4 ms·

> Selam Jie Gano People should be outraged that a nobody working on automated vehicles for the US military (AKA drones) believes she on a higher moral ground t

> Selam Jie Gano People should be outraged that a nobody working on automated vehicles for the US military (AKA drones) believes she on a higher moral ground than Stallman, that never hurt anybody. People should be outraged that said nobody wrote "Remove Stallman and all the other toxic people in tech" like if "removing" people is ok, like she knows who they are, 'cause she's the ultimate judge, and as if building weapons is not toxic... BTW RMS has been much more brave and clear than that. He wrote "if someone in csail says in this discussion group that Minsky was accused of sexual assault, a very serious accusation, and someone else in csail thinks that he was not, should the latter person refrain from saying so in this same discussion group out of concern that the conversation will leak and be misconstrued by the press?" The in stands for "science". The job of scientists is to evaluate evidence and seek truth. We have a social responsibility to do that as well. I hope that we scientists will never evade our social responsibility to seek and defend the truth out of fear that the press will misconstrue our search. That would not be a reputation I would like attached to my affiliation. I think the existence of a dispute about that supports my point that the term "sexual assault" is slippery, so we ought to use more concrete terms when accusing anyone. He did what he believed was the right thing to do. He was doing it to protect the movement and the protest from a - leaks to the press b - bad PR, if they used sexual assault people could spin it as "but he didn't assault her, it was consensual sex" like they usually do: they shoot the messenger or the form of the message to not address the real issue and divert the attention (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts) c - he was UNDOUBTEDLY right! nobody is talking about the protest against Epstein-MIT involvement. good job Selam, good job everybody

zzzcpan 7y ago
> working on automated vehicles for the US military Somehow I missed this, so a person literally working on helping the government kill people was the one asking to remove RMS? Interestingly enough, such hypocrisy came up in all the deplatforming cases too, where they removed some relatively innocent stuff claiming it had bad impact on people, but ignored and keep ignoring all the weapons promoting content, war propaganda, etc. that literally causes death and destruction.
- lostjohnny 7y ago
  > Somehow I missed this, so a person literally working on helping the government kill people was the one asking to remove RMS? Yep https://www.linkedin.com/in/selam-gano-089895ba/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/selam-gano-089895ba/
  - Fnoord 7y ago
    "Mission accomplished." Reminds me of the women who accused Assange. Then there is the witchhunt against Jacob Appelbaum. Sense a pattern? Regardless of whether these allegations are true or false, there is a lesson to be learned here. The lesson here is that [some] men have a severe weakness related to their sexuality. I'd assume US HUMINT knows about this lesson, very well.
    - lostjohnny 7y ago
      > me of the women who accused Assange There's a huge difference though. Assange after he was accused of rape escaped from the process and started rambling about a “radical feminist conspiracy” Stallman is not accused of anything, never escaped and if you write to him (he still answer to everybody) will ask you to support the FSF because it's important And this is the man women and students should be afraid of...
      - dependenttypes 7y ago
        > after he was accused of rape Rape implies... rape. He is just accused of removing a condom. > escaped from the process Wasn't that due to the (rightful imo) fear of being sent to the US?
        DanBC 7y ago
        > He is just accused of removing a condom 1) That's rape and 2) he's accused of more than that. Here's the case: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html This sounds pretty rapey to me. > As regards offence 1, AA said in her statement that she had offered the use of her apartment to Mr Assange from 11-14 August 2010 when she was away. She had returned on 13 August 2010 earlier than planned and then met him for the first time. They went out to dinner and returned to her apartment. As they drank tea, he started to fondle her leg which she welcomed. Everything happened fast. Mr Assange ripped off her clothes and at the same time broke her necklace. She tried to put her clothes on again, but Mr Assange had immediately removed them again. She had thought that she did not really want to continue, but it was too late to tell Mr Assange to stop as she had consented so far. Accordingly she let Mr Assange take off all her clothes. Thereafter they laid down on the bed naked with AA on her back and Mr Assange on top. Mr Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina, but she did not want him to do that as he was not using a condom. She therefore squeezed her legs together in order to avoid him penetrating her. She tried to reach several times for a condom which Mr Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without a condom. Mr Assange must have known it was a condom AA was reaching for and he had held her arms to stop her. After a while Mr Assange had asked AA what she was doing and why she was squeezing her legs together; AA told him she wanted him to put on a condom before he entered her. Mr Assange let go of AA's arms and put on a condom which AA found for him. AA felt a strong sense of unexpressed resistance on Mr Assange' s part against using a condom.
cptskippy 7y ago
It's ironic that you're defending RMS's remarks (in which he argued that we use accurate terminology, fair judgement, and scientific methods to evaluate evidence) by using inaccurate, disparaging, and dismissive language to attack the character of a critic. You're pretty much doing the exact opposite of what he's asking. Good job. Your comment reminds me of the people who come out in defense of the Catholic Church whenever someone claims they were sexually abused by a Priest.
- lostjohnny 7y ago
  > by using inaccurate, disparaging, and dismissive language to attack the character of a critic. > Your comment reminds me of the people who come out in defense of the Catholic Church whenever someone claims they were sexually abused by a Priest. Isn't this ironic? You're using the same language of the weapon's builder to try to accuse me of defending child molesters. Why are people like you constantly at war with the world? It's not my fault if she is a nobody (she really is) that builds weapons for the US military (she really does) and if she distorted RMS emails to make it look he was defending a rapist (he wasn't). It's not even my fault if RMS never molested anybody (he really didn't), never raped anybody (he really didn't), never hurt anybody (he really didn't) and never committed a crime (he really didn't). Looks like I'm defending the reputation of a good man after all. I'm really sorry you have a problem with reality, I swear. What would you think if someone leaked this post[1] you wrote with the title "TOXIC WHITE PRIVILEGED MAN SAYS KIDS ARE TERRORISTS"? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21074077 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21074077
  - Faark 7y ago
    > It's not even my fault if RMS never molested anybody (he really didn't), never raped anybody (he really didn't), never hurt anybody (he really didn't) and never committed a crime (he really didn't). Not having committed a crime is your bar for "a good man"? Working for you must be pretty chill. Yeah, people can be unfit for their job even without having committed crimes (caught and found guilty, to be more precise). Especially in leadership roles.

zzzcpan 7y ago

> working on automated vehicles for the US military Somehow I missed this, so a person literally working on helping the government kill people was the one asking to remove RMS? Interestingly enough, such hypocrisy came up in all the deplatforming cases too, where they removed some relatively innocent stuff claiming it had bad impact on people, but ignored and keep ignoring all the weapons promoting content, war propaganda, etc. that literally causes death and destruction.

lostjohnny 7y ago
> Somehow I missed this, so a person literally working on helping the government kill people was the one asking to remove RMS? Yep https://www.linkedin.com/in/selam-gano-089895ba/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/selam-gano-089895ba/
- Fnoord 7y ago
  "Mission accomplished." Reminds me of the women who accused Assange. Then there is the witchhunt against Jacob Appelbaum. Sense a pattern? Regardless of whether these allegations are true or false, there is a lesson to be learned here. The lesson here is that [some] men have a severe weakness related to their sexuality. I'd assume US HUMINT knows about this lesson, very well.
  - lostjohnny 7y ago
    > me of the women who accused Assange There's a huge difference though. Assange after he was accused of rape escaped from the process and started rambling about a “radical feminist conspiracy” Stallman is not accused of anything, never escaped and if you write to him (he still answer to everybody) will ask you to support the FSF because it's important And this is the man women and students should be afraid of...
    - dependenttypes 7y ago
      > after he was accused of rape Rape implies... rape. He is just accused of removing a condom. > escaped from the process Wasn't that due to the (rightful imo) fear of being sent to the US?
      - DanBC 7y ago
        > He is just accused of removing a condom 1) That's rape and 2) he's accused of more than that. Here's the case: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html This sounds pretty rapey to me. > As regards offence 1, AA said in her statement that she had offered the use of her apartment to Mr Assange from 11-14 August 2010 when she was away. She had returned on 13 August 2010 earlier than planned and then met him for the first time. They went out to dinner and returned to her apartment. As they drank tea, he started to fondle her leg which she welcomed. Everything happened fast. Mr Assange ripped off her clothes and at the same time broke her necklace. She tried to put her clothes on again, but Mr Assange had immediately removed them again. She had thought that she did not really want to continue, but it was too late to tell Mr Assange to stop as she had consented so far. Accordingly she let Mr Assange take off all her clothes. Thereafter they laid down on the bed naked with AA on her back and Mr Assange on top. Mr Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina, but she did not want him to do that as he was not using a condom. She therefore squeezed her legs together in order to avoid him penetrating her. She tried to reach several times for a condom which Mr Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without a condom. Mr Assange must have known it was a condom AA was reaching for and he had held her arms to stop her. After a while Mr Assange had asked AA what she was doing and why she was squeezing her legs together; AA told him she wanted him to put on a condom before he entered her. Mr Assange let go of AA's arms and put on a condom which AA found for him. AA felt a strong sense of unexpressed resistance on Mr Assange' s part against using a condom.

cptskippy 7y ago

It's ironic that you're defending RMS's remarks (in which he argued that we use accurate terminology, fair judgement, and scientific methods to evaluate evidence) by using inaccurate, disparaging, and dismissive language to attack the character of a critic. You're pretty much doing the exact opposite of what he's asking. Good job. Your comment reminds me of the people who come out in defense of the Catholic Church whenever someone claims they were sexually abused by a Priest.

lostjohnny 7y ago
> by using inaccurate, disparaging, and dismissive language to attack the character of a critic. > Your comment reminds me of the people who come out in defense of the Catholic Church whenever someone claims they were sexually abused by a Priest. Isn't this ironic? You're using the same language of the weapon's builder to try to accuse me of defending child molesters. Why are people like you constantly at war with the world? It's not my fault if she is a nobody (she really is) that builds weapons for the US military (she really does) and if she distorted RMS emails to make it look he was defending a rapist (he wasn't). It's not even my fault if RMS never molested anybody (he really didn't), never raped anybody (he really didn't), never hurt anybody (he really didn't) and never committed a crime (he really didn't). Looks like I'm defending the reputation of a good man after all. I'm really sorry you have a problem with reality, I swear. What would you think if someone leaked this post[1] you wrote with the title "TOXIC WHITE PRIVILEGED MAN SAYS KIDS ARE TERRORISTS"? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21074077 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21074077
- Faark 7y ago
  > It's not even my fault if RMS never molested anybody (he really didn't), never raped anybody (he really didn't), never hurt anybody (he really didn't) and never committed a crime (he really didn't). Not having committed a crime is your bar for "a good man"? Working for you must be pretty chill. Yeah, people can be unfit for their job even without having committed crimes (caught and found guilty, to be more precise). Especially in leadership roles.