undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbigbugbag6y ago0 comments

> https://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%20.... Obsolete, already been updated in other comments: https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...

> https://twitter.com/0xabad1dea/status/1172545166953066497 self proclaimed SJW reposting the original medium article misrepresenting RMS words and adding nothing.

> https://twitter.com/sarahmei/status/994010501460865025 Someone who make unsourced claims of having refused to contribute to anything with an open license because of RMS poor taste jokes on mailing list. I wonder if this kind of openmindedness is good to prove a point on how RMS is bad, maybe someone who does not want to contribute to software improving the world but unrelated to RMS on the sole basis that the licensing allows other freedom is not a good basis to support RMS having to be removed.

> https://twitter.com/starsandrobots/status/994267277460619265 A reply to the previous tweet from someone who was told an unsourced myth about plants in an office and making up a story about it. She said she's been shown one office with a lot of plants, told that there are many other such offices, that the reason for the plants is to ward off RMS. This piece of lore has been removed from wikipedia for lack of source[1]

>https://mobile.twitter.com/quince/status/1172290839369773057 also citing the same original medium publication misrepresenting RMS words and calling for his removal on this basis, admitting she actually never met RMS but tells how the same piece of myth was transmitted to her in form of a joke and despite not knowing tries to provide context for trying to ward off RMS: interacting with him is awkward and make them uneasy. I sincerely doubt that RMS being socially awkward is news or supporting the call for his removal in any way.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Stallman/Archive_...

0 comments

sp3326y ago

I got a reply to my post, now deleted, asking for more named sources. I don't see how you can dismiss the first two tweets as "unsourced" when they are first-hand statements.

@quince's comment is not first-hand about RMS personally but the damage done to the institution that makes excuses for powerful people. This is not about him being just awkward, it's that MIT will never confront him about threatening behavior or stand up for his victims.

Edit: so in other comments you've mentioned that blog post claims "this isn't about Stallman" but you're still defending specific points about Stallman. This isn't about Stallman, this is about MIT. Stallman might be "awkward" but MIT doesn't confront him or even pull him to the side to tell him he's been rude. They don't stand up for the people he's hurt, they don't protect the people he's scared off. They don't ask for independent investigations into more serious allegations. This isn't about Stallman - it's not exactly about Epstein, Minsky, Negroponte, etc either. It's about the institution, the power structure, that protects people in certain positions at the expense of everyone else.

likeclockwork6y ago

I consider Sarah Mei an untrustworthy source. Last year she said the term Domain Driven Development is exclusionary to women because 'DDD' is a bra size in America and therefore the name must be a pornographic reference[0]. Furthermore, in the linked tweet she doesn't actually say anything concrete about Stallman, it's just her feelings about him. She's just stirring the pot.

[0]: https://twitter.com/sarahmei/status/1073234104311734273?lang...

CathedralBorrow6y ago

> Obsolete, already been updated in other comments

Ah, so three days ago he stated that he's changed his mind and having sex with children is actually wrong. Well, glad we got that cleared up! No need to read anything he wrote about that before, it's obsolete now.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse