RMS addresses the free software community • Hacker News Board

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#461

Post by luckylion » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 10:20 PM UTC

bogwog wrote: post #252

kazinator wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

> so that we don't look exactly like them? How about not be like them at all? People are stupid, but they can learn from their mistakes, and society can help them by accepting an apology rather than shunning them forever.

What if they don't (want to) learn, and don't apologize (like these journalists and their companies likely won't). How often, and how long, do we hope for them to see the error in their ways, repent and become forces for good? And how much harm do we tolerate while we're waiting for them to see the light?

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#462

Post by goodpoint » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 10:21 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…

> If one minor is involved, it automatically becomes rape?

YES. This is how it works legally, because one person does not have the emotional and intellectual maturity to provide fully informed consent.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#463

Post by d_tr » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 10:24 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #453

skjfdoslifjeifj wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clear that the first two even had direct contact with RMS and they don't even make any serious allegations. Barely anyone cares that RMS had a mattress in his office, lots of people at MIT have done that, and nobody is even making the allegation that anything inappropriate happened beyond him having it and him sleeping on it alone. The third is socially awkward and bad behaviour but it happened almost 40 yea…

He's not cancelled, he's free to go work any other job he wants. I just hope he doesn't work for the FSF any longer because the FSF is important and he's doing damage to it.

> He's not cancelled,

Meanwhile over at the open letter:

> We urge those in a position to do so to stop supporting the Free Software Foundation. Refuse to contribute to projects related to the FSF and RMS. Do not speak at or attend FSF events, or events that welcome RMS and his brand of intolerance.

Emphasis mine.

The whole text constitutes a textbook character assassination attempt. Consider the amount of support and credibility you want to give to these people, including the Twitter mob that has apparently gone crazy after these announcements.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#464

Post by tablespoon » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 10:26 PM UTC

stjohnswarts wrote: post #430

tablespoon wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There’s no such thing as a retraction anymore, it’s just clarifications. I think journalism always mostly did "corrections." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correction_(newspaper)

You won't see "corrections" along the top bar of "news" on the webpages either. It will always be hidden away somewhere obscure unless their misreporting causes public outrage, and then sometimes they'll actually do a proper retraction.

> It will always be hidden away somewhere obscure

If by "obscure" you mean "on the actual article with the error," sure. But that seems like where the correction note should go.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#465

Post by Der_Einzige » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 10:41 PM UTC

odiroot wrote: post #353

benrbray wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This happened in 1977, and none of the people who signed it are public figures today, certainly not in the tech sphere. Academics who study philosophy and literature are well aware of the checkered past of the influential figures throughout history. The implication that leftist thought is rooted in pedophilia is, I'm sure, intentional flamebait. I will just point out that, whether or not people are right to vilify St…

> This happened in 1977, and none of the people who signed it are public figures today, certainly not in the tech sphere. Aren't Foucault, Derrida and Lyotard still big names and influences in postmodern thought (and the whole "woke" movement)?

They are still huge figures, and some of those who signed this are still alive too.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#466

Post by keonix » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 10:45 PM UTC

rbanffy wrote: post #451

vidarh wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is an odd take on a message that stresses how he has changed in the past and how he hopes to change from this as well.

Do we have any concrete evidence he has changed enough to be a viable front figure for the Free Software Movement?

He did at least changed[0] his opinion on things he said in 2003 about "willful" sex between child and adult after talking to medical experts. Don't know why it took him so long, but it's an indication that he is willing to change his views in conversation.

Still think that reinstating him at FSF was net negative for free software movement

[0] https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#467

Post by bitmunk » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 10:46 PM UTC

henearkr wrote: post #56

stusmall wrote: post #39

"Later in life, I discovered that some people had negative reactions to my behavior, which I did not even know about. Tending to be direct and honest with my thoughts, I sometimes made others uncomfortable or even offended them -- especially women. This was not a choice: I didn't understand the problem enough to know which choices there were. Sometimes I lost my temper because I didn't have the social skills to avoid…

> These social skills are crucial in this role. Absolutely not. He is a theorist (if not the theorist) of Free Software. His role is paramount, he is literally the only human completely implacable regarding the degrees of freedom that should be guaranteed to algorithms and software. The whole movement he started has as well spurred the Creative Commons movement, that is an application to the same principles more spec…

>he is literally the only human completely implacable regarding the degrees of freedom that should be guaranteed to algorithms and software.

So he's the Emperor from W40K? Got it.

/s

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#468

Post by meowface » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 10:47 PM UTC

Udik wrote: post #268

jraph wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read "almost as dishonest" as "almost dishonest"?

No, I read it as "somewhat less dishonest". But since anyone who is able to read and understand English at a high school level knows that "presented herself as entirely willing" means something different from "was entirely willing", both statements ("defends Epstein" and "says she was entirely willing") are deliberately stating complete falsehoods. Which is entirely dishonest.

You're right; I probably should have said "almost as destructive". They're equally dishonest. I just think "defends Epstein" is even more of an insult, even if they're both awful.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#469

Post by prepend » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 10:48 PM UTC

imwillofficial wrote: post #411

prepend wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

That quote is nothing to do with apologizing for statutory rape.

Also, statutory rape is completely different than child sexual abuse. Pedophilia is child sexual abuse and a much more serious crime than statutory rape.

I don’t think the quote above apologizes for either.

Since you conflated pedophilia with statutory rape, it would be irrational for me to claim you somehow support pedophilia because you claimed it was similar to statutory rape.

But I wouldn’t do that because trying to label you based on a single comment is foolish.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#470

Post by simion314 » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 10:58 PM UTC

pseudalopex wrote: post #449

simion314 wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know but from my observations all the up-votes and comments can't undo a few flags. Maybe there should be a way so if same number of people contest the flags then it undoes it? At least I think is not fair to use flag on an item I think it should get less attention, then I should flag all posts about the frameworks or languages that I think are getting too much attention (I do not flag and very rare downvote )

How did you observe the number of flags? dang seemed to endorse flagging repetition and flame war. I don't know what to tell you if you interpret that as just too much attention.

I have no data so I might be wrong,so let me apologize if my understanding of how HN works is wrong.(I know that some people flag stuff and the Dan will say it is not me , is you guys but this time i will undo the flags and give the article a change(what I do not see is how many garbage or good stuff gets flagged so maybe the good ones that get flagged are few compared to garbage, maybe I will never know)

So let me ask, in general we have a page where we are encouraged to upvote good articles and discouraged to flag things we do not agree or a mediocre how can the system prevent that the flag is not abused by the minority that flags things they just disagree.

I don't want to HN employee, it is a big site and there is probably a lot of issues that need to be checked and addressed, my point initially was that HN is better then FB but there could be better system there.

My favorite so far is a Star Trek related subreddit, the rules are clear and enforced. For example no meme, jokes or lazy comment or submissions are allowed, you are encouraged to either report or educate people that are not respecting the rules. It did not generated a bubble relative to the topic, and the memes,jokes and filth has it's own subbreddits and you have the big subbreddit where most everything is allowed.