RMS addresses the free software community • Hacker News Board

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#171

Post by benrbray » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 4:41 PM UTC

NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #108

Osmose wrote: post #49

The Minsky defense was not the primary, most important reason RMS can't serve as an effective, inclusive leader for free software, it was just the one that got the most attention. This does nothing to address the numerous complaints of harassment towards MIT students, the _other_ times he spoke out in implicit support of pedophilia, the public gaffes that are unacceptable as a public representative (e.g. the foot ski…

He has been treated unfairly many times and that is, completely independent of whether he's the best choice as leader for the FSF, wrong. You do it here: "the _other_times he spoke out in implicit support of pedophilia...". He wants to have a discussion about what makes sex between people of varying ages wrong. He applies normative principles to it and can't see why it's wrong (e.g., age of consent varies...why would…

> He wants to have a discussion about what makes sex between people of varying ages wrong.

Great, it's an interesting philosophical question. If the issue is so important to him, he should transition to a career in philosophy, or sociology, or anthropology.

However, as a board member of the FSF, a public-facing leadership role, his job is to promote free software and nothing but free software. He shouldn't muddle that message by talking about ideas that are generally taboo in normal conversation. And I don't think it's just the [blue-team elite coastal] public for whom sex-with-minors talk is not regular dinner conversation, or at least I hope it's not.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#172

Post by solosoyokaze » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 4:42 PM UTC

Osmose wrote: post #102

DiggyJohnson wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but does any of that keep you from empathizing with the content of this letter?

Yeah, it does. In context, this letter, especially given it's posted to the FSF site and not, say, his personal website, is meant to justify electing him to the board and address the backlash against it, and I don't really have much patience for a letter addressing only one of the many complaints people have against allowing him a leadership role. It's dismissive of them.

He even continues to defend Minsky in this letter. It's not even an apology, it's just more of the same.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#173

Post by objectivetruth » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 4:42 PM UTC

renewiltord wrote: post #52

DanBC wrote: post #12

> Some have described me as being "tone-deaf," and that is fair. With my difficulty in understanding social cues, that tends to happen. For instance, I defended Professor Minsky on an M.I.T. mailing list after someone leaped to the conclusion that he was just guilty as Jeffrey Epstein. To my surprise, some thought my message defended Epstein. As I had stated previously, Epstein is a serial rapist, and rapists should…

> Minsky (71) had sex with a 17 year old who had been trafficked and coerced, in 2001. This was several years after (1999) rumours started spreading about "pedophile island". Fabricated from whole cloth. Not even Virginia Giuffre alleges this. Source: The depositions. Which clearly none of you have read.

Like you, I never form an opinion on something like this until I've personally read all of the court filings, evidence, testimony, depositions, professional analysis, etc.

I just don't know how you're already up to a case in the 21st century, though... I'm still immersed in early 18th century admiralty law cases!

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#174

Post by rbanffy » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 4:42 PM UTC

icebergonfire wrote: post #106

loloquwowndueo wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which apology? He’s only apologizing once quickly for losing his temper (Sometimes I lost my temper because I didn't have the social skills to avoid it. Some people could cope with this; others were hurt. I apologize to each of them.) and spends a whole lot of time explaining why he is different and we should all put up with his social ineptitude because he didn’t know better. That does not constitute an apology. We…

> and [he] spends a whole lot of time explaining why he is different and we should all put up with his social ineptitude because he didn’t know better My reading of this in the context of the post is that he self-aware enough to strive to be better, and admits he has failed to do so in the past. > We the socially inept can and do learn to adapt. He’s a clever man, he can do it too. Your response touches on something…

> My reading of this in the context of the post is that he self-aware enough to strive to be better, and admits he has failed to do so in the past.

Just now? He hasn't changed for decades and has been informed his behaviour is something people have "to cope with" for his benefit and never seemed to make even a small effort to change.

> As much as we would like people to grovel and apologize the perfect way... they rarely do.

Then he's unfit for a leadership role, plain and simple. If he won't be fair, if he won't cease to make people uncomfortable and won't stop making inappropriate jokes, why would the board reinstate him?

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#175

Post by visarga » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 4:42 PM UTC

imwillofficial wrote: post #153

visarga wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's what ideology does to people. It makes us value abstract ideas over real persons. It's all based on ideas of purity and that impure people are somehow deserving of cancellation. If you side with "impure" persons, or even if you don't condemn them strongly enough, you're becoming impure yourself, that is their logic. And for all this interest in purity they don't actually care about the people, their work, th…

Yes, it is 100% idiology. I think pushing the idea that sex with minors is ok, is morally wrong. I think defending those who victimize others is morally wrong. I think victimizing students that you have influence over with poorly thought out advances is morally wrong. This is my moral opinion on the subject. Infinitely subjective.

You think and you act by taking part in the cancellation game where you got nothing to lose and only to win by pushing others down. How about we judge a person by the totality of his work and actions, not just those which play well in the "game"?

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#176

Post by NoImmatureAdHom » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 4:44 PM UTC

solosoyokaze wrote: post #160

NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He has been treated unfairly many times and that is, completely independent of whether he's the best choice as leader for the FSF, wrong. You do it here: "the _other_times he spoke out in implicit support of pedophilia...". He wants to have a discussion about what makes sex between people of varying ages wrong. He applies normative principles to it and can't see why it's wrong (e.g., age of consent varies...why would…

> He wants to have a discussion about what makes sex between people of varying ages wrong. That alone makes him unfit to lead anything (among the many other things he's done). I do not want to hear his opinion on this subject.

No, it doesn't make him unfit. It makes him curious and open-minded. How are we as a society supposed to come to conclusions about ethical issues without examining them? If we adopted your stance, nothing would ever change. Conservatives like you would have had the exact same stance on homosexuality 100 years ago: "Zomg no, it's so terrible we won't even consider talking about it except to condemn, and we'll punish people who do try to have an honest conversation". I say this as a person who also is a conservative with respect to statutory rape laws.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#177

Post by rbanffy » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 4:44 PM UTC

philpem wrote: post #151

luckylion wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We the socially inept can and do learn to adapt. He’s a clever man, he can do it too. This is such a weird concept to me. I have no problems getting social cues, it comes natural to me. Doing it purely intellectually? I wouldn't have a fucking idea how to. I think it's similar to doing pretty lame things like walking. It's a complex task that you can only do because you do it automatically. If we had a pill that wo…

Sounds almost like you're describing high-functioning autism. Yes you can learn by emulation and observing inputs and outputs and looking for patterns, but it's not a perfect method.

And then, when someone is mad at you, you ask what happened, explain you didn't realize it and promise you'll change behaviour in the future.

I did it numerous times and it's not that hard, but I admit I am much more socially functional than RMS.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#178

Post by solosoyokaze » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 4:44 PM UTC

rantwasp wrote: post #163

Osmose wrote: post #49

The Minsky defense was not the primary, most important reason RMS can't serve as an effective, inclusive leader for free software, it was just the one that got the most attention. This does nothing to address the numerous complaints of harassment towards MIT students, the _other_ times he spoke out in implicit support of pedophilia, the public gaffes that are unacceptable as a public representative (e.g. the foot ski…

one thing that bothers me in the context of cancel culture is that it seems people put the equal sign between the work/art someone produces and their ideas outside of that area. Having wrong or plain stupid ideas does not mean you should die and all the [brilliant] work you are doing should go to waste. the bigger the target you attack, the better. right? what is your contribution to this world? they are not even clo…

RMS made these comments on work communication channels. You don't need to separate his ideas from his work because he himself put his ideas into his work environment and is now, correctly, paying the price for that.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#179

Post by rantwasp » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 4:44 PM UTC

ashtonkem wrote: post #24

I really have no idea why anyone wants to keep RMS in charge of the FSF based on his work product alone. What has the FSF been doing other than slowly sliding into irrelevancy over the past 20 years?

yet here we are arguing about the FSF. Why do people care if it’s irrelevant?

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#180

Post by craigsmansion » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 4:45 PM UTC

davexunit wrote: post #123

Osmose wrote: post #49

The Minsky defense was not the primary, most important reason RMS can't serve as an effective, inclusive leader for free software, it was just the one that got the most attention. This does nothing to address the numerous complaints of harassment towards MIT students, the _other_ times he spoke out in implicit support of pedophilia, the public gaffes that are unacceptable as a public representative (e.g. the foot ski…

He's mistreated many FSF staff members, many LibrePlanet attendees, many GNU project contributors, etc. The fact that the public discourse is focused on the Epstein-related comments does RMS and the FSF a huge favor by pointing the spotlight away from the real issue which has been happening for decades .

It's a bit rich that you accuse those who didn't take the initial smear campaign at face value of moving the goal posts.

First it was the Epstein connection, which proved false.

Then it was predatory behaviour at MIT with three quotes from over 3 decades, a sign on his door, and a mattress doused in implications.

Then it was simply "making some people uncomfortable", which is sort of a given if you talk about free software to groups of people who are in the proprietary software industry, and says nothing at all.

If you want the "real issues" addressed, stop drowning them in fabrications.