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

411–420 of 537 posts

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#411

Post by imwillofficial »

prepend wrote: post #336
imwillofficial wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have read both RMS’ own statements on age of consent, I have read his statements defending minsky(s/p), and I’ve read firsthand accounts of students creeped out by his advances. None of those are acceptable for a person in a powerful position.

And you think that makes him a “statutory rape apologist” that seems like an unsupported , logical leap between your two posts.

There is no logical leap. This is a direct quote:

"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

#412

Post by ashtonkem »

anaerobicover wrote: post #285
rantwasp wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Granted that on the internet, people argue for fun. But in meatspace, people usually argue about things that they think art important and should be different. So in this case, parent seems to me to be saying "the downslide of the FSF is bad, and we should fix it, and I think RMS does not help fix it". Or, "it's not irrelevant yet , and shouldn't be, but RMS is making it so".

These are accurate summaries of the point I was trying to make.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#413

Post by imwillofficial »

rvz wrote: post #264
imwillofficial wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I reject his explanation. Plain and simple. I have read RMS’ own statements I have read firsthand accounts of his victims. I formed my own opinion.

So no point in 'apologies' of any sort. Let the cancellations continue and the medieval mob run wild over any letter spoken by this being. Oh dear.

I don’t buy an apology after it blows up in His face when it is behavior that has been demonstrated, tolerated, and covered up for 20+ years.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#414

Post by kube-system »

xupybd wrote: post #370
kube-system wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being correct is entirely orthogonal to being appropriate.

To forgive someone's social incompetence could be considered appropriate in this context.

For someone in a leadership role, it could be considered an inability to perform basic job responsibilities.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#415

Post by imwillofficial »

thewakalix wrote: post #121
imwillofficial wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So unwanted sexual advances on women or ok for theorists?

Yes, anyone is morally allowed to hit on anyone[1], even though chances are it won’t be reciprocated. Of course, going too far without consent[2] is wrong. But merely initiating, and then listening, is not. [1] Pedantry: as long as they’d be morally allowed to continue with consent. Pedophilia being wrong implies that hitting on children is wrong, for example. [2] Note that it is possible to preemptively withdraw con…

People downvoted you, but you actually engaged my question in good faith. You make some excellent points.

I’d argue that being in a leadership position, RMS should have practiced more professionalism, but in a simple way, the way I asked the question, you are correct.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#416

Post by craigsmansion »

BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #401
craigsmansion wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people that have worked with/for him that have tried and failed for years and years to resolve issues privately Is this about Thomas Bushnell? Because I feel this is about Thomas Bushnell[1]. Bushnell is currently a friar in a religious order and works for google, and there is nothing wrong with that[2] . I can easily work with devout religious people and respect and accept them for their superior knowledge of the…

> Is this about Thomas Bushnell? Because I feel this is about Thomas Bushnell It doesn't have to be. I've known over a dozen people working at the FSF over the years, and they _all_ had the same stories about trying to avoid RMS as much as physically possible because of his behavior and how he treated people. At some point we have to stop looking for excuses and start listening to the people who are actually there. >…

> start listening to the people who are actually there.

I'd love to, if only these people who are so aggrieved would properly write down their experiences instead of "I didn't like him anyway" after-the-fact tweets.

> Correction: _Last_ it was the Epstein connection, a straw on a pile of many straws.

Yes, quite enough to build a strawperson as an effigy, and now you're doing it, because there was no Epstein connection. In all of MIT, the only person you can trust not to have any sort of connection to Epstein would be rms, but yeah, let's blame him and the dead guy, and take it from there.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#417

Post by joana035 »

rbanffy wrote: post #342
teddyh wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IBM could snap their fingers at any moment and dissolve the entity now called “Red Hat” into dust.

And explain to their shareholders how they burned billions of dollars in brand awareness...

Like CentOS?

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#418

Post by rideontime »

jancsika wrote: post #98

That's great, but the problem seems to be RMS's disruption of development activities. This doesn't change that. For example: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-01/msg00... Imagine taking the time to publicly explain to an out-of-practice dev why some technical feature is needed, then being accused of a "pressure campaign" that requires the out-of-practice dev to consult privately, "with people I have…

Good lord, it's like talking to a brick wall. That thread is agonizing. Why do people still put up with that?

e: Also, it's hilarious to jump to Apr 2021 and see a thread titled "How to make Emacs popular again: Use monospaced fonts less".

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#419

Post by joana035 »

Avamander wrote: post #402
unsungNovelty wrote: post #267

I'm gonna drop this again where ACLU's former president Nadine Strossen shares her view which is more sophisticated and thought through than mine is anyways - https://www.wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-web

Leah Rowe's article might also be of interest: https://libreboot.org/news/rms.html

Thanks for these links!

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#420

Post by chc »

dahfizz wrote: post #245
chc wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From emails posted here: https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21... > The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin Minsky: > “deceased AI ‘pioneer’ Marvin Minsky (who is accused of assaulting one of Epstein’s victims [2])” [ ... ] > We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing.

Here is the full quote: We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates. He literaly said the girl was being coerced by epstein to _appear_ willing. Not that she was a willing participant. You are grossly misrepresent…

And I did not say "He said she was a willing participant." I think it is fair to say that Stallman believes it should be considered consensual sex as opposed to rape. Based on what he has said, I'm pretty sure that if you went up to Stallman and asked, "Did Minsky rape that kid?" he'd say no.

On top of that, the idea "It is not a violation if I have sex with this child because I believe I have obtained the child's consent" is extremely controversial (to put it mildly), and it seems like it's just assumed to be a reasonable thought process on Minsky's part in Stallman's construction of the situation. Stallman seems to be starting from the premise "Statutory rape is not rape" and arriving at the conclusion "This statutory rape is not rape," and from there he proceeds to berate people for claiming it is.

Post reply on HN