RMS addresses the free software community • Hacker News Board

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#211

Post by d_tr » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 4:59 PM UTC

kache_ wrote: post #144

visarga wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently, in (class/identity) wars there are no innocents, personal circumstances don't matter, what matters is to support your ideology by any means. Like good little soldiers, they should execute and not think, they are not allowed to have original ideas. When they become too original they instantly are labelled heretics and cancelled. So they can't stop and look at circumstances when the purity spiral is crushin…

Yes. The only thing that matters is the quantity of retweets your morally righteous attitudes afford you

Obama on the matter, FWIW: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaHLd8de6nM

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#212

Post by Udik » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 4:59 PM UTC

meowface wrote: post #97

b215826 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What part of "Renowned MIT Scientist Defends Epstein" (the title of the Daily Beast article) do you have trouble understanding?

I'd also say the Vice headline is almost as dishonest, even if it's not saying he defended Epstein: "Famed Computer Scientist Richard Stallman Described Epstein Victims As 'Entirely Willing'". Stallman did use those two scare-quoted words, but the headline is trying to paint it in a completely, fundamentally different light from the point he was attempting to make. He may have been insensitive (as he says in this sta…

> almost as dishonest, even if it's not saying he defended Epstein: "Famed Computer Scientist Richard Stallman Described Epstein Victims As 'Entirely Willing'".

Why "almost"? It's false, and clearly so for anyone who has the literacy needed to write that piece. It's entirely dishonest.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#213

Post by _y5hn » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 4:59 PM UTC

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…

That's not how mobs operate effectively, unfortunately.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#214

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 4:59 PM UTC

dpbriggs wrote: post #198

chc wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 didn't write that; it was reported as that. It wasn't appropriate but RMS being RMS wrote about a situation in which the girls were being coerced into presenting willingly, which Minksy then could have believed. RMS is technically correct - this scenario could have happened - but I don't believe it as Minsky couldn't have been that naive.

[deleted]

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#215

Post by NoImmatureAdHom » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 5:00 PM UTC

solosoyokaze wrote: post #184

NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Are you comparing the rape of a minor to homosexuality?"

Yes, that's exactly it. Respectable people would have felt the same way about homosexuality 100 years ago as you do about sex involving minors.

Further, your characterization as "rape of a minor" is problematic. What's a minor? If one minor is involved, it automatically becomes rape? In much of Europe ages of consent are surprisingly low (14) to Americans, who tend to expect 18. What about a 17 year old and a 19 year old? Two 14 year olds? A 15 year old and a 20 year old? Is what's 100% wrong and prison-bound in the U.S. morally permissible in Spain because the laws are different?

Or maybe you have access to the Objective Moral Truths, such that this game is easy for you? If so, do share. It'd make all of this so much easier.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#216

Post by solosoyokaze » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 5:00 PM UTC

zajio1am wrote: post #209

solosoyokaze wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The OP is on fsf.org.

But OP does not contain discussion about sex with minors. That discussion was (in the past) on his personal web stallman.org .

Yes it does. It claims the allegations against Minsky are false. That has not been proven and the allegations are highly credible. It's an offensive and stupid thing to say, especially publicly, especially when you're "apologizing".

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#217

Post by javagram » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 5:00 PM UTC

NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #183

benrbray wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

No, they were on his personal site where he writes voluminous “political notes”.

The only reason that didn’t create more controversy before is that he is very left-wing politically and so are most power brokers in the industry. So being outspoken about the Iraq war, etc didn’t get him canceled in the same way as happened to the Dixie chicks. If he were a strident Republican I suspect his political notes would have put him in trouble far sooner.

One could certainly argue that as an ambassador for FLOSS he should have avoided all politics on his website, on the other hand i guess it was only the two (very bad) notes on statutory rape that were dredged up later, along with a variety of other material, to justify the campaign against him since the initial Epstein/Minsky related allegation fell apart so quickly.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#218

Post by _-david-_ » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 5:01 PM UTC

TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #96

imwillofficial wrote: post #82

RMS is a statutory rape apologist, and a defender of a pedophile. As well as making young women creeped out with unwanted advances. Is this who we want to glorify?

> RMS is a statutory rape apologist, and a defender of a pedophile. Wasn't the entire point of his post to refute this interpretation of what happened? Does no one else notice this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

The person you are responding to is probably not strictly talking about the Minsky/Epstein stuff but adding in Stallman's other statements.

"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing."

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#219

Post by solosoyokaze » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 5:01 PM UTC

NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #215

solosoyokaze wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Are you comparing the rape of a minor to homosexuality?" Yes, that's exactly it. Respectable people would have felt the same way about homosexuality 100 years ago as you do about sex involving minors. Further, your characterization as "rape of a minor" is problematic. What's a minor? If one minor is involved, it automatically becomes rape? In much of Europe ages of consent are surprisingly low (14) to Americans, who…

I would absolutely not work with someone who held these views. Unprofessional, disturbing and illegal.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#220

Post by solosoyokaze » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 5:03 PM UTC

NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #192

solosoyokaze wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think CSAIL mailing list qualifies as "work" for rms, if "work" is FSF. Maybe "professional", but it's a university, so that sort of inquiry is 100% appropriate and should be protected.

This is not his field of study. He's defending a friend of his who is credibly accused of raping a minor. It's not philosophy, it's personal interest and serves no value to the community or anyone other than RMS and Minsky.