4 ms·

They don't mean it, it's a pre-emptive cancel-disclaimer. What's really meant here is "There are some easy low hanging fruit shots to take at this guy, but with

by aliqot 4y ago

They don't mean it, it's a pre-emptive cancel-disclaimer. What's really meant here is "There are some easy low hanging fruit shots to take at this guy, but with this comment we remove those from the table."

horsawlarway 4y ago
Pretty much this - he made some bad remarks around Epstein, and he's genuinely more stubborn than is reasonable in a lot of cases (compromising is required to be effective in politics - and he won't compromise). Which is both admirable and batshit crazy. But I'm not interested in having "that discussion" again with regards to RMS, I'd rather just focus on the spots he got right, and it's hard to argue he was wrong about free software, and the user hostility of these systems (although I still disagree with some of his hardline stances there, but it's more about quibbling with the details then a hard disagreement).
- KennyBlanken 4y ago
  > But I'm not interested in having "that discussion" again with regards to RMS Fascinating how nobody wants to talk about all of RMS's numerous problems, but only after they've declared that he's a poor victim of cancel/woke culture. If you don't want to "have that discussion again"....why did you comment in the first place? This is like hearing a topic mentioned in a room you're walking past, running in, stating a position, and then running out of the room with your fingers in your ears, shouting "LALALALALALALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU"
  - horsawlarway 4y ago
    Because this discussion isn't fucking about those topics. I'm not here to defend him at all on that front. I'm here to say that he has things that are correct to say about other fucking subjects. Read the fucking room. No one is an angel - no one is a demon. Which one is RMS? Don't really fucking care for the context of this conversation. This conversation is about how I happen to think his opinion about free software is - if not correct - at least way more prescient than many others. Does that imply I have some opinion about his "victim of cancel/woke culture" bullshit? You have no fucking clue. Because I'm not talking about woke culture right now, I'm talking about software.
    - imchillyb 4y ago
      > My sentiments entirely. I think he's batshit crazy in a lot of ways... - horsawlarway > If you don't want to "have that discussion again"....why did you comment in the first place? - KennyBlanken > Because this discussion isn't fucking about those topics. I'm not here to defend him at all on that front. I'm here to say that he has things that are correct to say about other fucking subjects. Read the fucking room. -horsawlarway ___ @horsawlarway... If you don't want to discuss it, don't fucking make shitty comments about another human being. Then you won't be called out on your shitty statements about another human being. You don't want to discuss this, because your position is undefendable; you have none. You shouldn't disparage people. It's not nice asshole.
    - samizdis 4y ago
      As a reminder that without context discussion is null, I found your patient-if-exasperated explanation to be sublime. Thanks for that.
KennyBlanken 4y ago
TIL all the following is "low hanging fruit": Claiming that he had never worked with women on projects; a woman was a co-author to a book he wrote about GCC, and GCC had a number of women code contributors, and one had maintained the test suite for 6 years at the time he made the comment. Comments legitimizing/defending sex with underage people especially when he tends to make it a hill to die on or only backs down in an extremely petulant manner (ie 'sorry you were offended by my comments') A long history of defending child pornography. Likening people with downs syndrome to "pets" and asserting that they should not be born. Ditto for being such a prolific serial sexual harasser that women newly hired into his building at MIT were advised to stock their offices with a number of houseplants, as they're apparently a sort of "RMS Kryptonite". Ditto for keeping a mattress (no sheets) in his office and routinely having half-naked piles of people on it. Ditto for multiple incidents of telling women substantially younger than him that he'd kill himself if they didn't date or have sex with him. Ditto for passing out extremely creepy "pleasure cards" to women. Ditto for repeatedly using virginity jokes in his talks, in one case singling out a 15 year old girl in the audience, repeatedly. (See defense of child sex above)
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  This is an ad-hominem logic fallacy. He can be the creepiest fucker around and still be dead right about this specific subject. Trying to point the discussion at his morals is literally a failing on your part in terms of this discussion - you're not adding anything of value to the discussion. If you want to have this discussion (and it's fine if you do) - go do it when the topic is sexual abuse, or women's rights, or progressive policy. I probably agree with you on all the above in that discussion - but this discussion isn't that discussion. This discussion is Huawei abusing the little green man in the phones that their customers "own" to serve the needs of China's government. A topic where I think Stallman happens to have a history of being correct.
  - mort96 4y ago
    What? The question was "In what ways is he crazy", and your parent comment is a perfectly ok response to that question. At no point has anyone said, "he is crazy/has said or done these bad things and therefore he is wrong about this subject".

by aliqot 4y ago

horsawlarway 4y ago

Pretty much this - he made some bad remarks around Epstein, and he's genuinely more stubborn than is reasonable in a lot of cases (compromising is required to be effective in politics - and he won't compromise). Which is both admirable and batshit crazy. But I'm not interested in having "that discussion" again with regards to RMS, I'd rather just focus on the spots he got right, and it's hard to argue he was wrong about free software, and the user hostility of these systems (although I still disagree with some of his hardline stances there, but it's more about quibbling with the details then a hard disagreement).

KennyBlanken 4y ago
> But I'm not interested in having "that discussion" again with regards to RMS Fascinating how nobody wants to talk about all of RMS's numerous problems, but only after they've declared that he's a poor victim of cancel/woke culture. If you don't want to "have that discussion again"....why did you comment in the first place? This is like hearing a topic mentioned in a room you're walking past, running in, stating a position, and then running out of the room with your fingers in your ears, shouting "LALALALALALALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU"
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  Because this discussion isn't fucking about those topics. I'm not here to defend him at all on that front. I'm here to say that he has things that are correct to say about other fucking subjects. Read the fucking room. No one is an angel - no one is a demon. Which one is RMS? Don't really fucking care for the context of this conversation. This conversation is about how I happen to think his opinion about free software is - if not correct - at least way more prescient than many others. Does that imply I have some opinion about his "victim of cancel/woke culture" bullshit? You have no fucking clue. Because I'm not talking about woke culture right now, I'm talking about software.
  - imchillyb 4y ago
    > My sentiments entirely. I think he's batshit crazy in a lot of ways... - horsawlarway > If you don't want to "have that discussion again"....why did you comment in the first place? - KennyBlanken > Because this discussion isn't fucking about those topics. I'm not here to defend him at all on that front. I'm here to say that he has things that are correct to say about other fucking subjects. Read the fucking room. -horsawlarway ___ @horsawlarway... If you don't want to discuss it, don't fucking make shitty comments about another human being. Then you won't be called out on your shitty statements about another human being. You don't want to discuss this, because your position is undefendable; you have none. You shouldn't disparage people. It's not nice asshole.
  - samizdis 4y ago
    As a reminder that without context discussion is null, I found your patient-if-exasperated explanation to be sublime. Thanks for that.

KennyBlanken 4y ago

TIL all the following is "low hanging fruit": Claiming that he had never worked with women on projects; a woman was a co-author to a book he wrote about GCC, and GCC had a number of women code contributors, and one had maintained the test suite for 6 years at the time he made the comment. Comments legitimizing/defending sex with underage people especially when he tends to make it a hill to die on or only backs down in an extremely petulant manner (ie 'sorry you were offended by my comments') A long history of defending child pornography. Likening people with downs syndrome to "pets" and asserting that they should not be born. Ditto for being such a prolific serial sexual harasser that women newly hired into his building at MIT were advised to stock their offices with a number of houseplants, as they're apparently a sort of "RMS Kryptonite". Ditto for keeping a mattress (no sheets) in his office and routinely having half-naked piles of people on it. Ditto for multiple incidents of telling women substantially younger than him that he'd kill himself if they didn't date or have sex with him. Ditto for passing out extremely creepy "pleasure cards" to women. Ditto for repeatedly using virginity jokes in his talks, in one case singling out a 15 year old girl in the audience, repeatedly. (See defense of child sex above)

horsawlarway 4y ago
This is an ad-hominem logic fallacy. He can be the creepiest fucker around and still be dead right about this specific subject. Trying to point the discussion at his morals is literally a failing on your part in terms of this discussion - you're not adding anything of value to the discussion. If you want to have this discussion (and it's fine if you do) - go do it when the topic is sexual abuse, or women's rights, or progressive policy. I probably agree with you on all the above in that discussion - but this discussion isn't that discussion. This discussion is Huawei abusing the little green man in the phones that their customers "own" to serve the needs of China's government. A topic where I think Stallman happens to have a history of being correct.
- mort96 4y ago
  What? The question was "In what ways is he crazy", and your parent comment is a perfectly ok response to that question. At no point has anyone said, "he is crazy/has said or done these bad things and therefore he is wrong about this subject".