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

501–510 of 537 posts

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#501

Post by luckylion »

krapp wrote: post #475
luckylion wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You're right. Better to burn the witches quickly. Deus Vult.

I understand that reply to mean that you don't want any rule-enforcement, ever? That's really the only reading that makes sense with that kind of comment to my question of how much, and how long, should be tolerated.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#502

Post by concordDance »

Osmose wrote: post #265
NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He has been treated unfairly many times and that is, completely independent of whether he's the best choice as leader for the FSF, wrong. You do it here: "the _other_times he spoke out in implicit support of pedophilia...". He wants to have a discussion about what makes sex between people of varying ages wrong. He applies normative principles to it and can't see why it's wrong (e.g., age of consent varies...why would…

> completely independent of whether he's the best choice as leader for the FSF It's not independent, you can't just drop the context. RMS the 9-5 software dev at some nameless corporation having this discussion is, while still unacceptable (because the relevant society has decided that it is obvious why sex with minors is harmful), not nearly as impactful as RMS the respected-by-many leader of the free software movem…

> because the relevant society has decided that it is obvious why sex with minors is harmful

Society declares a lot of things obviously wrong and most of us never really examine why they are wrong, particularly from first principles. I think being willing to examine and question these kinds of assumptions fosters a very open culture where people aren't afraid to speak up (unlike the other 99% of the world where you live in fear).

E.g. I'm in the same boat Stalman was in that I've never recieved a satisfactory exaplanation from first principles about why mutually agreed (using that term because "consensual" has legal meanings) non-penetrative sexual interaction between a child and an adult is harmful. I've just been told to take it on faith that it causes horrible damage (and ignore the obvious confounders in the "studies"/anecdotes and the surrounding society working hard at placing the victim label on the child, which could easily cause damage itself).

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#503

Post by concordDance »

goodpoint wrote: post #462
NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

I really think that lumping forcible rape in the same category as a 17 year old successfuly seducing a 21 year old in California (as opposed to, say, Spain) is bad for discourse.

Even if we grant the latter is harmful and wrong, the mechanism via which the harm happens is different, as is the amount of harm.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#504

Post by ebcode »

keonix wrote: post #471
_-david-_ wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

It was 18 years ago, he changed[0] his views later, but nobody mentions that for some reason... [0] https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...

Since a lot of people will read this page, but won't follow the link, I'm posting RMS' quote from your link:

> Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it.

> Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why.

I think this quote demonstrates pretty well what kind of person RMS is. He's somewhere on the spectrum (aren't we all), and entirely human. He's grappling with his own beliefs, entertaining possibilities, and actively working to change his beliefs to be a better person.

I think so much of the current outrage is really about our society in general, and we're in desperate need of scapegoats because we can't actually target society at large, we can only "target" individuals.

That said, I'm just gonna leave this here: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1656/1656-h/1656-h.htm

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#505

Post by concordDance »

solosoyokaze wrote: post #172
Osmose wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it does. In context, this letter, especially given it's posted to the FSF site and not, say, his personal website, is meant to justify electing him to the board and address the backlash against it, and I don't really have much patience for a letter addressing only one of the many complaints people have against allowing him a leadership role. It's dismissive of them.

He even continues to defend Minsky in this letter. It's not even an apology, it's just more of the same.

I'm very unclear on what general priciple you think RMS is violating with the Minsky comments. Is it that you should never defend someone accused of Bad Thing if you are a public figure ij channels that may be related to your work?

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#506

Post by africanboy »

stusmall wrote: post #442
pmarin wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So people without social skills can't not be in leadership positions?

Same reason we keep people without technical skills out of technical roles. Being able to understand, working with, organize, inspire and influence people is at the core of being a leader.

so why's Elon Musk still there? /s

Jocking aside, perfection is enemy of the good.

Nobody is all those things, all the time, consistently, over a life time.

Being a leader in the real World is mostly about being in the political position of influencing the decision of the entity you lead, being it a small team of developers, the local sports team or a corporation.

Look at Steve Jobs, he was capable of being a terrible human being, but was also able to put a lot of money in investors' pockets and so they kept him.

Also, having no technical skill has never stopped anybody from being involved in technical roles. They simply end up working where the bar is lower or were management doesn't care.

If what you say was true, posts like this would not exist.

https://allarsblog.com/2018/03/17/confessions-of-an-unreal-e...

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#507

Post by africanboy »

dralley wrote: post #482
africanboy wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think we should start a discussion about a simple fact: the World is huge, US is only a small part of it.

For example: RMS did not believe in providing raises — prior cost of living adjustments were a battle and not annual. RMS believed that if a precedent was created for increasing wages, the logical conclusion would be that employees would be paid infinity dollars and the FSF would go bankrupt.

That's unlawful in Italy to avoid salary discrimination where people in poorer areas (the South) are paid less for the same job.

It's considered a great victory by Italian huge worker unions.

Or this other one

RMS created non-safe spaces at both MIT & the FSF. When I was at the FSF, RMS had little to no empathy for the staff. The FSF was not a healthy, functional workplace. We formed a union to help protect ourselves from RMS — he controlled our pay, benefits, and workplace conditions.

Again, this is totally subjective.

It's a work place not a kindergarten, you don't like the place you leave, we are talking about software engineers not cleaning staff, they'd have a chance anywhere else.

this is simply this guy personally holding a grudge against RMS, but there's nothing objectively bad here.

You know what's really bad? that it happens at Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple l, but you don't know because workers simply can't talk about it.

Low paid workers fear of losing their salary, high paid workers don't care about them and also don't want to lose their huge benefits and say screw them

What is terrifying is people thinking that knowing something is worse than not knowing because if you talk, it's bad for you.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/may/05/amazon-pr...

What is bad IMO is thinking that unions are inherently a bad thing, but I am glad they exist and I am member myself of one of them in Italy that has 5.5 million other members and I gladly pay monthly to be part of it,even though I rarely need them they offer free services and protection to all the workers.

If nobody has been fired, harrased or threatened for proposing to unionize, that's a great plus in my book that puts the FSF ahead of many other job places in the US.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#508

Post by africanboy »

solosoyokaze wrote: post #477
africanboy wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Japan age of consent is 13. Do you find Japanese people abhorrent?

Any adult who rapes a 13 year old is abhorrent. It's not even a debate. [Edit] Absolutely disgusting that this would be downvoted. This community really showed itself for what it is today. Thankfully, the rest of our industry has enough of a moral compass to reject this, so both FSF and Stallman are dead in the water.

Let's talk about numbers:

- In 2019, the rate of forcible rapes in the United States stood at 29.9 per 100,000 inhabitants. it has decreased from 1990, when there were 41.2 forcible rapes per 100,000 inhabitants.

- In 2014, rape rate for Japan was 1 cases per 100,000 population. Rape rate of Japan fell gradually from 1.6 cases per 100,000 population in 2005 to 1 cases per 100,000 population in 2014

What lesson can we learn from this in your opinion?

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#509

Post by rbanffy »

d_tr wrote: post #454
rbanffy wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I believe him, you might not. In that case you might want to give him a chance, because you are a decent person, especially since he has been through a lot the last 18 months, and a lot of it was unjust.

I want to give him a second chance, but I'd like him to demonstrate this new ability to change before taking it at face value.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#510

Post by rbanffy »

torthrowaway998 wrote: post #489
dralley wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

He is the public face of the FSF. It's his job to be aware of that.
Post reply on HN