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

481–490 of 537 posts

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#481

Post by dralley »

craigsmansion wrote: post #396
davexunit wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until you've been as close to rms as the people that have worked with/for him that have tried and failed for years and years to resolve issues privately, whatever silly argument you are trying to make doesn't have a leg to stand on.

> 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…

Bushnell is by no means the only person who has expressed such things.

ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#482

Post by dralley »

africanboy wrote: post #472
davexunit wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not about that person. This isn't about RMS saying something that some of us disagree with and looking past it. It's much bigger than that. For example, RMS made the working environment at the FSF so bad that the staff unionized. The working environment is still bad (staff either burn out trying to make things better or get fired for some reason) but at least RMS can't fire people on a whim and the staff get…

So in other words at the FSF workers are free to unionize like in the rest of the civilized World, while if you work at Amazon you have to pee in a bottle and be happy about it.

https://twitter.com/paulnivin/status/1377079987950395393

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#483

Post by NotSammyHagar »

chc wrote: post #420
dahfizz wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

I don't read it the way you did. I think the analysis of Stallman's comments contradict your view.I agree with the (dahfizz) parent.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#484

Post by dwaltrip »

andrewzah wrote: post #339
jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are various ways to do that. Plenty of famous people manage to figure it out. That's not what RMS was after. He's putting this stuff up on his blog, which he uses for activism, not abstract philosophical inquiry.

"How dare people have opinions on politics or society on their personal web blogs". How is this any different than telling celebrities to pipe down, as if people aren't human anymore once they become famous?

People can say whatever they want. If you don’t like someone’s specific critique, tell us why instead just saying it is bad to critique famous people.

Being a public figure has a lot of downsides. Maybe society could, as a whole, be a bit nicer to public figures (and everyone else for that matter). But that is a bigger ask. And it’s not exactly clear how to achieve that.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#485

Post by torthrowaway998 »

dralley wrote: post #332
r3856283 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Did he ever correct his statements about no women volunteering to work on GCC? He wasn't aware of women working on GCC. There's nothing to correct. I'm not aware of women working on GCC. GNU has thousands of people working on it, he's not aware of most of them. So much criticism of him is taking his comments out of context and misrepresenting them, including so many things that are just complete fabrications that i…

>He wasn't aware of women working on GCC. There's nothing to correct. I'm not aware of women working on GCC. .... >Sandra Loosemore is the lead author of the GNU Library Reference Manual;[3] RMS is listed as her co-author.

I presume that he knew that she contributed to the glibc manual but not to the GCC. Why not ask him?

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#486

Post by torthrowaway998 »

rbanffy wrote: post #138

It kind of misses the point it was never just about Minsky and Epstein. > 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. Did anyone explain him that he downplayed the role of women in the GNU project? Janis Johnson, Sandra Loosemore, and Dorit Nuzman, to name a few, all did extraordinary w…

>It kind of misses the point it was never just about Minsky and Epstein.

This was how it started and this was also what most news reported on so I do not believe that it misses the point.

>Did anyone explain him that he downplayed the role of women in the GNU project?

Did you ask him?

>Did he ever correct his statements about no women volunteering to work on GCC? Did he even read the author lists?

Did you ask him?

>Did anyone ever tell him the Emacs virgins thing is very inappropriate?

He changed it after someone complained about it.

>That he doesn't have the innate wiring to recognise those subtle cues makes it more necessary for him to listen and take action on his behaviour because he is seen as the person behind the FSF and his actions and opinions reflect on the entire community.

This is a very ableist/sanist view. I would argue that it is the neurotypicals that should put the extra effort to be more explicit and not assume stuff.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#487

Post by dralley »

torthrowaway998 wrote: post #485
dralley wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>He wasn't aware of women working on GCC. There's nothing to correct. I'm not aware of women working on GCC. .... >Sandra Loosemore is the lead author of the GNU Library Reference Manual;[3] RMS is listed as her co-author.

I presume that he knew that she contributed to the glibc manual but not to the GCC. Why not ask him?

Several other women had contributed to GCC including being the official maintainers of pieces of it.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#488

Post by torthrowaway998 »

bigbillheck wrote: post #321

People keep focusing on the Minsky thing, but if Stallman hadn't spent the last 40 years being a creep (the "emacs virgin" thing), being a creep ('tender embraces'), being abusive (the FSF unionized to protect themselves from him), being abusive ( https://twitter.com/migueldeicaza/status/1174044770546659329 ), being abusive ( https://twitter.com/mattblaze/status/1374460763910201350 ), being a jerk ("These birth annou…

>the "emacs virgin" thing

He stopped doing it once people told him that it made others uncomfortable.

>being a creep ('tender embraces')

In the business cards that he gave out to people of any gender. This is not really a creepy thing to do.

>being abusive (https://twitter.com/migueldeicaza/status/1174044770546659329)

Miguel de Icaza is not a trustworthy person, especially due to the way that he betrayed the community. I am curious though, did he just sat there being passive-aggressive or did he tell rms to leave? Since nobody seems to have asked him about what actually happened I am going to.

>https://twitter.com/mattblaze/status/1374460763910201350

I will also ask him about this because I am curious.

>being a jerk ("These birth announcements also spread the myth that having a baby is something to be proud of"),

Does not seem like a jerk thing to do.

>This isn't a 'oh, he said one thing one time about one person' situation, this is instead a lifetime of behavior that for anybody else would have had consequences long ago.

It would be great if the ones organizing harassment campaigns against him also agreed with you. So far they have been focusing on spreading lies about him (such as about epstein, the mattress, or his opinions) rather than actual repeated abuse by him after people expressed their dislike for it.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#489

Post by torthrowaway998 »

dralley wrote: post #487
torthrowaway998 wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I presume that he knew that she contributed to the glibc manual but not to the GCC. Why not ask him?

Several other women had contributed to GCC including being the official maintainers of pieces of it.

I am aware of it. r3856283 and RMS weren't. Is this that bad?

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#490

Post by torthrowaway998 »

prepend wrote: post #469
imwillofficial wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Pedophilia is child sexual abuse

Pedophilia is the sexual attraction to children to be more specific, it is not child sexual abuse.

Post reply on HN