Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

RMS addresses the free software community

fsf.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 537 posts

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#181

Post by Der_Einzige »

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…

Foucault, along with most french leftist intellectuals go and write a public letter in support of pedophilia and not only are they not getting in trouble for it - many of them are the ideological forerunners to modern leftism.

It's not just cus of RMS saying the age of consent is wrong...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_...

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#182

Post by overboard2 »

chc wrote: post #139
b215826 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may have come across as being insensitive, but what he wrote in that email wasn't technically wrong.

Didn't he write that Epstein's child sex trafficking victim being pimped to septuagenarian professor Marvin Minsky should be considered consensual sex and not rape, despite her attestations otherwise?

He said that Epstein may have coerced her to present herself as "entirely willing".

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#183

Post by NoImmatureAdHom »

benrbray wrote: post #171
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. 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 tha…

Agree with you that the discussion shouldn't be part of his job. But there should also be room for him to have a public discussion that isn't part of his job. I don't recall the details, were parts of this discussion on the fsf home page or something?

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#184

Post by solosoyokaze »

NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #176
solosoyokaze wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 p…

Are you comparing the rape of a minor to homosexuality?

I would not work with someone who conversed like this in a professional setting. I'm not alone. It's wildly inappropriate at the very least. It's not his field and he's personally involved with the accused.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#185

Post by toyg »

mhh__ wrote: post #101
pydry wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there sources for rms's long history of sexual harassment?

I think the emacs virgin thing if it really was aimed directly at a young woman in the audience is not much better than sexual harassment.

The emacs virgin thing is just what one would expect from a ‘60s/‘70s hippie. At the time, intelligent and activist women were busy attacking sexual taboos, largely defined by men, including virginity. Turning virginity into a joke (and with classical-lit undertones) is the type of thing “boomer women” would likely appreciate.

Alas, our modernity seems to be more prudish in these matters; so people react to this sort of thing very much like a pre-60s person; and RMS didn’t get the memo.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#186

Post by zajio1am »

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.

So do not read his private webpage (which is full of his personal political opinions). RMS clearly separates his free software-related activities and other personal opinions.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#187

Post by rbanffy »

joana035 wrote: post #77
Jan454 wrote: post #70

The good side of this witch-hunt is that the bad and the ugly revealed themselves. E.g. RedHat or Mozilla stopped their support to the fsf[1] with this hunt as scapegoat. .. really sad for RedHat though .. [1] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/26/redhat_fsf_funding_ri...

Do you mean IBM? :-D

Red Hat is very independent from IBM.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#188

Post by solosoyokaze »

zajio1am wrote: post #186
solosoyokaze wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

So do not read his private webpage (which is full of his personal political opinions). RMS clearly separates his free software-related activities and other personal opinions.

The OP is on fsf.org.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#189

Post by wavefunction »

rbanffy wrote: post #157
ziml77 wrote: post #26

Short and to the point. I like an apology that doesn't read like an essay. The more they ramble on the less genuine they feel. (I still don't believe this apology should have been considered necessary though)

It reads as a non-apology. It reads as "I'm sorry my own ways made you feel offended". The right thing to do would be to say "I'm sorry my actions offended you and I will not do that anymore". It'd have been that easy, really. He just doesn't seem to understand that on any level.

He certainly doesn't sound like he intends to change or work to change.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#190

Post by kazinator »

koheripbal wrote: post #131
b215826 wrote: post #10

Now, would the journalists who wrote articles with titles that are a variation of "RMS defended Epstein" [1,2] apologize or at least correct their articles? Also, now that RMS has explicitly clarified his position on these issues, can the people who leveraged his "silence" and "bad behavior" to oust him from the FSF at least admit that their motive was less about making the free-software movement welcoming and was mo…

Neither of those things will happen. We would be better off if we could remove those dishonest people from our communities here and elsewhere. Dishonest reporting, and amplifying of dishonest posts on social media is not something you will ever get an apology for, because those efforts were never meant to survive scrutiny. They were meant to create "pressure" to cause reputational damage. You cannot convince or engag…

> We would be better off if we could remove those dishonest people from our communities here and elsewhere.

You mean, only in some non-asshole way, so that we don't look exactly like them?

Post reply on HN