve done and releases a v3 license in 2006. I claim that in 2007, I’m still allowed to ship my product, by electing to…

I would say it's complicated. The scenario in my head is like this: I take "GPL3 or newer" software and build my derived software on top and distribute that without thinking about the "or newer clause" now G pLv4 comes along, my user has the "GPLv3 or newer" component and uses GPLv4 with it, which might have requirements impacting my software ... or not ... I don't know.

All I can say: that "or newer" exists and a misguided FSF can cause trouble (see also outcry with GPLv3, where people removed the or newer clause for those reasons)

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

#268

Post by junon »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #94
junon wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because pronouns are ingrained into our language centers; we automatically and subconsciously classify people based on physical appearance and derive pronouns from that. For better or worse, it's part of our programming. Names, however, are not. We've learned names are not connected to any physical trait, and thus we process and store them differently. Expecting the entirety of humanity to simply "unlearn" language i…

Exactly. Well ... no. People are called Baker because some ancestor was a baker. Then over time the link from the name to the occupation got lost. Just as we might have "derive[d] pronouns from that" but are currently on the same way as with "Baker" - removing the word from it's physical beginnings. Then in the end words are a tool and not a thing by their own - as evidenced that you can hardly read a 500 year old te…

Being a baker is not a physical trait.

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

#269

Post by [deleted] »

krapp wrote: post #263
aiilns wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are surprised because you equate two things that are qualitatively different. Some people advocating for arresting someone for something they did, even if it is way too crazy is quite different than tools that enable discrimination based on an opinion. Remember these people are just supporting RMS, not advocating for slavery or exterminating the Jews (and even then I don't know whether you could support such a th…

>Some people advocating for arresting someone for something they did, even if it is way too crazy is quite different than tools that enable discrimination based on an opinion. It isn't different at all. Both are forms of discrimination based on an opinion. What Molly De Blanc "did" was express an opinion. On the one hand, you have a Chrome plugin that highlights public information, and on the other hand you have Stal…

[deleted]

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

#270

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN