41–50 of 208 posts
Anything more to these allegations than there was last time? Or is this yet another chapter of someone's envy resorting to character assassination instead of finding contentment in their own work? If these people succeeded in their apparent goal of making RMS less popular, do they think the world will love them for it? Why aint they signing their name?
Here is a web site that defends Stallman: https://stallmansupport.org/richard-stallman-honors-and-awar... I take no position.
The page that's most responsive to what's brought up is here: https://stallmansupport.org/debunking-false-accusations-agai.... However, I feel that it doesn't really debunk the core accusations here, which is essentially that Stallman's views on what constitutes consent just aren't acceptable in today's world.
The Free Software movement has been completely routed. MS owns GitHub. The farmers fighting for the "right to repair" their tractors are the "front" of the "battle" for user empowerment. But sure let's beat the shit out of the dead horse that's actually a real live old man with cancer who wrote fucking Emacs, see if that helps?
Here is a web site that defends Stallman: https://stallmansupport.org/richard-stallman-honors-and-awar... I take no position.
I'll be extremely charitable and assume you meant to link to the site in general as a rebuttal, and not specifically to the webpage that just lists his awards, because saying that someone's misdeeds don't matter because they also did great things is a rather gross viewpoint and a continuing insult to the people who are victims both of the "Great Men" and the wannabe-"Great Men" who feel safe doing such acts in the be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems to me that the purpose of this report is not to say "look, that guy is a weirdo". But rather, to point out in excruciating detail how he is enabling vile behaviours (like normalizing possession of CSAM, pretending like making out with 14 year olds is not sexual abuse, etc) in the FOSS community, by being a very visible figure head that some people look up to.
But he isn't enabling any of that. You're spinning a narrative that is fundamentally untrue.
> I don't think it is wrong to distribute "child porn" images, even when they [depict] children rather than adolescents. However, making them is wrong if it involves real sex with a child. For the sake of opposing sexual abuse of real children, I suggest that you boycott the images that involve real children. Imaginary children can't be hurt by drawing them.
In other words: pornography involving 14, 15, 16 year olds is all good according to Stallman. He is enabling all of the above by changing the definition of what child pornography is, responding to someone who emailed him asking for advice, and then posting about it publicly.
This is telling. They don't want discourse, they want to silence and bully everyone who disagrees with them so only they are allowed to speak.
All they have is anonymous accusations with zero proof, an off-context quote regarding an MIT professor, off-color jokes made 50 years ago and a couple of (retracted) opinions that are no worse than the things being said by prominent philosophers like Michel Foucault and Simone de Beauvoir.
Anything more to these allegations than there was last time? Or is this yet another chapter of someone's envy resorting to character assassination instead of finding contentment in their own work? If these people succeeded in their apparent goal of making RMS less popular, do they think the world will love them for it? Why aint they signing their name?
> If these people succeeded in their apparent goal of making RMS less popular, do they think the world will love them for it? Sometimes one does the right thing not because the world will love you, but because it is the right thing.
The anonymous authors of this website have instructed people on other websites to come here and downvote any and all comments that speak in favor of RMS: https://mastodon.social/@report_press/113305688857205037 This is telling. They don't want discourse, they want to silence and bully everyone who disagrees with them so only they are allowed to speak. All they have is anonymous accusations with zero proof, an off-con…
I am concerned about the fact that we don't know the identities of any of the authors of this web page. There are people who find it very enjoyable to destroy someone's reputation (for basically the same reason that there are people for whom murder is such a turn-on that they cannot stop themselves from doing it till they get caught). Also, there might be ways to profit or personally benefit from a campaign like this…
It seems that you are worried about cases but there are no witness/proof that is where the truthfulness of accusations is in doubt. No such thing here, they are basically quoting him and putting related quotes together. Almost like someone writing a book review of a philosopher or something. You could say "what about out of context quoting!?" but he seems quite consistent in his ideas and it would be quite a coincide…
The anonymous authors of this website have instructed people on other websites to come here and downvote any and all comments that speak in favor of RMS: https://mastodon.social/@report_press/113305688857205037 This is telling. They don't want discourse, they want to silence and bully everyone who disagrees with them so only they are allowed to speak. All they have is anonymous accusations with zero proof, an off-con…
[flagged]
The message is clear: HN has a "bias" (according to them) and their readers must take action in order to discuss it.
It could be that readers here disagree with them, it could be that readers don't buy their attempt at character assassination, instead they play victims as if there was a grand conspiracy to keep a homeless old man with cancer at the head of a nonprofit.