5 ms·

It seems this thread and others like it has fueled a controversial honeypot, as some users are mass-downvoting comments that are perfectly in line with the cont

It seems this thread and others like it has fueled a controversial honeypot, as some users are mass-downvoting comments that are perfectly in line with the content posted, simply because they stand for or against ousting Stallman, and others are doing the opposite -- mass upvoting comments that align with their predisposed view of the situation. I'd like to take sometime however to reiterate that freedom applies to all views. The ability of a user to use software regardless of their personal beliefs or background, what they want to use it for, or against. The choice of usage is completely and wholly up to the user, they may modify it to their heart's content, and the community can use those modifications freely for their purposes. Restricting viewpoints you don't align with is completely antithetical to the purpose of having free-as-in-speech software, and it is truly a shame, regardless of how you interpret the situation, that the poster-boy for these ideals has fallen from his position due to alternate views.

malvosenior 7y ago
As you can see in this thread and everywhere else it’s been recently discussed, Stallnan’s actions have detracted from his message. Now we talk about pedophilia because that’s what RMS introduced to an environment that should be discussing free software. He failed his own message by doing that. No one else is to blame.
- linuxftw 7y ago
  > Stallnan’s actions have detracted from his message. Now we talk about pedophilia because that’s what RMS introduced to an environment that should be discussing free software Do you have an original source, or are you just parroting what you heard in the media?
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    Yes I’ve read the original email thread.
    - linuxftw 7y ago
      If you have the source material, why don't you quote it directly. Since we're talking about the recent email thread, then you'd know RMS didn't start that conversation, so you can't blame him for injecting the discussion anywhere.
      - annoyingnoob 7y ago
        RMS has no children. RMS is not trained/educated in child development or child care. RMS is entitled to his own opinion, however he has no basis for an informed opinion. RMS shit the bed more than one time on the subject of children. RMS has had the protection of others for too long. His backward opinions on children over many years caught up with him. RMS has done great things for free software but that does not give him a free pass to be a terrible human in other aspects of life. If RMS stuck to his area of expertise we would not be having this conversation.
        linuxftw 7y ago
        You didn't add anything to the discussion here, you just parroted talking points. > If RMS stuck to his area of expertise we would not be having this conversation. Show me where he didn't?
        annoyingnoob 7y ago
        Do your own research... https://stallman.org/articles/children.html https://stallman.org/articles/children.html https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%202006%20%28Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party%29 https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20Jun... https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2013_%28Pedophilia%29 https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2... There are 3 links. Its pretty clear to me that he fears being a parent and has no concept of child development. It is well known that changes in a growing adolescent brain can affect decision making. https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Families/FFF-Guide/The-Teen-Brain-Behavior-Problem-Solving-and-Decision-Making-095.aspx?WebsiteKey=a2785385-0ccf-4047-b76a-64b4094ae07f https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Fam... https://kids.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/frym.2017.00053 https://kids.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/frym.2017.00053 And yet, RMS would like to carve out some kind of exception for sex with kids when the kid chooses sex 'voluntarily'. Its disgusting and goes against what we know from science about kids and decision making. RMS is a would-be pedo and should be treated as such.
- concordDance 7y ago
  The pedophilia thing was over a decade ago. The age of consent thing was more recent but that's a separate issue.
4bpp 7y ago
But consider the possibility that this might be perfectly rational behaviour for people who care about some side of the cause (even if it comes at the expense of HN as a forum): the victory condition for any belief is to be so universally accepted that its negation can not be expressed in polite company. If you come into a HN thread believing X and then see that every post stating X got downvoted into oblivion, maybe you will think twice before mentioning that you believe X next time you are considering to do so in any setting, real-life or online, that you have a persistent identity of any value in. The next undecided person in that setting might never hear the case for X and come to believe not-X to be as uncontroversial as gravity, and before long it will actually come to be.
- madacoo 7y ago
  > this might be perfectly rational behaviour for people who care about some side of the cause I dispute this is rational. Creating echo chambers polarises and intensifies opposing viewpoints. The rational thing to do would be to engage in polite and meaningful discussion with people with whom you disagree. This would diffuse extreme opinions and allow people time to consider whether or not their position is justified. Rather than reacting in a knee-jerk defensive manner that serves to protect identity by strengthening belief, they are then given space to examine beliefs in order to strengthen identity.
  - 4bpp 7y ago
    Can you elaborate on why you dispute it is rational? I'm working with a definition of "rational" that is more or less "the optimal way to attain your goals", and assuming that the goals of Stallman's detractors imply that everyone agrees that Stallman/people like him should be cancelled. My argument, then, is that (1) upvote/downvote patterns on a forum like HN are a useful tools to reduce the frequency of the case against Stallman's cancellation being made in other settings than HN, (2) in the long run, the case against the cancellation being made less frequently would result in more people assuming the belief that the cancellation was good. (Of course, if this were at all realistically attainable at this point, many in the pro-Stallman camp would also want "cancel Stallman" to be downvoted so hard that people would be afraid to argue for it in public.) I don't really see how the rest of your post argues against that, or what your argument for "the rational thing to do would be to engage in polite and meaningful discussion(...)" is. Maybe we are using different definitions of "rational" and/or different assumptions about people's goals, in which case it would help if you could state yours.
watwut 7y ago
Isnt that how all discussions about free software evolved since ever?

malvosenior 7y ago

As you can see in this thread and everywhere else it’s been recently discussed, Stallnan’s actions have detracted from his message. Now we talk about pedophilia because that’s what RMS introduced to an environment that should be discussing free software. He failed his own message by doing that. No one else is to blame.

linuxftw 7y ago
> Stallnan’s actions have detracted from his message. Now we talk about pedophilia because that’s what RMS introduced to an environment that should be discussing free software Do you have an original source, or are you just parroting what you heard in the media?
- malvosenior 7y ago
  Yes I’ve read the original email thread.
  - linuxftw 7y ago
    If you have the source material, why don't you quote it directly. Since we're talking about the recent email thread, then you'd know RMS didn't start that conversation, so you can't blame him for injecting the discussion anywhere.
    - annoyingnoob 7y ago
      RMS has no children. RMS is not trained/educated in child development or child care. RMS is entitled to his own opinion, however he has no basis for an informed opinion. RMS shit the bed more than one time on the subject of children. RMS has had the protection of others for too long. His backward opinions on children over many years caught up with him. RMS has done great things for free software but that does not give him a free pass to be a terrible human in other aspects of life. If RMS stuck to his area of expertise we would not be having this conversation.
      - linuxftw 7y ago
        You didn't add anything to the discussion here, you just parroted talking points. > If RMS stuck to his area of expertise we would not be having this conversation. Show me where he didn't?
        annoyingnoob 7y ago
        Do your own research... https://stallman.org/articles/children.html https://stallman.org/articles/children.html https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%202006%20%28Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party%29 https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20Jun... https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2013_%28Pedophilia%29 https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2... There are 3 links. Its pretty clear to me that he fears being a parent and has no concept of child development. It is well known that changes in a growing adolescent brain can affect decision making. https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Families/FFF-Guide/The-Teen-Brain-Behavior-Problem-Solving-and-Decision-Making-095.aspx?WebsiteKey=a2785385-0ccf-4047-b76a-64b4094ae07f https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Fam... https://kids.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/frym.2017.00053 https://kids.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/frym.2017.00053 And yet, RMS would like to carve out some kind of exception for sex with kids when the kid chooses sex 'voluntarily'. Its disgusting and goes against what we know from science about kids and decision making. RMS is a would-be pedo and should be treated as such.
concordDance 7y ago
The pedophilia thing was over a decade ago. The age of consent thing was more recent but that's a separate issue.

4bpp 7y ago

But consider the possibility that this might be perfectly rational behaviour for people who care about some side of the cause (even if it comes at the expense of HN as a forum): the victory condition for any belief is to be so universally accepted that its negation can not be expressed in polite company. If you come into a HN thread believing X and then see that every post stating X got downvoted into oblivion, maybe you will think twice before mentioning that you believe X next time you are considering to do so in any setting, real-life or online, that you have a persistent identity of any value in. The next undecided person in that setting might never hear the case for X and come to believe not-X to be as uncontroversial as gravity, and before long it will actually come to be.

madacoo 7y ago
> this might be perfectly rational behaviour for people who care about some side of the cause I dispute this is rational. Creating echo chambers polarises and intensifies opposing viewpoints. The rational thing to do would be to engage in polite and meaningful discussion with people with whom you disagree. This would diffuse extreme opinions and allow people time to consider whether or not their position is justified. Rather than reacting in a knee-jerk defensive manner that serves to protect identity by strengthening belief, they are then given space to examine beliefs in order to strengthen identity.
- 4bpp 7y ago
  Can you elaborate on why you dispute it is rational? I'm working with a definition of "rational" that is more or less "the optimal way to attain your goals", and assuming that the goals of Stallman's detractors imply that everyone agrees that Stallman/people like him should be cancelled. My argument, then, is that (1) upvote/downvote patterns on a forum like HN are a useful tools to reduce the frequency of the case against Stallman's cancellation being made in other settings than HN, (2) in the long run, the case against the cancellation being made less frequently would result in more people assuming the belief that the cancellation was good. (Of course, if this were at all realistically attainable at this point, many in the pro-Stallman camp would also want "cancel Stallman" to be downvoted so hard that people would be afraid to argue for it in public.) I don't really see how the rest of your post argues against that, or what your argument for "the rational thing to do would be to engage in polite and meaningful discussion(...)" is. Maybe we are using different definitions of "rational" and/or different assumptions about people's goals, in which case it would help if you could state yours.

watwut 7y ago

Isnt that how all discussions about free software evolved since ever?