4 ms·

His views are not relevant. Should focus on his ability to contribute and keep personal beliefs out of the picture.

enraged_camel 6y ago
Except he didn’t keep his views to himself. He shared it with a ton of others, in writing.
jordigh 6y ago
How are his views not important when the entire mission of the FSF is to spread a very particular point of view? When RMS is advocating for zoophilia and necrophilia (he's finally relented on pedophilia, though, after many years of also defending "consensual" pedophilia), it hurts the advocacy for his other causes. You can't effectively simultaneously champion two such disparate causes without one cause seeping into the other. Edit: Sigh, here it is, let's trot it out again, 2006 is when he was defending pedophilia: > 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 https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%202006%20(Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party) https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%20...
- eecc 6y ago
  Please refrain from libelous statements. I’ve never read anything from Stallman that defends any behavior a reasonable person would identify as Paedophilia, rather objections on the extremal formal definitions the US judiciary has for the status of “child”
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    This is a subtle ad hominem. There are many reasonable people who would describe Stallman's particular pedantry around the definitions of "child" to be pedophilia-apology. Describing anyone who disagrees with you, including the person you're replying to, as "not a reasonable person" is unbecoming of hacker news. It's also absolutely not libel, and it's rather silly to throw such terms around.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > I’ve never read anything from Stallman that defends any behavior a reasonable person would identify as Paedophilia Stallman defended legalization of pedophilia by name (and in the context of an overt political effort to eliminate age of consent entirely) and only recanted that support after the controversy over Minsky erupted in 2019 (which, given the somewhat related subject matter, also brought heightened, though not the first, attention to that advocacy.)
  - sjy 6y ago
    > He directly addressed child pornography by saying that “making such photos should be a crime, and is a crime, but that is no reason to prohibit possessing copies of the photos.” https://rms-open-letter.github.io/appendix https://rms-open-letter.github.io/appendix
    - eecc 6y ago
      Did you read what you quoted? The point Stallman made, in the most deliberately urticant and confrontational possible way, is: Are you willing to incarcerate people for drawings? However disturbing the subject? > 26 October 2014 (Prison for cartoon) A man in the UK has been sentenced for prison for having a cartoon depicting a fictional child in some sort of sexual situation. The advocates of this kind of censorship started by saying they were trying to protect real children from being abused in order to take their photos. Making such photos should be a crime, and is a crime, but that is no reason to prohibit possessing copies of the photos. However, they have already gone far beyond that. No child was harmed in drawing the cartoon. To criminalize possession of copies of anything published — no matter what it is — is oppressive, and leads to many other forms of tyranny.
      - sjy 6y ago
        The part I quoted is clearly about photos, not drawings. I think arguing that possessing child pornography should be legal is “defending behavior a reasonable person would identify as Paedophilia.” Your reference to the formal definition of “child” made me think that you were unaware that Stallman had argued for this, and were attributing his cancellation solely to his remarks about statutory rape.
  - jordigh 6y ago
    So, now you've read what I quoted about Stallman defending pedophilia, right? He calls it pedophilia, he says he's skeptical it's harmful. That's a defense. Now you have read something you had not read before. I am glad to have shown you something you didn't know.
me_again 6y ago
Can't say that makes much sense to me. Stallman's contribution is inextricable from his views. He's not on the FSF board as a programmer hacking on Emacs - surely it is to advocate and advance the cause of free software. His views on software, copyright, etc are obviously pretty relevant. His views on other matters are relevant at least insofar as they affect his ability to advocate effectively.
geofft 6y ago
Stallman is just as free to contribute as you are I are. And he's been contributing over the last few years to the GNU Project. The question at hand is whether he's an appropriate person to place in a leadership position of an activism organization. And frankly, there's no "should" there - there's only the blunt question of whether he's helping the organization achieve its activism goals or not. If his personal beliefs or actions are making the targets of the activism not be interested in listening, then he's undermining the work of his fellow activists, whether or not he intends to. If his affiliation with the organization threatens funding, then he's putting the organization at risk, whether or not we think that ought to be a relevant factor for donors. (And it goes the other way too, of course.) The goal of the free software movement is to convince people that software freedom is important and to produce free software. It is a hard enough task. Changing the goals to be to convince people that, first, they should stop caring about Richard Stallman's views, and then after that, that they should care about software freedom, just makes the task even harder.
KingOfCoders 6y ago
As a coder? Yes. As a manager and conference organizer? No.

Except he didn’t keep his views to himself. He shared it with a ton of others, in writing.

How are his views not important when the entire mission of the FSF is to spread a very particular point of view? When RMS is advocating for zoophilia and necrophilia (he's finally relented on pedophilia, though, after many years of also defending "consensual" pedophilia), it hurts the advocacy for his other causes. You can't effectively simultaneously champion two such disparate causes without one cause seeping into the other. Edit: Sigh, here it is, let's trot it out again, 2006 is when he was defending pedophilia: > 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 https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%202006%20(Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party) https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%20...

eecc 6y ago
Please refrain from libelous statements. I’ve never read anything from Stallman that defends any behavior a reasonable person would identify as Paedophilia, rather objections on the extremal formal definitions the US judiciary has for the status of “child”
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  This is a subtle ad hominem. There are many reasonable people who would describe Stallman's particular pedantry around the definitions of "child" to be pedophilia-apology. Describing anyone who disagrees with you, including the person you're replying to, as "not a reasonable person" is unbecoming of hacker news. It's also absolutely not libel, and it's rather silly to throw such terms around.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > I’ve never read anything from Stallman that defends any behavior a reasonable person would identify as Paedophilia Stallman defended legalization of pedophilia by name (and in the context of an overt political effort to eliminate age of consent entirely) and only recanted that support after the controversy over Minsky erupted in 2019 (which, given the somewhat related subject matter, also brought heightened, though not the first, attention to that advocacy.)
- sjy 6y ago
  > He directly addressed child pornography by saying that “making such photos should be a crime, and is a crime, but that is no reason to prohibit possessing copies of the photos.” https://rms-open-letter.github.io/appendix https://rms-open-letter.github.io/appendix
  - eecc 6y ago
    Did you read what you quoted? The point Stallman made, in the most deliberately urticant and confrontational possible way, is: Are you willing to incarcerate people for drawings? However disturbing the subject? > 26 October 2014 (Prison for cartoon) A man in the UK has been sentenced for prison for having a cartoon depicting a fictional child in some sort of sexual situation. The advocates of this kind of censorship started by saying they were trying to protect real children from being abused in order to take their photos. Making such photos should be a crime, and is a crime, but that is no reason to prohibit possessing copies of the photos. However, they have already gone far beyond that. No child was harmed in drawing the cartoon. To criminalize possession of copies of anything published — no matter what it is — is oppressive, and leads to many other forms of tyranny.
    - sjy 6y ago
      The part I quoted is clearly about photos, not drawings. I think arguing that possessing child pornography should be legal is “defending behavior a reasonable person would identify as Paedophilia.” Your reference to the formal definition of “child” made me think that you were unaware that Stallman had argued for this, and were attributing his cancellation solely to his remarks about statutory rape.
- jordigh 6y ago
  So, now you've read what I quoted about Stallman defending pedophilia, right? He calls it pedophilia, he says he's skeptical it's harmful. That's a defense. Now you have read something you had not read before. I am glad to have shown you something you didn't know.

me_again 6y ago

Can't say that makes much sense to me. Stallman's contribution is inextricable from his views. He's not on the FSF board as a programmer hacking on Emacs - surely it is to advocate and advance the cause of free software. His views on software, copyright, etc are obviously pretty relevant. His views on other matters are relevant at least insofar as they affect his ability to advocate effectively.

geofft 6y ago

Stallman is just as free to contribute as you are I are. And he's been contributing over the last few years to the GNU Project. The question at hand is whether he's an appropriate person to place in a leadership position of an activism organization. And frankly, there's no "should" there - there's only the blunt question of whether he's helping the organization achieve its activism goals or not. If his personal beliefs or actions are making the targets of the activism not be interested in listening, then he's undermining the work of his fellow activists, whether or not he intends to. If his affiliation with the organization threatens funding, then he's putting the organization at risk, whether or not we think that ought to be a relevant factor for donors. (And it goes the other way too, of course.) The goal of the free software movement is to convince people that software freedom is important and to produce free software. It is a hard enough task. Changing the goals to be to convince people that, first, they should stop caring about Richard Stallman's views, and then after that, that they should care about software freedom, just makes the task even harder.

KingOfCoders 6y ago

As a coder? Yes. As a manager and conference organizer? No.