4 ms·

No one is asking you to support his statement. No one agrees with someone else on every issue. I don't agree with him either. The important thing is to agree o

No one is asking you to support his statement. No one agrees with someone else on every issue. I don't agree with him either. The important thing is to agree on the issue at hand: software.

mikeash 7y ago
The FSF is foremost about community, and only incidentally about software. He is, to put it absurdly nicely, not the sort of people person who should be leading such an organization.
- flukus 7y ago
  > The FSF is foremost about community, and only incidentally about software I fear that this has become true, but the only reason anybody gives a damn about the FSF and the only reason this is even newsworthy is because of the software and licenses produced by the FSF. If you take the software away the FSF is nothing, so I don't understand how you can claim it's primarily a community.
  - mikeash 7y ago
    Why do those licenses matter? Because of the community they created. Nobody would care about the GPL if it was only used for the FSF’s software.
    - flukus 7y ago
      > Because of the community they created Why does the community they created matter? Because they produce more software.
      - mikeash 7y ago
        Right, the foundation produces community, and the community produces software. RMS’s role is almost entirely about leading that community, not producing that software.
jbarciauskas 7y ago
I don't think the many people who have experienced his abuse directly, or the victims he is trying to minimize, would agree with your assessment of what's important.
eropple 7y ago
Perhaps the "issue at hand" can be as simple as software for you. Most people kinda rank pedophile apologia--and, yes, I did read what he wrote, and yes, the chinstroking "most plausible scenario" is pedophile apologia--above that, though, and I would hope that you would at minimum grant that the level of understanding you seek to demand of everyone else.
- lone_haxx0r 7y ago
  > Perhaps the "issue at hand" can be as simple as software for you. Ok. You're actually right. I regret saying that software is the only important thing. Honestly, I guess that part of my comment was a post-rationalization, but what actually bothers me is the hypocrisy of the media and society in general, because they don't apply the same rigor when an institution or person does or says much more despicable when they like those things. But that has nothing to do with this specific issue. >the chinstroking "most plausible scenario" is pedophile apologia. Nope, it isn't. Many of his comments actually are, but if you analyze the "most plausible scenario" quote, it has nothing to do with it.
- smoothheckler 7y ago
  i agree, but only at a high level, because i’m enjoying watching progressives purge themselves out of existence over having the wrong congruence of electric charge in their head meat
lallysingh 7y ago
He's a liability to the organization and to the legitimacy of the software it endorses.
azernik 7y ago
The people he has abused and driven out of the community would have written some kick-ass software.
rdiddly 7y ago
Ironically if everybody had done that, things wouldn't have played out this way. When at work, confine it to work stuff folks. There's a genius to it. It automatically renders you incapable of things like gossip, harassment, gaffes like this, and most other trouble. The only trouble left for you to get into is saying stupid things about the work itself, which I can't help you with. But remember you're working in a complex world with different people who don't share your opinions and ideally aren't your friends and you ideally don't need them to be, because you've got a vibrant life outside of work, and you go to work, to work on work, and talk about work, and when the work's done, you leave.
- boring_twenties 7y ago
  I don't know if I want to live in that world, a full day around people with which any kind of normal conversation is strictly forbidden. In the majority of my career I've been in workplaces with colleagues, many like-minded but plenty not, to whom I felt I could say more or less whatever the fuck I want. That seems much better to me, but who knows.
  - rdiddly 7y ago
    Did I say forbidden? I'm talking about self-discipline. The ideal would be to be so engaged and absorbed with work, that that's the thing you want to talk about. Ideally you're enjoying it. And anyway, just because some Angry Poo-Poo Face Boss Guy made me mad by telling me to focus on the work long ago, doesn't mean it's a bad idea for me to do it now, on my own, for my own reasons. Kind of like how lifting a heavy-ass weight, which sucks, actually is a good idea because it makes me stronger. I also feel like your saying whatever you want, and having it be fine, depends on certain things, like both people being okay with it. For example (and I'm not saying this is you), a lot gets said and taken for granted between white males in software, that wouldn't be okay for non-white non-males and shouldn't be taken for granted. What's normal conversation for one person might not be normal for others. That is absolutely what happened with Mr. Stallman here. Questions of right or wrong should be hashed out with people you trust and share a foundation with, and upon whom you don't depend for rent money. Because everybody else is too fucking crazy now. AND, anyway, more to my main point, ideally you're too busy getting shit done! Edit: Again, that's until work's over, at which point you make a clean break and go do whatever else. I'm a fan of the dividing line. 'Nuther edit: This case is actually more of a gray area because the Epstein thing affects the Media Lab and the whole Institute. It's all intertwined. So, ironically, it's a quasi-work-related conversation. But you can still say that the topic was more thrust on everyone, as opposed to being and having always been a natural part of the work. In fact, whoever caused the two things to mix in the first place [Epstein's money and MIT] done fucked up. Which is what everybody's saying, obviously, but they're saying it because of the moral murk of it, whereas I'm saying, my simpler philosophy about not mixing things, also would have prevented it just as effectively. My objection can simply be that Epstein and his horseshit have nothing to do with the work and have no place at the Institute. Somebody smart could've seen that right off, of course, but they were tempted by the money. Upton Sinclair bla bla "...when his [gittin' PAID] depends on his not understanding it."

No one is asking you to support his statement. No one agrees with someone else on every issue. I don't agree with him either. The important thing is to agree on the issue at hand: software.

mikeash 7y ago

The FSF is foremost about community, and only incidentally about software. He is, to put it absurdly nicely, not the sort of people person who should be leading such an organization.

flukus 7y ago
> The FSF is foremost about community, and only incidentally about software I fear that this has become true, but the only reason anybody gives a damn about the FSF and the only reason this is even newsworthy is because of the software and licenses produced by the FSF. If you take the software away the FSF is nothing, so I don't understand how you can claim it's primarily a community.
- mikeash 7y ago
  Why do those licenses matter? Because of the community they created. Nobody would care about the GPL if it was only used for the FSF’s software.
  - flukus 7y ago
    > Because of the community they created Why does the community they created matter? Because they produce more software.
    - mikeash 7y ago
      Right, the foundation produces community, and the community produces software. RMS’s role is almost entirely about leading that community, not producing that software.

jbarciauskas 7y ago

I don't think the many people who have experienced his abuse directly, or the victims he is trying to minimize, would agree with your assessment of what's important.

eropple 7y ago

Perhaps the "issue at hand" can be as simple as software for you. Most people kinda rank pedophile apologia--and, yes, I did read what he wrote, and yes, the chinstroking "most plausible scenario" is pedophile apologia--above that, though, and I would hope that you would at minimum grant that the level of understanding you seek to demand of everyone else.

lone_haxx0r 7y ago
> Perhaps the "issue at hand" can be as simple as software for you. Ok. You're actually right. I regret saying that software is the only important thing. Honestly, I guess that part of my comment was a post-rationalization, but what actually bothers me is the hypocrisy of the media and society in general, because they don't apply the same rigor when an institution or person does or says much more despicable when they like those things. But that has nothing to do with this specific issue. >the chinstroking "most plausible scenario" is pedophile apologia. Nope, it isn't. Many of his comments actually are, but if you analyze the "most plausible scenario" quote, it has nothing to do with it.
smoothheckler 7y ago
i agree, but only at a high level, because i’m enjoying watching progressives purge themselves out of existence over having the wrong congruence of electric charge in their head meat

lallysingh 7y ago

He's a liability to the organization and to the legitimacy of the software it endorses.

azernik 7y ago

The people he has abused and driven out of the community would have written some kick-ass software.

rdiddly 7y ago

Ironically if everybody had done that, things wouldn't have played out this way. When at work, confine it to work stuff folks. There's a genius to it. It automatically renders you incapable of things like gossip, harassment, gaffes like this, and most other trouble. The only trouble left for you to get into is saying stupid things about the work itself, which I can't help you with. But remember you're working in a complex world with different people who don't share your opinions and ideally aren't your friends and you ideally don't need them to be, because you've got a vibrant life outside of work, and you go to work, to work on work, and talk about work, and when the work's done, you leave.

boring_twenties 7y ago
I don't know if I want to live in that world, a full day around people with which any kind of normal conversation is strictly forbidden. In the majority of my career I've been in workplaces with colleagues, many like-minded but plenty not, to whom I felt I could say more or less whatever the fuck I want. That seems much better to me, but who knows.
- rdiddly 7y ago
  Did I say forbidden? I'm talking about self-discipline. The ideal would be to be so engaged and absorbed with work, that that's the thing you want to talk about. Ideally you're enjoying it. And anyway, just because some Angry Poo-Poo Face Boss Guy made me mad by telling me to focus on the work long ago, doesn't mean it's a bad idea for me to do it now, on my own, for my own reasons. Kind of like how lifting a heavy-ass weight, which sucks, actually is a good idea because it makes me stronger. I also feel like your saying whatever you want, and having it be fine, depends on certain things, like both people being okay with it. For example (and I'm not saying this is you), a lot gets said and taken for granted between white males in software, that wouldn't be okay for non-white non-males and shouldn't be taken for granted. What's normal conversation for one person might not be normal for others. That is absolutely what happened with Mr. Stallman here. Questions of right or wrong should be hashed out with people you trust and share a foundation with, and upon whom you don't depend for rent money. Because everybody else is too fucking crazy now. AND, anyway, more to my main point, ideally you're too busy getting shit done! Edit: Again, that's until work's over, at which point you make a clean break and go do whatever else. I'm a fan of the dividing line. 'Nuther edit: This case is actually more of a gray area because the Epstein thing affects the Media Lab and the whole Institute. It's all intertwined. So, ironically, it's a quasi-work-related conversation. But you can still say that the topic was more thrust on everyone, as opposed to being and having always been a natural part of the work. In fact, whoever caused the two things to mix in the first place [Epstein's money and MIT] done fucked up. Which is what everybody's saying, obviously, but they're saying it because of the moral murk of it, whereas I'm saying, my simpler philosophy about not mixing things, also would have prevented it just as effectively. My objection can simply be that Epstein and his horseshit have nothing to do with the work and have no place at the Institute. Somebody smart could've seen that right off, of course, but they were tempted by the money. Upton Sinclair bla bla "...when his [gittin' PAID] depends on his not understanding it."