Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Stallman Report

stallman-report.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 208 posts

Re: The Stallman Report

#91

Post by laudation »

jcranmer wrote: post #87
joshuajill wrote: post #75

GNU kind communication guidelines the report purports to be transphobic: "Please think about how to treat other participants with respect, especially when you disagree with them. For instance, call them by the names they use, and refer to them using words whose meanings (as you understand them) cover those participants' stated gender identities. Please also show tolerance and respect for people who do that using diff…

> refer to them using words whose meanings (as you understand them) cover those participants' stated gender identities If I were trans, that portion of the guideline would be enough to nope me out of participating in GNU projects. The "as you understand them" parenthetical gives cover for transphobes to intentionally misgender trans people, since they can hide behind saying that they feel it's only appropriate to use…

More like it might discourage participation from people who very much resent the fact that they can't exert control over the speech or thoughts of others. And also people who like to make mountains of molehills.

Re: The Stallman Report

#92

Post by narrator »

If there was criminal conduct, someone should file a criminal complaint and have it adjudicated in a court of law with evidence, a jury and witness testimony and once convicted the accused should be appropriately punished.

Otherwise, how is anyone going to determine the truth of the allegations?

If the behavior was non-criminal then the decision should be made through normal non-profit governance mechanisms. We have due process of law for a reason which is that people are innocent until proven guilty and there are the proper protections to make sure a fair trial occurs.

Another well known non-profit in the biotech space received a 20 million donation and right after that a group of people kicked out the founder citing perceived sexual innuendo in old emails that did not risen to the level of a criminal offense. The donor wanted their money back, because they had given it to support the founder and his mission, but it was too late.

Re: The Stallman Report

#93

Post by TLLtchvL8KZ »

asrt wrote: post #46

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…

Same thing happened on reddit.

Instant 100+ upvotes out of nowhere. A bunch of new accounts posting supportive messages that after checking about 20 of them had posted on the sub before and just magically appeared. Downvotes to anything asking questions.

There is one infamous mastodon troll "developer" that can't get enough of themselves and I would put money on them being involved in this, if you know you know.

Re: The Stallman Report

#94

Post by bringen »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #21
bringen wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And just like last time, the authors are trying to convince their supporters to manipulate the discussion on HN. https://mastodon.social/@report_press/113306313558293261 We can already see the influence of this in the comments on this post.

Given that much of the tone of the discussion here is not only dismissive of the report but the link has been actively suppressed via flagging, I don't think it's credible to argue there is some kind of organized anti-RMS "manipulation" happening here. (I don't think there's some kind of organized pro-RMS manipulation happening, either. I think there's a fairly large segment of HN readers who minimize credible report…

Turn on "showdead" and look how many comments critical of the report have been flagged. That strongly indicates an organized suppression of dissenting views.

Re: The Stallman Report

#95

Post by aag »

fsflover wrote: post #54
aag wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was just trying to find something that took the other side. As I said, I take no position on these accusations. I simply don't know enough.

You repeated an already existing link from comments, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41838335 , and changed it to look less credible.

I didn't repeat it or change it. I hadn't seen it.

Re: The Stallman Report

#96

Post by arp242 »

jcranmer wrote: post #87
joshuajill wrote: post #75

GNU kind communication guidelines the report purports to be transphobic: "Please think about how to treat other participants with respect, especially when you disagree with them. For instance, call them by the names they use, and refer to them using words whose meanings (as you understand them) cover those participants' stated gender identities. Please also show tolerance and respect for people who do that using diff…

> refer to them using words whose meanings (as you understand them) cover those participants' stated gender identities If I were trans, that portion of the guideline would be enough to nope me out of participating in GNU projects. The "as you understand them" parenthetical gives cover for transphobes to intentionally misgender trans people, since they can hide behind saying that they feel it's only appropriate to use…

Presumably this refers to his peculiar set of neologisms (“per” and “pers”) as a gender-neutral pronouns.[1]

Stallman is an extremely stubborn language hyper-pedantic with some fairly unconventional views and usages on any issue, not just this one. And he has 20 years of documented support for trans people. So with that context in mind, I think it makes sense to take it in good faith.

To say I find his position on this peculiar would be an understatement. But I find that on many of Stallman's positions on similar topics wrt. language. Either way, I'm reasonably confident it's not intended as a cover for transphobic bullying or the like, even though it may appear like that at a glance.

[1]: https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html

Re: The Stallman Report

#97

Post by arp242 »

bringen wrote: post #94
chipotle_coyote wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that much of the tone of the discussion here is not only dismissive of the report but the link has been actively suppressed via flagging, I don't think it's credible to argue there is some kind of organized anti-RMS "manipulation" happening here. (I don't think there's some kind of organized pro-RMS manipulation happening, either. I think there's a fairly large segment of HN readers who minimize credible report…

Turn on "showdead" and look how many comments critical of the report have been flagged. That strongly indicates an organized suppression of dissenting views.

Many are of no substance, or worse. One of them is an unhinged conspiratorial rant about COINTELPRO. Another starts with an insult against the author of this page. There's a transphobic rant. etc.

I went through all of them; there is only one that I would "vouch worthy" and should not be flagged (the one that links to stallmansupport.org), so I vouched that one. All the others I've seen should be flagged, not because they're "critical of the report", but because they're garbage.

Re: The Stallman Report

#98

Post by rstuart4133 »

joshuajill wrote: post #74

For once doesn't seem like a hit piece, the arguments are pretty solid and well documented. Very thorough job and if RMS was smart he would gracefully step down. The only argument I find here against it is the question of whether someone's personal opinions should be a reason to be removed from a leadership position. Edit: Oh wow just read the recommendations. Can't agree to most of it, sorry.

> For once doesn't seem like a hit piece

What?!? It must be the outcome of a meticulous reading on what must be millions of words from Stallman, tolling for anything that reflects one just aspect of his outlook on life. Based on that alone one outlook it recommends he be banned from everything. There must be at least man months of work in it.

I guess there has to be, as it's a weak case. It's based on thought crimes, not actions. The difference between the two is obvious - just look at the real damage the dispute between Automattic and WPEngine has on bystanders. They are actively trying to inflict harm on each other and succeeding. Never mind the collateral damage.

No mention of the more positive aspects of his personality - like him buying coffee for the homeless he met in the street. Very little acknowledgement of the positive changes social he's wrought through man years of labor and giving the results away for free. We all have bad points. If you evaluate any of us just based on them, the scales are always going to point one way.

To me, it's an exemplar of a hit piece by someone with an single minded obsession. To make matters worse, it's an anonymous someone.

Re: The Stallman Report

#99

Post by holmesworcester »

narrator wrote: post #92

If there was criminal conduct, someone should file a criminal complaint and have it adjudicated in a court of law with evidence, a jury and witness testimony and once convicted the accused should be appropriately punished. Otherwise, how is anyone going to determine the truth of the allegations? If the behavior was non-criminal then the decision should be made through normal non-profit governance mechanisms. We have…

Having read this, I don't think there is any accusation of criminal behavior in this report.

The accusation is that he made people uncomfortable, didn't do enough to change that when it was raised, and defended criminal behavior by insisting on distinctions that the authors of the report consider immaterial or harmful.

I worked for RMS/FSF briefly and I think there is something about his radical refusal to compromise on anything conceptual (to avoid conflict or misunderstanding, e.g.) that is fundamentally incompatible with running an organization. This is on display here.

So I think it's probably right for FSF and RMS to part ways, but I also think it's positive for the world for him to keep on insisting on moral clarity in his terms.

At the same time, everybody should read the whole report and decide whether they think RMS's insistence on the distinctions rejected by the authors is helpful or unhelpful. I think some of RMS's distinctions could be helpful to the cause of reducing the incidence of sexual abuse.

Re: The Stallman Report

#100

Post by gr4vityWall »

jcranmer wrote: post #87
joshuajill wrote: post #75

GNU kind communication guidelines the report purports to be transphobic: "Please think about how to treat other participants with respect, especially when you disagree with them. For instance, call them by the names they use, and refer to them using words whose meanings (as you understand them) cover those participants' stated gender identities. Please also show tolerance and respect for people who do that using diff…

> refer to them using words whose meanings (as you understand them) cover those participants' stated gender identities If I were trans, that portion of the guideline would be enough to nope me out of participating in GNU projects. The "as you understand them" parenthetical gives cover for transphobes to intentionally misgender trans people, since they can hide behind saying that they feel it's only appropriate to use…

I'm trans and the GNU Communication Guidelines feel way more empathetic to me than CoC-like documents.

> gives cover for transphobes to intentionally misgender trans people

It also gives cover to people who prefer to always use gender neutral pronouns. If a transphobe is acting on their views on gender to bully people, I'd rather deal with them on a case-by-base basis, while being empathetic to everyone else who might have meant to harm.

BTW, I've met RMS in person a few years ago, and exchange emails with him every once in a while. I've found him to be very fun, and not hard to deal with if you're used to hanging out with neurodivergent people.

Post reply on HN